D&D 101: A lesson in fun

[milotha]

It's always struck me that the CR system is great if you consider the canonical party, but many parties in D&D don't always fall into this grouping. It really depends upon the party, their items, and their general tactics. Some parties will have fewer magic items and fewer spells, some will have more. Some groups are spellcaster heavy some are fighter heavy. Different beasties will pose a different CR to different classes. I've been in the whole party of spellcasters when something with great saves or spell resistance and lots of hitpoints but a crappy AC shows up. It's not a pretty site

 

[Thotas]

Ah, this really is getting good. Some of you are bringing up things that our original poster may or may not have been trying to point to from the first, but are interesting regardless. Yes, absolutely, you can't apply CR/EL numbers on a cookie-cutter basis. At first glance, that's a problem. On reflection, it's part of the fun. As several of us have indirectly pointed out, there are a number of factors beyond those first brought up that are vitally important in appraising the true difficulty of the encounter. There are some fudge factoring rules on EL difficulty in the DMG, but they're as vague, incomplete, and arbitrary as the base situation is, so they're no help, right? But it's not a problem if you realize those sections aren't meant to be The Answer; it's just where you start to look. Using the all-Rogues vs. Undead example, we first address the question asked above. Does the DM adapt the encounter (reduce numbers of opponents, conveniently place the right magical equipment, etc.) or expect the party to adapt, by investigation prior or fleeing when they find 'em and creating a good plan? I say ... yes. Either works, and both are more fun if the DM varies the way he handles these situations precisely because the Players can't be sure what to expect. And the xp reward is whatever the DM wants it to be, though the chart on DMG page 38 can suggest a base to modify based on the DM and what sort of thing he wants to reward. This point in the game is the one where mathematical precision is of microscopic importance ... and yes, that's coming from the guy who earlier was appealing to the authority of obscure mathematical theorems.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

It's always struck me that the CR system is great if you consider the canonical party, but many parties in D&D don't always fall into this grouping.

Ain't that the truth... I haven't seen a party of the "usual suspects" in well over a decade.

 

[Parlan]

But it's not a problem if you realize those sections aren't meant to be The Answer; it's just where you start to look. Using the all-Rogues vs. Undead example, we first address the question asked above. Does the DM adapt the encounter (reduce numbers of opponents, conveniently place the right magical equipment, etc.) or expect the party to adapt, by investigation prior or fleeing when they find 'em and creating a good plan? I say ... yes. Either works, and both are more fun if the DM varies the way he handles these situations precisely because the Players can't be sure what to expect.

This point in the game is the one where mathematical precision is of microscopic importance ... and yes, that's coming from the guy who earlier was appealing to the authority of obscure mathematical theorems.

For the record, I found Arrow s Theorum to be really interesting, and to offer mathematical support for WHY the EL system works well.

As a player in a non-standard party, I think it is fun when we face encounters for which we are unsuited. After all, every story is more interesting when the protagonists have to overcome their weaknesses to triumph. It s much more heroic IMNSHO when a rogue defeats a non-sneak-attackable foe.

Especially for these situations though, the DM needs to carefully evaluate a potential encounter to see whether the party s weaknesses would make the encounter challenging, or completely impossible.

For example, setting the encounter to make an all-rogues party slug it out toe to toe in melee with a Ftr wearing armour of 100 percent fortification just ain t cool.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

So, lset's get the 'off topic' bit done first. Here's my explanation of why two CR x monsters aren't worth an EL of 2x. It's a matter of available resources. At a certian point, the power curve assumes you'll have particular resources. If you can overcome one creature with DR 5/+1, you'll probablly be able to overcome the second one as well using the same resources (in this case, let's say a magic weapon spell that will be active through an entire combat). The relationship between spells used, distances traveled, area effects, spell durations, magical weapons, monster abilities and available tactics is a large and complex web. And I'm thankful for the tools. In fact, I'm running Exalted now, and I greatly, greatly miss the CR system. The CR system is a wonderful tool, and I think that's why it's being defended so much.

Now, on to the topical discussion. Bad DM's aren't fun to play with. And, you know what? It's true. But, I've tended to find that bad GMing and poor players are actually related. Not necessarrally that bad GMs are a result of bad players, or that bad players are the result of bad GMs, but again, that the relationship between them is a system that feeds on itself. Good playing helps bring about Good GMing. Good GMing brings about good playing. Bad GMing brings about bad playing, and bad playing brings about bad GMing. Maybe 'influences' is a better word.

Depending on the game, sometimes encounters greater then the group's abilities are ok. I mean, if the level two party really does want to challenge the Queen's Champion, reknown dragon slaying knight, then so be it. However, for the most part, you are correct in that the typical range of encounters needs to be suitable for the party. Likewize, the treasure should, in most cases, be the assumed standard, flavored to taste.

Roleplay is contingient on the same Player-Dm interaction, also agreed. The players have to do so, and the DM has to let them/give them chances to.

Aside from the overstated initial opinion, I have to agree overall. Though I find it amusing that, by your examples, I am a great DM, when in fact I range from above average to poor. = ) Again, it's just never that simple.

Anyway, things I would say to anyone taking DMing 101:

Know what game you want to play. Have a good idea about what you want to do, and keep with it. Try and keep the tone going, and the themes going.

