Do You Think Encounters Should be Difficult?

[Michael Silverbane]

Players play for lots of different reasons.

Some players play to tell a story. Others play to have a story told to them. Some players play to overcome tough obstacles or tactical challenges. Others play to feel cool and powerful. Some players play to pass the time with their friends and throw dice. Others play to become immersed in a fantastical setting. None of these desires are necessarily mutually exclusive.

You and the other players should have a talk about who wants what, and how you all might work together to get those things.

 

[darkbard]

You and the other players should have a talk about who wants what, and how you all might work together to get those things.

This. For this reason, a "Session Zero" is an indispensable tool, regardless of game or group composition. Spend some time before play begins hashing out what the members of the group are looking for in gameplay (gritty vs. Big Damn Heroes, grimdark vs. lightly comical, dungeon crawl vs. planes hopping, player-driven scenarios vs. GM-designed story, etc.) so that there can be rough group consensus about expectations, which you, as GM, can then push the players to engage--and to which they, in turn, can hold you responsible for introducing.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Count me as another “some encounters should be easy, some should be hard.” It’s okay for the PCs to have an easy win, just as it’s okay for some battles to be real nailbiters. But both unrelenting difficulty and an unending cakewalk end up not being fun, in my experience. And if people (including the DM), aren’t having fun, they’re not going to want to play the game.

 

[darkbard]

Count me as another “some encounters should be easy, some should be hard.” It’s okay for the PCs to have an easy win, just as it’s okay for some battles to be real nailbiters. But both unrelenting difficulty and an unending cakewalk end up not being fun, in my experience. And if people (including the DM), aren’t having fun, they’re not going to want to play the game.

I think such matters should always be relevant to the fiction. Having a cakewalk in a climactic battle is usually unsatisfying when one expects a true challenge, the "nailbiter" to which you refer. However, if the conceit of the game is that the PCs are Big Damn Heroes, challenges should present the PCs with the opportunity to prove such! An encounter with the sherriff's deputy shouldn't provide much of a challenge for such characters (and thus shouldn't be mechanized often in play), but saving the town from an ogre assault should be as daunting a challenge as such a notion conjures up to the imagination!

 

[Manbearcat]

All encounters should be:

1) Interesting

2) Meaningful

I don't want to waste any table time on "uninteresting" or "meaningless" encounters.

Oftentimes, "difficult" falls under the classification of either (1) or (2) or both of them. Difficult could be "measure of challenge" or "costly in some non-fungible way (eg you aren't simply trading resources for success)".

Rarely, "difficult" falls under neither of those classifications. If so, find a type of "difficult" that is either/both "interesting/meaningful."

 

[The Crimson Binome]

When my players moan and complain that an encounter is too difficult I always wonder what is there to a game if there is no penalty for losing. If there is no challenge to overcome why play?

The point of play is to figure out what happens. The heroes should overcome the villains, if they are stronger and/or more clever.

If you want every encounter to be difficult, then you are essentially putting everything into the second category ("if they are more clever"), and you're ignoring the first category ("if they are stronger"). The thing is, cleverness in combat is not the only challenge to the game, nor is it necessarily the most entertaining or engaging one. Sometimes, the heroes should win because they're stronger. Sometimes, the fun is in figuring out who you can antagonize safely, while avoiding the ire of more powerful enemies.

It's not cool to throw the players into a very difficult combat encounter, where the might die or worse, unless there are alternatives to fighting. If all you want is a series of difficult combats, then that sounds more like a tabletop wargame than an RPG.

 

[5ekyu]

When my players moan and complain that an encounter is too difficult I always wonder what is there to a game if there is no penalty for losing. If there is no challenge to overcome why play?

Hmmm brand new account.
First post strawman.
Ok sure... why not

Obviously to some the jump between assessing that "an encounter is too difficult" and then jumping all the way to a "game" with "no challenge to overcome" is a bit over the top.

Just like going from "this steak is a bit overcooked" to serving everything raw even pork and poultry is to some a bit over the top.

But hey, new and anonymous so... why not, right?

But one answer is... whatever you define as fun may not be what others consider fun so... it's a good idea to get you and your players on the same page **before** you drive them to moan and complain about what is happening in your game.

It's a suggestion at least.

For my games, it's a mix but it's a mix my players seem to enjoy.

 

[Thomas Bowman]

Here's an interesting encounter, one goblin with a slingshot guarding a mountain of gold pieces.

 

[5ekyu]

Here's an interesting encounter, one goblin with a slingshot guarding a mountain of gold pieces.

Sure... That can be very very interesting. Great idea.

It should be its own thread.

I am not kidding, but since its your idea, i wont poach it.

 

[pemerton]

To build on what [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] said. Difficult can mean different things:

Mechanically challenging: you'll have to make good calls on how to use your abilities - 4e powers, AD&D spells, wands and potions, or whatever they might be - and perhaps also get some lucky rolls too.

Tactically/operationally chalenging: you'll have tomake clever decisions about how to engage the fiction - my favourite illustration of this remains taking doors of their hinges to "surf" down the frictionless corridor and thereby avoid the super-tetanus pits in S2 White Plume Mountain. This can also include making clever decisions about using equipment; coming up with ways to use terrain to advantage in a combat encounter; etc.

Puzzling: this sort of challenge can include having to piece together clues, or it might be somewhat independent of the fiction and mechanics of the game - eg a riddle, a chess puzzle or something similar. These latter sorts of puzzles don't invovle engaging the fiction but test ability at a different sort of intellectual activity; whereas piecing together clues is at least in principle still grounded in the fiction of the game.

Thematically/emotionally challenging: You can save the day, but only if one of the PCs agrees to sacrifice his/her life; or you have to choose between preserving your PC's honour or doing jutsice, but can't achieve both; etc. This is probably the least common sort of challenge in RPGing, but personally I think it is one of the most important forms of challenge that players can face.​

Different tables will want to have different sorts of difficulty - or, perhaps, even none at all - in their RPGing.