Encounters per Level

[CapnZapp]

I'd probably break it down a little more - 8 easy encounters is not the same as 8 hard or deadly encounters.

I believe his point is that, assuming level-appropriate encounters on average, this level of detail is unnecessary.

 

[CapnZapp]

Myself, I've taken this to its conclusion:

Level up every N play sessions, no need to track encounters at all ☺

 

[devincutler]

́
Some encounters feel trivially easy. Each of these generally doesnt count toward the 8, unless several easy encounters seem to be accumulating.

Oppositely, some encounters feel tremendously difficulty. Worth more than an ordinary encounter.

Alternatively, a solution to a difficult challenge might prove ingenious and satisfying, obviating the difficulty in a meritorious way.

The beauty of counting encounters per level is, the toughness of the encounter can be assessed after it is over.

An encounter that was supposed to be easy, yet proved unexpectedly difficult, in hindsight, is a difficult encounter. Vice versa, an encounter that was supposed to be difficult but proved trivially easy, is an easy encounter. This is fine.

Except when the players realize this and game the system. The problem with what you've proposed is that it penalizes players for finding ways to easily defeat encounters. The players are incentivized to do just enough to defeat the encounter so that it seems tough and they can rack up more XP. I know you don't think players will do that, but sometimes it will be on a subconscious level.

Even on a conscious level, the first time a PC gets lucky with a critical hit or rolls good fireball damage and decimates what you thought was a hard encounter and they get less credit for defeating it, or when they think of some neat way to overcome your encounter and it turns it into an easy one and they get less credit, they will learn to adjust accordingly.

I don't think you want to be in a position of discouraging good, inventive play.

 

[Satyrn]

Except when the players realize this and game the system. The problem with what you've proposed is that it penalizes players for finding ways to easily defeat encounters. The players are incentivized to do just enough to defeat the encounter so that it seems tough and they can rack up more XP. I know you don't think players will do that, but sometimes it will be on a subconscious level.

Even on a conscious level, the first time a PC gets lucky with a critical hit or rolls good fireball damage and decimates what you thought was a hard encounter and they get less credit for defeating it, or when they think of some neat way to overcome your encounter and it turns it into an easy one and they get less credit, they will learn to adjust accordingly.

I don't think you want to be in a position of discouraging good, inventive play.

Aye. I would be concerned about this, too, if I was adjusting difficulty after the fact.

Instead, I'd prefer to leave diffuculty out of it and just use the barebones "an encounter is an encounter" approach . . . but I'd probably tack on "Exploring a section of dungeon is also an encounter" to cover the third pillar.

 

[mach1.9pants]

That only applies if the players know what they are getting for each encounter, if they're just told 'right time to level' then they won't really get any thing to meta game. Obviously this involves a lot of player DM trust, cos it's basically levelling at the DM's whim

 

[devincutler]

That only applies if the players know what they are getting for each encounter, if they're just told 'right time to level' then they won't really get any thing to meta game. Obviously this involves a lot of player DM trust, cos it's basically levelling at the DM's whim

You'd be surprised what a group of over intelligent (as most D&Ders tend to be) people can deduce given enough time and experience. I have no doubt that it would become apparent over time to many players.

 

[Yaarel]

The problem with what you've proposed is that it penalizes players for finding ways to easily defeat encounters.

Here, there seems some miscommunication. Personally, I like it when players think outside of the box. If they come up with an ingenious way to defeat the challenge, I want to reward it. In this case, the ‘difficulty’ wasnt the hit point slog, but the coming up with a good tactic. So I do consider it a ‘substantial’ encounter that feels right to count toward the eight to advance.

The fact that I like players coming up with good plans to meet a challenge, is what I mean when I said, ‘A solution to a difficult challenge might prove ingenious and satisfying, ... in a meritorious way’.

I like clever.

 

[Yaarel]

I believe his point is that, assuming level-appropriate encounters on average, this level of detail is unnecessary.

Yeah, originally, I simply counted encounters, relying on mostly level-appropriate encounters. I went with the suggestion of weighing encounters. I now assess encounters afterthefact as 1 ‘substantial’ (challenging), ½ ‘something’ (easy), and 2 ‘an amazing example of heroism’ (hard). I uses dashes ‘−’ to tally an easy encounter, and several of them influence the decision to level.

Usually the players are sync, and there is a consensus about assessing a particular encounter, also about whether to level up at the end of a session.

Note I intentionally give some encounters that are too easy (to give players an opportunity to show off and to dominate monsters that had ‘bullied’ them while they were low levels), and some encounters that are too difficult (that they need to work around). Counting encounters after the fact works well with this approach. Mixing in encounters with different difficulties helps with verisimilitude.