DM ad libbing

[NoOneofConsequence]

I've kinda got the impression that many of the persons on the boards feel that a DM should not apply any metagame infuence to scenario building and more importantly, should plan ahead of time for encounters rather than doing anything ad hoc.

The question that comes to mind is what do people feel is more important, meta-game "fairness" or the scenario as the DM envisioned it.

For example, if I plan an encounter, which I want to be a tough one, and the players rip through the monsters faster than I expected, I don't mind chucking in some extra monster reinforcements to give the fight the "bang" that I was looking for.

Do other DM's do this sort of thing or do people consider this to be "cheating"?

NB. I'm not talking about railroading pcs or trying to generate TPK - both of these behaviours are signs of a truly boring DM IMO&E

 

[Crothian]

Heck ya, if the encounter is not a challenge, I'll make it one. I've added 50hp to creatures in the middle of battles. Just like if the encounter is going to be TPK I'll try to prevent that. I'll kill a few PCs but I try not to kill them all.

 

[Trevalon Moonleirion]

originally posted by Crothian
Heck ya, if the encounter is not a challenge, I'll make it one. I've added 50hp to creatures in the middle of battles. Just like if the encounter is going to be TPK I'll try to prevent that. I'll kill a few PCs but I try not to kill them all.

I definately agree with Crothian! Some times my players completely surprise me...so I'll just max out the hp of the monsters or up the attack bonus a point or two when the PCs are kicking ass and taking names, when I want the monsters to be doing so.

Most of the time however, you should plan out your encounters ahead of time...you will need to ad lib a bit less then. Not to mention, if you're really good (which I'm not) you can come up with some real Rat Bastard tactics and situations...

 

[Griswold]

Heck ya, if the encounter is not a challenge, I'll make it one. I've added 50hp to creatures in the middle of battles. Just like if the encounter is going to be TPK I'll try to prevent that. I'll kill a few PCs but I try not to kill them all.

I agree wholeheartedly. After sitting down and coming up with an adventure, I want the party to be challenged and yet not mauled. So I make little "tweaks" to the game on the fly.


Gris.

 

[MerricB]

The argument between arbitrary rulings and "by the book" has been going for a long time now.

It all depends on the players. Are they having fun? If they are, then you're playing it right.

Of course, I've got to qualify that by saying that it's sometimes hard to tell if they're having fun. A player may whine and grizzle about losing his character - but he prefers the tougher campaign because it makes his achievements mean something.

Alternatively, a player may put their best face on something, but you only find out it was wrong when they leave the group!

Personally, I prefer to play "by the book"; I try to guide the PCs into encounter areas that are of the right level for them, and they'll find fun, but if they want to enter the Tomb of Horrors at 2nd level, I'll let them. (Funnily enough, no-one has requested to, as of this writing! )

I distrust arbitrary rulings as I've seen how much it can show DM favoritism - which is why I prefer 3E over 1E; I like having more of a rules base behind my decisions. However, the opposite extreme: rules adherence at the expense of fun is equally bad.

I do think that you should almost never make an encounter tougher - it's good for the PCs to realise how far they've come and how much better they are than mere mortals. There may be exceptions to this guideline, but I feel it's better for something to be too easy than too hard - you can always make up for it later.

Cheers!

 

[boothbey]

I have a rough plan for the adventure and the rest comes out on the fly. I've learned the party never does what you want or expect so any extensive planning is normally time wasted.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

PC clerverness should be rewarded, so if the PCs come up with a brilliant plan, I will likely let them get away with it. On the other hand, they like a good fight, so I feel obliged to provide one anyway.

The solution of course is that if they manage to be clever (which doesn't happen all that often ), I will give them a tough fight - but make it seem as if they had just avoided an impossible fight!

So, yes, I am doing things ad hoc. But I've learned that it is hard to predict what the PCs are going to do, so preparing adventures too deeply for more than one session in advance doesn't work anyway...

 

[Hygric]

I rarely prepare anything more than a basic idea of what I want to do next in the plot for the campaign. Sometimes I will stat out a BBEG, but the rest of the time I prefer to wing it. On occasions when I do prepare for the evening's game to any great length, my players don't enjoy it as much (and have given me feedback to that effect). But I have been running for 12 years now, so it's kinda ingrained into me how to run a fun session for all.

 

[S'mon]

I won't increase or decrease monster power, no, ie I won't metagame. If the PCs have an easy win, fair enough - that's rarely a huge problem IMC! If the PCs are outclassed, well maybe the monsters might get a little overconfident and not use their absolute best killing routine, and smart PCs might have a chance to escape. If the monster doesn't feel threatened, it may eg show off by using its showiest breath weapon or esoteric ability rather than its most directly lethal melee routine. But I never give monsters +50 or -50 hp or somesuch, I'd feel I was cheating myself.

 

[Fevil]

Adlibbing is, IMO, a nesseccary requirement for all DMs. I have ran entire scenarios off the top of my head and never had a PC even suspect it wasnt all written down.
That said, adlibbing too much leads to inconsistancies, as you have nothing written down to refer to.