DMs: status quo or tailored?

[The Shaman]

Mostly status quo - more settled areas have lower level challenges, more wild areas have higher level challenges. The closer the adventurers get to the frontiers of the civilized lands, the more dangerous the world becomes.

If I write a tailored encounter or adventure, it's usually some sort of intrigue with more social interaction.

 

[Jdvn1]

I like to have some of both. Some stuff should be tailored to the party -- you want challenging battles but not too challenging, and you also want the PCs to know they have things in the world to be afraid of. And you want them to know (once they start levelling a bit) that there are things in the world that they completely pwn. That's the fun of it, anyway.

 

[Cyronax]

I mostly use status quo. I DM a tweeked pre-Wars Greyhawk setting and generally consider the old 'name' level (aka 9th; but IMC its really 7th-11th) to be about the time when the PCs are on the cusp of high level and low level play. My group is currently at that part of advancement and they're reputations are probably bigger than they are. They've taken on a few status quo adventures that they probably shouldn't have (my version of Castle Greyhawk -- survived, kudos to them), or else should have been more careful in the face of great danger. They got through it though, and have made powerful enemies above their CR fear them and overestimate their abilities. (Its funny when a fabulously rich 13th level enchanter with an army of enchanted monsters fears a group of adventurers when they're initially 7th-8th level.)

The players, despite my warnings, are surprised that I've 'thrown them against' a much more powerful foe (whom they sought out due to their evil reputation). They've persevered though, despite some PC deaths, and they're on they're way to high level play..

C.I.D.

 

[DarrenGMiller]

I am about 85% or more status quo. I will occasionally tailor an encounter for story reasons or to keep the game going, or simply to nerf it (only if absolutely necessary) is the party is following a red herring and they are already weak before the encounter starts. I try to avoid doing this, but a TPK on something insignificant can be a campaign killer. Like I said, I am mainly using status quo encounters. It just doesn't follow that the orcs in the encampment in the woods a few days out of town will rise in power to match the PC's. Sometimes they will, sometimes not. Sometimes they will start out much more powerful than the PC's and sometimes their leader will be assassinated and his power usurped by the half-demon warlord from a few leagues away.

DM

 

[MonsterMash]

Strongly staus quo - probably 85% or more, though I may tailor enocounters at times to avoid the TPK.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm very curious of what people consider status quo. I just cannot see how you can run a successful campaign without taking into consideration the abilities of the PCs 75+% of the time. Especially since it is my understanding that most DMs do run appropriately challenging encounters for their PCs instead of random EL encounters most of the time.

I wouldn't even consider running my players through an adventure using encounters with ELs 5 levels below them, though it would make sense from a world standpoint. It just wouldn't be fun.

Maybe what people mean is that the world is in chunks with this region being EL 3, this region being EL 4, this region being EL 5, etc, and the PCs are encouraged to stay within areas that are around their own level? But, see, I would classify that as tailored...

 

[Gothic_Demon]

I DM a heavily RP'd, story-based campaign, so most combat encounters fall under Status Quo: Characters who pick a fight had best know what they are getting themselves in to. However, I do tailor individual adventure sites when characters do have to go on these kind of things. It's really a mix.