I tried the 4 player standard, what a mess...

[Raven Crowking]

What difference would it make if encounters were tailored or not? CR doesn't care. CR doesn't care what level the PC's are. It's a measure of how difficult a given creature is in combat. A CR 5 creature is still a CR 5 creature no matter what level the PC's are. If you are tailoring encounters, then the EL's will change, but, the challenge ratings of given challenges don't.

The "CR System" is more than the CR numbers or the EL numbers. It is also how those numbers are intended to be used.

RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

So the DMG expressly warns you that you should notify your players if you are using Tailored encounters? Feel like quoting that text? Tailored encounters are described as an optional or alternate system? Feel like quoting that text?

I already did, and here it is again:

[Pg. 43] Writing an adventure with strong motivation is really a matter of knowing what style of game you and your players prefer... [Pg. 48] Just as with motivations, encounters can be tailored specifically to the PC's or not.

I'll do you one better, even. I'll show you how the DMG *actually* assumes both kinds of encounter design, and, in fact, warns in many places against the problems of Tailored-only design.
[sblock]
You read the DMG, right? But you seem to have forgotten some key elements, and your brain has supplied some others...

I believe, in talking about notifying your players, you're referring to this?

If you decide to use only status quo encounters, you should probably let your players know about this.

The emphasis is mine, and it shows where your reading comprehension missed one very very important point: The DMG assumes you use a mix of tailored and status quo encounters.

Later, when discussing wandering monsters, the DMG says to use some random dungeon monster tables (pgs 77-79). In instructions for using the table, it tells you to "determine the dungeon level YOU WANT to generate the encounter for." So if you're using Tailored encounters, you choose a level that is near the party's level. If you're using Status Quo encounters, you choose whatever level the dungeon *is*. And even if you're selecting it based on character level, there's a full 20% chance that there's going to be a variance in dungeon level just based on the charts.

Later, we have some encounter tables for various habitats. Neither the tables nor the habitat description tell you what level the PC's must be, but it does give you an EL for the environment and CR's for the hazards. For instance, the given forest at EL 6 could either be forest encounters for LV 6 characters (for Tailored encounters), or simply all encounters in the forest (for Status Quo encounters). Both use the CR/EL system. There is no assumption as to what level the PC's will be when encountering them. Again, the information from the dungeon encounter tables is repeated: "first decide what YOU WANT the average encounter level to be" (pg. 98). So if you're using Tailored encounters, you choose a level that is near the party's level. If you're using Status Quo encountes, you choose whatever EL the habitat *is*.

Let's jump up a few chapters:

A campaign first requires a world. A "world" is a consistent environment for a campaign. Geography and people are consistent in the world. Ravensburg is always on the same side of the river, and NPCs remember the player characters after the first meeting.

Consistency is key for a world, so for the forest to all of a sudden change inhabitants because the PC's have changed levels would be inconsistent, and thus defy a believable world. The DMG specifically is cautioning DMs *against* basing encounters on character level here.

Later, in the discussion of world-building, under ecology:

Once you have determined the lay of the land, you can develop what lives where. The Monster Manual gives a climate/terrain type for each kind of creature. With that information to work with, decide which creatures live where within each region of your world. If you have room on your map to note such information, do so. It will help you keep track of things later on, both when determining random encounters and when developing adventure plots.

NO talk about PC level. NO talk about "appropriate challenges" or "scaling." Simply talk about what you want to put where, and how you can reference it later when you need to. This clearly supports Status Quo design.

In all cases, the only determining factor for the EL of encounters is what you want, and the EL of a given region shouldn't change just because your party does.

Now, my position is that the DMG assumes you use both types of encounters. I've shown how it assumes you use Status Quo encounters: it assumes that in making a world, you determine what lives where in advance of the PC's coming there, and tells you that you should maintain consistency.

It also advises that certain adventures (or aspects of adventures) should be Tailored.

On Pg. 45, the DMG speaks of "Encounters that make use of PC's abilities" as one example of "good structure." This encourages DMs to select encounters that the PCs are active in, and also to not waste the abilities the PCs have gained. If one character has Turn Undead, the campaign should not be free of Undead encounters. Similarly, in "Bad Structure," the DMG recommends against "Preempting the character's abilities" (i.e.: only throwing undead at the party, even though they have a rogue who feels useless against them). Both of these notes encourage a DM to pay attention to his party's abilities when designing new parts of his world, and supports the idea that world design should be inside-out as well as outside-in -- that if the PC's hear about hags in the swamp, they might meet hags in the swamp, but also that if the PC's have a cleric in the party, they might also meet undead in the swamp, and if they have rangers who favor orcs in the party, they might also meet orcs in the swamp.

