Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6989587" data-attributes="member: 12731">This makes me realize the issue is that the guidelines doesn't seem to take into account which "gear" the PCs go into. By this I mean, that a given encounter could well be "deadly" (for some value of that term) if the characters stick to fighting with one arm tied behind their backs. I mean, preserving resources and relying mostly on "at wills".But in reality, any such encounter will be transformed into a much easier one, since why on earth would characters risk a PC death when that risk can be all but eliminated by the party gearing up? (using consumables, using spell slots etc)? Except for the lowest levels, a party possesses enough resources to have several gears. Using a few spell slots, a few consumables, perhaps some short-rest class abilities is still a far cry from  the ALL OUT NUCLEAR NOVA HIT THEM WITH EVERYTHING WE'VE GOT gear.I don't mean that a "deadly" encounter should need that final "nova gear". But there's a fundamental mismatch in expectations in labeling encounters "hard" or "deadly" when (except on lowest levels) this is very much something the players can and will transform into something much easier, or "managable".The only recourse is if the game strictly controls resource renewal. But in a game with no mechanical checks on rests and free access to rope tricks and magnificient mansions, I simply don't see it.I can't see at all a situation where the players tell themselves "oh this is going to be a tough one - remember we must pull this off and kill all the goblins without spending any resources!!" This simply never happens in my game.As it is, there is practically no such renewal control in published adventures. This makes me focus on making each individual encounter its own challenge. This leads me to the following four proactical categorizations of an encounter. I'll enumerate them with no labels for the moment, to avoid focusing the discussion on the labels.Furthermore I'll use "effort" to mean resource expenditure. That is, tactics that do more than use at wills, plentiful renewable resources, movement and such. Even without any extra "effort" the goblins don't kill themselves, you still need to go through the motions of actually playing the encounter.Cat I: it's immediately apparent (to the players) this encounter need no "effort" to remain undeadlyCat II: there is some initial tension that might make a player (or three) expend some effort, before the tension evaporates and it's clear the encounter really needed no effortCat III: this encounter will need some effort, or there is a risk of losing a character (however briefly) by death or other incapacitation (more severe than round-by-round paralyzation that is).Cat IV: this encounter has all the trappings of a challenging encounter, and the most prudent course of action is either to retreat immediately (possibly using spells to cover that retreat) or to go all-out.You see? The actual difficulty isn't really the important metric here. If for no other reason than most encounters can be transformed into less than "deadly" encounters by player decisions. (At least my highly tuned party would generally require triple-deadly encounters to ensure they actually stay deadly, even if the players do everything they can to manage and minimize that risk). I can't rid myself of the feeling there's a veneer of self-deceit over the entire DMG guidelines, talking about encounters as "easy" or "hard" as if that's an actual difference. The reality is that both encounters can be obliterated by the party. Its much more interesting to consider whether the first encounter might be a category I encounter while the second might be a category II.All the really interesting parts of the equation have been left out: player decisions to expend or withold resources and the difficulty with which you regain these resources (rests, buying or looting new potions etc).Whenever we talk about "deadly", we must first ask ourselves "does this presume the party chugging along in first gear, or does this include the party switching to megadeath gear?"I posit NO encounter can or should be called "deadly" unless assuming the party switching out of first gear. Making the DMG idea of hard and deadly being a mere multiple of easy a theoretical construct. Yes, an encounter might be "hard" if it uses three times as much monster xp as an "easy" one, but only if you assume the characters spend as few resources. Since that never happens, the entire table is a theoretical construct with no bearing on practical play.This is why I feel the DMG guidelines to be so hopelessly useless and directly counterproductive to new DMs.</blockquote>

Verification