Reward your players when they do something right. It doesn't have to be a big reward, but if they follow the plot hook, or try talking to the queen, give them some sort of positive outcome, even if they fail. This is more of an early on rule, to establish that it's ok to take action. And it doesn't need to be loot. If they rescue a town, have the people be greatful, maybe let them stay free at the inn (as long as they don't cause trouble, and there isn't a rush for rooms). If they feel good about something, chances are that they'll try again.

Learn about your players. Find out what motivates them and what they enjoy, then play to/with that.

Talk with your players. I can't stress this one enough. If there's a problem, take some time and mention it. If you need something, say so.

Well, short of just linking to the DMing advice thread, anyone else have things to add?

 

[Fenes]

Ah... where to start?

I think a fundamental insight we get is that different people need different playstyles. As a DM, I tailor all campaigns to the specific characters and players. If the players want to play more "follower"-characters who do not excel at planning ahead I will provide an NPC party leader for them to take that over (which, incidentally, works very, very well). If the player wants to play the dumb, naive barbarian who always get fooled I will not force him to smarten up or have the character die in the next trap - I will adjust the adventures so the dumb barbarian can shine and get into trouble at the same time. If the players don't have fun getting hit with hold person I will tone the use of those spells down - I won't expect them to all get rings of freedom of action.

Tailoring the advenures also seems a neccessity for me when it comes to combat encounters. If I have a fighter/duelist, a barbarian and a fighetr/weaponmaster in my party I won't throw traps at them they need a rogue for to survive, and hit them with spells until they cave in and adjust the party - I will hit them with traps they can barrel through if needed, and hit them with spellcasters they can carve up, and provide melee opponents to feud with. And when preparing, I take the actual stats and capabilities in account - I look at AC, saves and BAB, not CR, and at the situation the encounter will take place, and adjust the monsters and opponents accordingly, like reducing DR, or dropping spell-like abilities. (For major combat encounters, that is - for the rest I wing it on the fly).

Lastly, not everyone likes the "challenge of death". I for once do not play in campaigns where I can lose my character against my will. My character fears death, and I can play him or her accordingly perfectly fine without getting stressed by the fear of losing my character. And far too many people mistake "no death" as "always win" - my parties get enslaved, beaten, captured, robbed and so on due to bad luck, or other circumstances. Just not killed off - well, not without a warning and a way out - like "Charge the dragon and you will die unless I roll a dozen 1s in a row - wanna reconsider?".

So, in conclusion, players and DM need to make it known what they have fun with, and what playstyle they prefer, and then adjust to each other. Nothing is worse than a DM designing "the ultimate dungeon full of traps, tricks and monsters" for a group who prefers social interaction and hates puzzle solving and hack & slash.

 

[Whisper72]

I think the whole discourse is somewhat silly. The EL/CR system is a very good guide. The operative word is GUIDE here. There are too many variable in what is or is not difficult for a party to face.

Some examples:

For a 5th lvl wizard with fireball, 1 goblin is as little a challenge as a group of 6 goblins

For a single xlevel fighter, two of the same opponent pose more then double the challenge (while fighting one of the monsters, the other gets in free shots, whittling away at the PC's HP)

The whole CR/ECL assumes a mixed party of four, where there is a fighting type PC, a magic using PC, a clerical PC and a roguish type PC.

When the party is not 'standard' in either size or make-up, the whole ECL/CR system is no longer 100% mathematically correct to the thousanth decimal. The moment the 'standard' amount of monsters to the CR/ECL is too far off, the system is no longer 100% mathematically correct to the thousanth decimal.

Big whoop. Learn to adjudicate and reason like a normal human individual. The system is the best guideline short of massive mathematical equations anyone 'll ever come up with, and as such it does a great job. As a DM it is your job to take the guidelines and deviate from there to get the result you want. At least the guidelines gives you the 'par for the course', alter as you see fit.

 

[S'mon]

>>if the DM refuses to award the correct experience for an encounter, you have every right to recalculate it yourself and show him or her the correct number based on the rules. If he or she still refuses to award you the correct amount of experience, get up and walk out.<<

Don't try this at home, kids.

Especially my players. But I'm sure y'all know better already...

The DM is in charge at their table. If they don't want to award by-the-book XP, that is entirely their prerogative. In fact my experience has been that if anything most GMs award a bit more than book-XP, since they tend to award standard XP by CR (or by EL! Heretics!) and then add Story and/or Roleplay XP on top. If the GM wants to award 1/10 standard XP (or no XP!) that's their choice. Doesn't make it a bad game.

 

[S'mon]

Oh, I agree of course that it's unfair & unfun to hit the party with EL+8 encounters out of nowhere, especially ones where you make it unclear what it is - 4 7th level Orc Barbarians ambushing 4 3rd level PCs, say. Seeing 200 Orcs approaching from a distance is quite another matter - if the PCs choose to attack, of course they should die.
IMC a CR20 BBEG, Harecules from Lost City of Gaxmoor, killed many,many 11th-13th level PCs at EL +8 or so. However the PCs knew what they were up against when they (repeatedly) assaulted his lair; they'd already faced him in battle (with an army) several times, and they knew how tough he was. It was tough on the players, but IMO fair.

 

[Fenes]

I always forget about XP, since we don't use that in our game. Saves a lot of trouble as well, since we don't have to calculate XP. Even back when we did use XP we would just dole out an appropriate amount at the end of an adventure, not calculate per encounter.