As with most things, the DMG recommends you take the best of both worlds -- enough Tailor to make use of PC powers, enough Status Quo to achieve verisimilitude. It speaks both of Site-Based adventures that trigger based on PC's walking into the area, and Event-Based adventures, where the NPC's are active forces and the PC's are participants -- site-based in terms of location, event-based in terms of scenes.
[/sblock]

The CR system is not to be translated into "only encounter creatures of a CR equal to your level." In fact, an example of the CR system in use says: "Suppose you want to send ogres against a 6th level party." Ogres aren't CR 6!

Moreover, it is clear in the DMG that the default is Tailored encounters. Any claim made about the system that doesn't recognize that is.....well, spurious at best.

Okay, your turn now.

Raven Crowking, show me where in the DMG it states that Tailored encounters are to be used as a default.

The DMG says that your weight of Tailored vs. Status Quo encounters will depend on your group's style, that Tailored adventures should still maintain consistency, that you should decide what creatures to put in your world before the PC's get there, and that the big fear in using Status Quo encounters is that PC's will think you're not and so will fight to the end when they really should run away, so it's a good idea to make sure it's expressly stated that the PC's will not be able to overcome their enemies unless they properly prepare.

Show me where it says that Tailored encounters are a default.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Onto the next part:

]
What difference would it make if encounters were tailored or not? CR doesn't care. CR doesn't care what level the PC's are. It's a measure of how difficult a given creature is in combat. A CR 5 creature is still a CR 5 creature no matter what level the PC's are. If you are tailoring encounters, then the EL's will change, but, the challenge ratings of given challenges don't.

Bingo.

The "CR System" is more than the CR numbers or the EL numbers. It is also how those numbers are intended to be used.

And nowhere does it state that the CR and EL numbers should be used in determining what you encounter. What you encounter is almost always a function of what the DM wants. CR and EL do show you a likely outcome, and they do describe what rewards you get from it, but they don't describe what you encounter in the first place. Only the DM does that.

The adventure design said where the ogre was and what the ogre would do. It didn't say "No matter what the PCs do, they can't lure the ogre out of the cave."

The CR system cannot (and so does not) take into account player cleverness. An encounter made more difficult by a confining environment is more difficult, and thus worthy of a higher EL and award. If the PCs find a way to neutralize this difficulty, the reward they get is to not have to spend as many of their resources as the CR indicates, but still getting the reward, thus coming out with more wealth in the long run.

Mistwell is correct in thinking that the CR/EL System is designed with the stated intent that Tailored Encounters are the norm, and that this is a "video-gamey" approach.

No, he isn't. The actual text in the DMG shows otherwise.

KM is correct when he says you don't have to use that approach (I do not myself) but not when he claims that this isn't the norm for the game, or that, as a result of having other options, one cannot (or should not) express a lack of contentment with that norm.

Yes, I still am correct. The actual text in the DMG says, in a nutshell: "design worlds by placing monsters where you want them, but design adventures with a nod to what the PC's are actually capable of."

ML allowed a greater variance in reward (XP determined by creature, as opposed to XP by ML), and it was a system whereby you knew exactly how the numbers were determined.

Greater variance is not an inherently good thing IMHO, since for overcoming a 11th-level challenge, I shouldn't be getting awards from 5th-16th levels.

And we do know exactly how CR is determined: One monster vs. the Iconic Four saps roughly 20% resources at the given level. You know exactly how changes in your campaign will affect it: if you don't have any Fighter-equivalent heavy fighters, creatures that can hit hard will be a larger challenge.

As I said earlier, previous encounter systems have not suggested that the creatures PCs encounter be tailored to their level, but rather to the area they explore.

3e is the same way. Read the DMG. 3e just also mentions that if this is the exclusive method by which you determine encounters, your players should probably know that.

Moreover, previous encounter systems (or at least before 2e) included the idea that areas might be designed (through chutes, or gently sloping floors, for example) to channel PCs into tougher encounter areas with or without their knowledge. This was part of "fair play" and taking steps to prevent/minimize the effects of it on the players' part was part of "good play".

Player skill is entirely subjective to the campaign and no reliable award system can be built around that.

The idea that the players have some responsibility to learn about the area they are in (through divination spells, gathering information, etc.), and then make appropriate choices, is crucial to a fun game IMHO. But then, I am a sandbox player/DM all the way. As a player, I don't want the DM to force me to follow an Adventure Path, nor do I want him to hold my hand or pull his punches. If I want someone to tell me a story, I'll read a book.

3e recommends the same thing. The Adventure Path is an outgrowth of a more event-based style than you like, and that's fine, but those who follow an adventure path do so because they want to, not because they're forced to.

As a DM, I refuse to take responsibility for the PCs getting in over their heads. If a group of 1st level PCs think its a good idea to sneak into an ancient red dragon's lair, that's their own look out. If they never bother to ask questions, likewise. OTOH, clever (or even lucky) play can reward characters far beyond the 3.X "Character Wealth By Level" guidelines.

3e recommends that players get in over their heads on a regular basis, and it does reward clever and lucky play by giving them HUGE rewards for overcoming those CR's. If a 1st level party manages to somehow "overcome" a great wyrm red dragon, I guarantee their wealth is going to be totally out of whack for most other characters of that level.

