ELs, balance, and metagaming

[jgbrowning]

(Thought i'd start a new thread from another thread. MM's comment spurred me along a thought train i hadn't been down before and i wondered what the rest of you guys here thought about the same subject)

No matter how powerful an opponent is, there is always a way to beat him.

(this is taken out of context so im not actually responding to you MM. )

I have to disagree, mythusmage. In my campaign, there are things the PCs can't beat and they should run away from. I don't subscribe to the "all challanges are balanced for your level, guys.. so you just have to tweek your actions properly in order to win" school of thought.

personally this is my biggest complaint with 3E. All the focus on balance has, IMHO, inadvertantly made almost all players meta-game the idea that they can defeat anything the DM throws at them. That's pure metagaming, and I think it harms the development of a more complex role playing.

Really, if the adventure was real, the PCs should run away a lot more than they do in the game, until they get to higher levels when they have a statistically better chance of meeting chalanges. The PCs wouldn't have faith that they can defeat everything, because that faith is a metagame faith, not an in-game faith.

I think monte and the guys tried really hard to balance the game to make running it easier on the DM, not to promote the idea that every encounter should be able to be overcome by the PCs. Knowing when to run is the most disused skill, IMHO, in 3E gaming.

In fact, published adventures that put in encounters that will be a TPK if the players are foolish enough to "metagame EL balance" are viewed with distain. They're viewed as if the author didn't know what he was doing when he made the module.


but.... all that aside, this is just my opinion. I'm not here to tell people how to enjoy themselves. Just trying to state what I think and i'm interested in what you guys think.

take care,

joe b.

 

[Victim]

Yes, but just because some things will almost certainly result in a TPK doesn't mean they will. I always assume that we CAN defeat something - but I don't assume that it's likely we'll defeat something. A clever plan that the DM didn't forsee can sometimes go a long way. In theory, an "impossible" streak of natural ones and twenties at the proper times could allow low level characters to defeat unbeatable enemies.

Also, even if something will cream the characters now doesn't mean that it will be able to defeat them in future. Sometimes the way to kill something is to get some additional levels first.

The only TPK situation in modules that is held with disdain is Forge of Fury. Considering that PCs not acting on metagame knowledge will have no way of knowing to run until it is too late, I think that complaints are reasonable.

 

[Creamsteak]

From a player's perspective, I must say that I fight because my character isn't afraid. I havn't played a coward yet, I may one day, but not so far. So far, I've played every core rulebook class, but not quite every cleric diety and wizard school focus, so I'm not completely through my experience in this matter. Every character I've played sizes up his opponent the only way he can be sure, he enters into combat.

That first round tells me what I'm going to do. If the enemy whips me good, I'll run without feeling bad, but I don't want to run if I feel like I need to fight to protect something or if I feel I have a chance. That's the way it goes for me. I think, on average, I flee twice in 20 combats (4 sessions).

It has nothing to do with meta-gaming, it's all based on my character. Then again, I'm a DM more often than a player, so that would explain why I don't see any reason to meta-game. I know that meta-gaming is something that does nothing for the game, and it hurts the experience of everyone. I ask you back, would you run from an opponent before you tested his metal? If you would, then maybe your meta-gaming in reverse, by choosing to flea after you see the first lightning bolt or fireball directed at your 1st level fighter. If it didn't hurt me, and it didn't kill someone outright, I might just be brave enough to try and take down the mage before he can try again, and if I fail, I'm probably dead.

Also, the more intimidating you make the opposition seem, the more likely someone will be wise enough to run when you think they should. If the badguy is a '40 foot by 40 foot, methodically moving dinosaur creature' I might just try and charge it. It's suicide, but maybe, just maybe, I don't know that? Then again, when you add a few malicious intent words, I think I know what I'm going to do -take cover.

 

[Alcamtar]

The only TPK situation in modules that is held with disdain is Forge of Fury. Considering that PCs not acting on metagame knowledge will have no way of knowing to run until it is too late, I think that complaints are reasonable.

Could you elaborate? I was thinking about running this for my group fairly soon...

Mike

 

[Victim]

The Roper is a CR 10 monster (with high AC and SR) and has some situation advantages - it's guarded by a fast river that makes it hard to approach, and the confines of the cave prevent characters from engaging it from beyond the range of its tentacles, IIRC. There's even a side bar in the adventure about it.

If the PCs do after it, they pretty much have to use lots of Alchemist's Fire to win.

