D&D 5E Flow in D&DNext

[Savage Wombat]

So over on the other half of WotC's site I read this article about two principles of a fun play experience: Flow and fiero.

Sculpting Flow and Fiero : Daily MTG : Magic: The Gathering

One of the principles, flow, seems to be (if I understand correctly) that the challenge of a particular activity should just keep ahead of your mastery of the game. The game gets harder just at the point where you've gotten good enough to play it that well. If it's too easy, you get bored. If it's too hard, you get frustrated.

Now, 3e and 4e encounter balance seems to be based on that theory. That a given encounter with monsters should be just hard enough to be challenging, but not hard enough that you lose. In order to maintain that sense of flow.

But I'm starting to feel that, to a lot of gamers, this kind of thing isn't actually the kind of flow that they want. If the encounters are balanced against your party at 1st level, and balanced against your party at 20th level, the game isn't actually getting more difficult as you play, is it?

Maybe the needs of flow are better served by having the monsters get proportionally tougher, compared to PCs, as the game goes on. That a CR 1 encounter against a level 1 party is an auto-win, but a CR 20 encounter against a CR 20 party is a deathmatch.

Or maybe the game should suggest that the longer you run a game, the harder it should get. By the time your party is level 20, they should be regularly fighting CR 24 encounters.

Is flow better achieved by having the monsters challenge the party, or by having the game challenge the players?

Or am I just off base here?

 

[Mattachine]

For me, the game should challenge the players. More experienced character have more options, and the challenge is for the players to use them to the best of their abilities. These abilities might be more powers that come with level, and these abilities might be more titles/debts/favors related to the gameworld and NPCs.

 

[KarinsDad]

I see both sides.

At low level, PCs have very few "go to the well" abilities. They have a small handful of options that they have to use repeatedly to resolve challenges. So, the challenges cannot be too powerful because the players do not have enough options to handle extremely difficult challenges.

At high level, PCs have a lot more "go to the well" abilities. By then, they should have boons and consumables and charged items (moreso in 3E than 4E) and more Daily powers from items and class abilities (moreso in 4E than 3E) such that they can be challenged more heavily, but still have the options to pull their fat out of the fire when the challenge is too difficult.

One of the more enjoyable parts of D&D is the ability to craft magic items (if allowed by the DM). As a player, my PCs that craft items are ones that try to create (or find) "go to the well" abilities. In 4E's more balanced model, it's a bit more difficult to do so (consumables are not that impressive, scrolls and charged powerful wands/staffs do not really exist), but the game itself gives multiple Daily powers to the PCs.


So in answer to your question, yes, challenges should typically be within the capabilities of the PC abilities at all levels. However, the illusion of having a more difficult encounter can be done at higher levels (the concept that you suggest that it should get harder as PCs level up), but in reality, the challenges are still within the scope of the PCs. It just sometimes seems tougher because resources have to be expended in order to overcome the challenges.

 

[Rhenny]

I agree with Mattachine to some extent. Yes, the game needs to challenge, but a skillful DM needs to vary encounters enough so that players experience some easier encounters, mixed with some challenging ones, with an occasional killer encounter.

When I started DMing 4e on VTT, we were limited for time (2 hours a week) so I designed each encounter to challenge the PCs. We ended up completing 1 encounter each session, and as DM, I felt as if the PCs were getting bogged down too much. Soon after, I decided that I didn't have to make each encounter as challenging and I varied it a bit. Now we can accomplish more in each session and drive the story forward.

Every once in a while, we have a session with one big encounter, but for the most part, by varying the degree of difficulty (and the type of encounter - roleplay, puzzle, combat, skill challenge, etc.) we typically get through the equivalent of 3 encounters in about 2.5 - 3 hours. Also, my players like to cut through a group of monsters efficiently and relatively easily once in a while. Then, when they get to the challenging encounters, they sweat even more.

 

[Libramarian]

Watch out for confusing player difficulty with PC difficulty.

 

[Yora]

I think the idea isn't that encounters are balanced against the players, but against the PCs. To get through an encounter at low level requires less work, because there is less variety in enemies and less options for PCs. At high levels, you have lots more options and a lot more variance among the enemies. The PCs still have all the tools they need to get through the encounters, but it requires a lot more work on their part to bring their PCs powers fully to bear.
I think that's the challenge that is expected at higher levels.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Later levels have always provided greater powers, and thus greater challenges, particularly in the form of spell casting.

I can't speak for fourth edition, but third edition high level play was a challenge because there was so much to consider. It does require a lot of player skill, not just to manage, but also to be effective. I'll stop short of saying it was perfect, but how it accomplished this goal is worthy of consideration.

So, yeah, I believe that having the game build in an ever increasing level of player challenge in addition to character challenge is a good thing. That is, so long as challenge is built with playability in mind.

 

[Kaodi]

I could have sworn that fiero was more specifically tied to feelings engendered by having someone you are advising or coaching succeed...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think it is about increasing player difficulty. The entire D&D experience should be available to all players, and they have a wide range of ability.

Play at each level simply needs to be different. It needs to evolve so that the story and the characters naturally grow and change. A level 1 game should FEEL much different from a level 30 game. A lot of this is and always will be on the DM though. Mechanics can only do so much.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I dont think this is a part of the game that has ever been an issue for me. The person at the table responsible for establishing the challenge level is the gm. Let the GM have the tools to create the sorts of encounters he feels his groupnwill enjoy. Anytime d&d has tried to quantify this or tell gms how to challenge players "correctly" you run into problems because a lot of this boils down to paystyle. Rigging the system for "optimal" and "correct" level of challenge is equally problematic because it narrows down the feel and play of the game in a way that wont work for everyone. I also just think in general D&D could use less magic the gathering and not more.