I still run games that way, BTW.....but it is no longer the standard way to run games. Even official modules that arguably follow the EL guidelines (Forge of Fury, for example), might suggest that you remove the overwhelming encounters if you think the players will attack them (this is the advice given in FoF for the roper).

Because the Forge of Fury was written without "player skill" in mind, nor did it attempt to craft it. It was interested in providing an adventure for both those who did Status Quo adventures (the overwhelming encounters still exist) and Tailored encounters (but they don't if your players wouldn't have fun facing them).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Show me where it says that Tailored encounters are a default.

KM, that's a mighty impressive post. Indeed, that's a ton of evidence for your position, and it makes me doubt that I am correct. I'll crack the book tonight, and get back to you tomorrow. But you may very well be right; I may be misreading this.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Because the Forge of Fury was written without "player skill" in mind, nor did it attempt to craft it. It was interested in providing an adventure for both those who did Status Quo adventures (the overwhelming encounters still exist) and Tailored encounters (but they don't if your players wouldn't have fun facing them).

The roper is the Overwhelming Encounter recommended by the Tailored guidelines. I fail to see how you can remove the roper and still follow either set of guidelines.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The roper is the Overwhelming Encounter recommended by the Tailored guidelines. I fail to see how you can remove the roper and still follow either set of guidelines.

You're right, I don't think it does follow either set of guidelines. AFAICT, the Forge of Fury just says, in essence, "don't use the roper if it's not going to be fun." Which is good advice, but if run well, an overwhelming encounter every once in a while should be fun, right?

 

[Raven Crowking]

You're right, I don't think it does follow either set of guidelines. AFAICT, the Forge of Fury just says, in essence, "don't use the roper if it's not going to be fun." Which is good advice, but if run well, an overwhelming encounter every once in a while should be fun, right?

I have heard it argued before that the official WotC adventures follow the Tailored Encounters guidelines....specifically as a response to the suggestion that the 3.X universe only gives you level-appropriate challenges. I've never heard anyone suggest that they follow neither option before.

Nor, honestly, have I ever heard anyone suggest that the book does not recommend Tailored encounters as a default. I'll have to reread that bit tonight, as I said earlier. Certainly your posting today has reflected some real thought on your part, and requires some real thought on my own before I can agree or disagree with your ably made points.

RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

I have heard it argued before that the official WotC adventures follow the Tailored Encounters guidelines....specifically as a response to the suggestion that the 3.X universe only gives you level-appropriate challenges. I've never heard anyone suggest that they follow neither option before.

It would make sense if they used the guidelines for the adventure, since it does state in the DMG "how many encounters of a certain difficulty an adventure should have" according to that table. That's part of the place where the ground-up design meets the top-down design, though it in no way suggests that the world should be made with that table in mind. Rather that even when you're determining which creatures your party faces that night (which only happens when you're Tailoring enconters -- In the Status Quo, the PC's pretty much determine what creatures they face that night), you should have a variety of CR's. So even when you're Tailoring, there should be a variety of levels.

If the Forge of Fury was written specifically for characters of X level, it makes sense that they would use the Tailoring guidelines for determing the CR's the PC's would fight, since the level existed before the adventure did. The Adventure Paths might do the same thing: you know what level you need, so you're Tailoring most of the encounters.

At the same time, though, it could have happened the other way around: the Forge has creatures X, Y, Z, and this makes it an appropriate challenge for Level X characters. It was designed the other way around, but it could have come to the same conclusion either way.

But the Forge *did* follow these guidelines. The Roper was there by default. It just also reminded DMs that these were guidelines only: if your group doesn't like fleeing from combat, it's not going to have fun with any overwhelming encounters because that is pretty much the only good response to it.

Telling DMs that they are free to leave something out if it doesn't suit their campaign is pretty much just re-stating the obvious. Of course DMs whose players refuse to back down should avoid running any overwhelming encounter. But that's a DM-specific consideration: the adventure still used the proper guidelines.

 

[Raven Crowking]

KM,

I concede the point. Your reading of that section is much better than my own. There are a couple of bits I could point to, but they'd be nitpicking.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just to be clear, I conceded the point because one could easily claim that "sandbox-style" play doesn't involve the creation of "adventures" but rather the creation of "locations in which adventuring may be done".

The 3.0 DMG is explicit in saying that "good adventure design" follows the Tailored Encounter ratios, so that one can easily read those passages as a condemnation of "status quo" encounters.

However, the best possible interpretation of the passage would be that, if one is designing adventures (rather than designing setting and allowing the players to decide what to pursue) then the Tailored Encounters scheme should be used. Otherwise, you are designing "setting areas" (my term) in which adventuring may, or may not, occur.

This is not at all dissimilar, really, to the way things were done in earlier editions. This is a section that could, however, be far more clearly written.