 

[Skarp Hedin]

The only TPK situation in modules that is held with disdain is Forge of Fury. Considering that PCs not acting on metagame knowledge will have no way of knowing to run until it is too late, I think that complaints are reasonable.{/quote]

D'you mean that foolish roper? If so, you're right -- I had to fudge a little to keep the party alive, because no one thought to either run or to negotiate with it. I mean really, negotiate with a monster that just attacked you without provication? I dunno about the rest of you DMs, but no player I've ever DM'd would even consider that.

At least the module suggests that "If you know that your group of players will assault the roper, it might be best to omit this encounter altogether," but I ran it hoping they'd learn the retreat idea.. but alas, no.

Edit: Yeah, the roper. You know, without some means of lowering its SR, or the Spell Penetration feat or something, a roper is immune to magic unless the caster is at least 8th level. Nasty buggers.

 

[haiiro]

I'm with you 100%, joe.

My campaigns have always included a range of possible encounters, including some that the PCs simply cannot overcome at their current level. Just because a 3rd level party finds out there's a dragon in them thar hills doesn't mean that dragon will be very young, wounded, or otherwise weakened to the point where they can take it out at 3rd level. Generally, these are status quo encounters -- the dragon is there, it's CR 20, and it will stay CR 20 for quite some time.

I always alert my players to this before the game -- generally before character creation -- and I think it adds a lot to the experience when you can't count on being able to beat everything you run into. I agree that 3e tends to foster a "we can beat that" mentality, and while that's not necessarily a bad thing, it doesn't suit my tastes very well.

 

[Zappo]

I have to disagree, mythusmage. In my campaign, there are things the PCs can't beat and they should run away from. I don't subscribe to the "all challanges are balanced for your level, guys.. so you just have to tweek your actions properly in order to win" school of thought.

Every foe is defeatable. Only, some times you can only defeat him indirectly (foiling his plot or something). Other times, the way to defeat him passes through "gain five levels beforehand". But that's semantics... in reality, I loathe presenting the party with mostly challenges of their CRs.

About half the fights IMC are 2-3 ELs above the party level. They are designed to be winnable if the players act clever.
Some fights are 4-6 ELs above the party level. The PCs may win after a mortal battle, or be forced to flee. I keep plans for both possibilities.
And occasionally, I want a guy that the players know Not To Mess With. In these cases, I'll drop enough hints that picking a fight with him is a bad idea.

I've found that my players tend to behave more realistically this way, and they've become very good at correctly estimating a challenge using in-game reasoning. They know when they are safe, when they can win if they prepare well in advance, when they can win if they are willing to expend some non-renewable resources, when they'd better have an escape plan too, and when it's not even worth trying.

An exception is that I'll very, very rarely if ever force a fight where the players must lose. This is a useful plot device. It can realistically happen that a fight is physically impossible to avoid (the guy scries and teleports), or psychologically impossible to avoid (no way to know that this particular apparently random mugger is in fact a major NPC and 17th level). But, I just don't like it. And besides, it's too unpredictable; unless the disparity is ridiculously high there's always the chance that the players use an unexpected tactic and actually win.

 

[Umbran]

[Bpersonally this is my biggest complaint with 3E. All the focus on balance has, IMHO, inadvertantly made almost all players meta-game the idea that they can defeat anything the DM throws at them. That's pure metagaming, and I think it harms the development of a more complex role playing.[/B]

Interestingly, it's false metagaming, insofar as the rulebooks say that you aren't supposed to be able to beat everything you come across.

DMG, pg 56, concerning Difficulty of encounters:

15% of encounters should be "Very Difficult: One PC might very well die."
5% of all encounters should be "Overpowering: The party should run. If they don't, they will probably lose."

So, if folks (be they DMs or players) have the perception that the characters should always be able to win, they haven't read very carefully. Not that this should be a long-term problem. Most players learn very quickly that the charcaters can and will occasionally die, if you actually kill some of them...

 

[hong]

The only TPK situation in modules that is held with disdain is Forge of Fury. Considering that PCs not acting on metagame knowledge will have no way of knowing to run until it is too late, I think that complaints are reasonable.

D'you mean that foolish roper? If so, you're right -- I had to fudge a little to keep the party alive, because no one thought to either run or to negotiate with it. I mean really, negotiate with a monster that just attacked you without provication? I dunno about the rest of you DMs, but no player I've ever DM'd would even consider that.

IIRC, in Geoff Watson's campaign, the PCs grabbed some yellow mold from elsewhere in the dungeon and tossed it at the roper.