DM Limits for building adventures

[Janx]

Here's an idea I've been pondering for some time. The recent "should DM's use Disjunction" kinda reinforces it. The "busywork" thread also ties into this.

The thought is this, is it possible to devise a system of adventure building that limited the DM from building an adventure that was too powerful for the party. I think there are a good number of "adventure" elements that could be codified into a system for creating fair adventures, BOCTAOE.

For instance, what if the DM was allowed 7 times party level worth of monster CRs. And, further, no single encounter could have an EL greater than party level + 3.

Note: I made the numbers up, I'm not certain what a fair encounter should have (and some would argue, poorly rated monsters skew this idea).

Perhaps there'd be a series of plot elements that could be used, as well.

Oddly enough, IF a codified adventure building scheme could be built, the value is that a program could be written to write fairly balanced adventures. Maybe not as good as ones a skilled DM could craft, but one that most folks would find valuable (at least to use as starting points for writing their own).

From a software perspective, tools exist (or can be written) to do the following:
create a dungeon map
populate a dungeon with monsters, traps, and treasures
detail specific monsters (HP, treasure)
roll up random treasure
create NPCs
equip NPCs (appropriate to level)
create a town or city map
create NPCs for the entire town
equipe all NPCs in the entire town
roll traits for all NPCs in the entire town


Most of the above is solveable when you write map generators, monster databases, treasure rollers, NPC generators, and equipment generators (randomly buy equipment for NPC). It's just a matter of running those tools en masse, for an entire city or dungeon. For a dungeon, that level of information is what the DM needed anyway, but on a city, it tends to be too much. The DM doesn't need to know all that until the PCs actually go to specific places or events.

That's where having a mechanics for building adventures come in. Defining the limits on who shows up in an adventure, the kinds of encounters to have, and how they interact with the PCs could be a way to keep DM's in check.

The negatives to this idea are sort of obvious. Lack of freedom for GM's (DM Fiat arguments abound), encounters are always level appropriate (some DM's like the occasional "you're supposed to run away" encounter), Limited creativity for plots (if that were an aspect of this).

Oddly enough, there's already precedent for this. The CR and EL system exists as an implied "how to keep encounters scaled to the PCs" and the RPGA adventure writing guidelines detail tips on the types of encounters that should show up in an adventure. I'm suggesting solidifying this into a process that a GM (or program) could go through to write a decent adventure.

One other interesting side-effect of an idea like this, is IF the system were relatively stable, a DM who followed it, could play the game in a more "antagonistic" fashion. Assuming his encounters were designed properly, he could go into the encounter with the intent to win, and let the dice fall where they may, without guilt. I suspect most players or DM's who like to hide dice rolls partly do so for when encounters are miscalculated and are too strong. A TPK because the DM screwed up sucks more than a TPK because the players did. This idea might help prevent that.

 

[Lanefan]

The thought is this, is it possible to devise a system of adventure building that limited the DM from building an adventure that was too powerful for the party.

I would hope not...

The negatives to this idea are sort of obvious. Lack of freedom for GM's (DM Fiat arguments abound), encounters are always level appropriate (some DM's like the occasional "you're supposed to run away" encounter), Limited creativity for plots (if that were an aspect of this).

And, except for DM's very new to the trade, these negatives far outweigh any positives for an ongoing campaign. For one-offs I can see something like this being rather handy, to generate an on-the-spot adventure. (though, how "on-the-spot" it would be might depend on how much information it asked for as input; if it takes all evening to enter the parameters, the on-the-spot-ness kinda disappears...)

One other interesting side-effect of an idea like this, is IF the system were relatively stable, a DM who followed it, could play the game in a more "antagonistic" fashion. Assuming his encounters were designed properly, he could go into the encounter with the intent to win, and let the dice fall where they may, without guilt.

And this would differ from current practice how, exactly?

Lanefan

 

[gizmo33]

Fine - my 1st level character walks into the throne room and attacks the king. He'd better be 1st level, and his bodyguard must stand by helplessly because they exceed my CR for the day. Of course if this new CR system comes with a "Handy Guide to Railroading" then I guess all these situations can be avoided.

Am I the only one that has a campaign world? Is that old-school now?

 

[Janx]

Fine - my 1st level character walks into the throne room and attacks the king. He'd better be 1st level, and his bodyguard must stand by helplessly because they exceed my CR for the day. Of course if this new CR system comes with a "Handy Guide to Railroading" then I guess all these situations can be avoided.

Am I the only one that has a campaign world? Is that old-school now?

BOCTAOE : But Of Course There Are Obvious Exceptions

I might assume that these guidelines would mainly be applied to encounters specifically meant to fight the PCs. Non-combat encounters may be under different constraints (or as you point out, different rules for different encounters).


As for "are you the only one with a campaign world" No. I have one. I'm looking at the problem differently. Perhaps a solution will come out of it, or at least a better appreciation for the problem.

 

[Mallus]

Why is a DM playing in a more "antagonistic fashion" desirable?

What about encounters where the number and disposition of antagonists are fluid?

What if the "dungeon" is a city?

It's not something I'd use. Really, if I wanted to play a game that was Axis and Allies with elves, I'd buy of copy Axis and Allies and put elves in it...

 

[Janx]

Fine - my 1st level character walks into the throne room and attacks the king. He'd better be 1st level, and his bodyguard must stand by helplessly because they exceed my CR for the day. Of course if this new CR system comes with a "Handy Guide to Railroading" then I guess all these situations can be avoided.

Am I the only one that has a campaign world? Is that old-school now?

As a second thought, making the king 20th level to prevent 1st levels from attacking him, MIGHT be considered a form of railroading.

My thought is, is there a way to limit areas that can get out of hand, and set realistic power levels where appropriate. Limits would be especially handy on the areas where the DM intended combat to occur

 

[gizmo33]

As a second thought, making the king 20th level to prevent 1st levels from attacking him, MIGHT be considered a form of railroading.

Yea, that's a good point. The king's level (and those of his bodyguard, advisors, etc.) would ideally be set according to demographic guidelines. Although there are exceptions - if the king is heroic, like Gilgamesh, then his level is just an attribute of the campaign. A 20th level king would require no more explanation than the DM trying to justify to his players why a certain mountain is in a certain location.

And CR already does sound like the tool that fits your purpose. It tells you when an encounter is too tough. I think it would be useful if software tools used to build dungeons and towns took into account CRs and demographics.

But there's a hint of some sort of enforcement mechanism in your post - and I don't know how that would work. My players never seen the dungeon notes, even after the fact. Plus, there aren't well-defined boundaries between dungeons, towns, and other locations anyway. There aren't well-defined boundaries between campaign areas and adventure areas.

 

[smerwin29]

Here's an idea I've been pondering for some time. The recent "should DM's use Disjunction" kinda reinforces it. The "busywork" thread also ties into this.

The thought is this, is it possible to devise a system of adventure building that limited the DM from building an adventure that was too powerful for the party. I think there are a good number of "adventure" elements that could be codified into a system for creating fair adventures, BOCTAOE.

While an interesting idea, I think the following dichotomy will become apparent in responses:

A majority of the people play in or run campaigns where they create their own adventures, or modify published adventures trememndously. Such a system of adventure building, to these people, is at best confining and at worst a complete curtailment of creative freedom. Most DMs of this nature place themselves in a category of gamers who know enough to be able to create their own game their own way, without a need for any such system. (Whether they need or could use such a system or not is another topic entirely, but only their players know for sure!)

A minority of people, especially those who play in or DM in campaigns that are more widespread, or who use published adventures without much deviation, will admit that for purposes of "quality control" (for the lack of a better phrase), such a system, or at least a very loose set of adventure-creation guidelines, are not necessarily a bad thing. If dozens or hundreds or thousands of players are going to be playing an adventure, you need to have some standards to make sure the adventure is playable by people with vastly different play styles and expectations.

Another tangential question will be "should the combats always have to be fair based on the PC level?" and "should players expect the combats this, or does that weaken one of the better parts of the game?" The answers to those questions are, of course, that it depends on the campaign.

I understand those who would chafe at the restrictions. If I want to do things a little differently, and if my players are having fun, systems like this be damned. On the other hand, we've all seen or heard about those campaigns where the first-level characters are thrown into the fire against an incredibly difficult encounter that they should never in a million years win, and then either are slaughtered or are "scripted" into winning by the DM. Then we hear people talking about how their first-level characters defeated Tiamut, and we roll our eyes. Such a system would at least eliminate that. :-D

 

[gizmo33]

One other interesting side-effect of an idea like this, is IF the system were relatively stable, a DM who followed it, could play the game in a more "antagonistic" fashion. Assuming his encounters were designed properly, he could go into the encounter with the intent to win, and let the dice fall where they may, without guilt.

I think the CR system is overrated on the internet as far as the controls that it provides. It doesn't take into account terrain, or situations (the chance of surprise) or how the classes/powers/magic items of the PCs match up against the particular monster they are fighting. It doesn't take into account the amount of non-renewable items (potions, spells, etc.) used in a particular encounter. It doesn't take into account how many encounters the PCs have already faced that day.

It also doesn't take into account those rare instances where a DM must make judgements during combat. I don't want to play with a DM (or be one) who "wants to win". You can't be a referee AND a player IMO.

Plus, a 3rd level bard and a 3rd level fighter have the same CR AFAIK. And all monsters are not created equal as far as CR either. At best, it's a step up from the approximating that you'd have to do in 1E.

So ultimately, I think the DM is not absolved of the requirement to think about the lethality of his encounters. If you're in a situation where the DM is making things too deadly, I don't think that's a situation you can solve with rules.

 

[LostSoul]

My first thought would be to use the chart in the DMG that tells you what EL your encounters should be.

The big problem is that you'd always have encounters scaling with the PC's level, and it would be pretty obvious that this is taking place. You'd return to the dungeon that you half-cleaned out when you were first level, and now everything's suddenly way tougher. That could break suspension of disbelief.

There are ways to handle this, though. Not rolling for too easy encounters (i.e. the PCs just win), coming up with some backstory to explain away the tougher monsters, maybe some others.

Although... it would rob the game of some strategic decisions. Should we go into Hell's Forest now, or pick up a couple of levels in the Sewers of Giant Rats first? If challenges scale up, then it doesn't matter, and you can't make that choices.