Is a DM supposed to ensure level appropriate encounters, by the RAW?

[Quasqueton]

From another poster in another thread:
In 3e the GM is supposed to ensure that PCs meet level-appropriate challenges. 1e/2e were far more Simulationist, with an assumption that eg Wilderness encounter tables were not designed with a party of any particular level in mind but only with a "what lives here" approach. . .

Bold emphasis mine.

Is this true or baloney? Is this a written rule? Is it implied? Is this any different than in AD&D?

Quasqueton

 

[S'mon]

Bold emphasis mine.

Is this true or baloney? Is this a written rule? Is it implied? Is this any different than in AD&D?

Quasqueton

DMG 3.0 pg 102 - Encounter Difficulty.

I don't write baloney. However note that per RAW only 50% of encounters EL = Party level and 5% should be +5 EL or more; it's a fallacy that all encounters should equal party level.

 

[MonsterMash]

DMG 3.0 pg 102 - Encounter Difficulty.

I don't write baloney. However note that per RAW only 50% of encounters EL = Party level and 5% should be +5 EL or more; it's a fallacy that all encounters should equal party level.

I wonder how many DMs actually use that?

Personally yes I do, but I usually take an approach that will avoid an inescapable TPK, after all 1st level adventurers may not be all that interesting to a BBEG.

 

[alleynbard]

DMG 3.0 pg 102 - Encounter Difficulty.

I don't write baloney. However note that per RAW only 50% of encounters EL = Party level and 5% should be +5 EL or more; it's a fallacy that all encounters should equal party level.

While I agree that encounters should be tailored I think the baloney in this statement is that OAD&D/2e was more Simulationist than the current system. I am not sure that simulationist and realistic (in some areas) are mutally inclusive terms. When simulationist is capatilized, as you did above, it marks a "type" of gamer or game and I don't think OAD&D falls into that category.

 

[S'mon]

I meant Simulationist GMing- interested in simulating a particular environment (which may be a very unrealistic environment), as opposed to Gamist GMing where the focus is on challenging the players. In world-building I've seen it referred to as "Environment Design" (simulation) vs "Scenario Design" (tailoring setting to PCs - can be Gamist or Narrativist approach in GNS terms). Ron Edwards would dispute my uses I'm sure.

Either approach can work well for GMs with their own groups, however I think the Environment-simulation approach works usually works best for published material as the professional writer can't know about the individual player-groups who'll be using his material. Gamist-Scenario material is often very dry (WoTC's problem) or arbitrarily and unfairly(?) lethal (Gygax's problem).

 

[Insight]

It all depends on how powerful your characters are, and what sorts of things you think they can handle. Yes, the rules imply a certain amount of 'level playing field', which is fine if you are either a novice DM or don't really know the characters' strengths and weaknesses all that well.

Once a DM is comfortable with their ability to assess the party, I think you can throw the EL stuff out the window. Just put the characters up against whatever you think should be there. I'm all for balance from a campaign point of view, but I don't go out of my way to balance each and every encounter.

And I have not changed my approach with the advent of 3.x... Players are the same, and the situation hasn't changed that much to be honest. Characters still have the same resources they have always had, and to be honest, 3.x characters are far more powerful than they ever were in previous editions, so my inclination is to worry about balance even less than before.

 

[wedgeski]

I find you can throw whatever the hell you want at a party as long as: [1] they have an opportunity to evaluate the encounter properly and [2] an opportunity to get away from it if they want. At the end of the day though, a party is only going to earn (event-based) XP from encounters that they can beat, which means that level progression demands a fair smattering of EL-appropriate encounters.

 

[S'mon]

I wonder how many DMs actually use that?

Personally yes I do, but I usually take an approach that will avoid an inescapable TPK, after all 1st level adventurers may not be all that interesting to a BBEG.

I tend to use it as a rough guide - I think Monte's right that players want most battles to be challenging - 'worth fighting' - but ultimately winnable, and PC death should be rare. He's also right that the riskiest battles are those with ELs around 3-4 over party level, as these will often defeat poor or inexperienced players. Most groups will flee when clearly outmatched although they may lose a PC or sidekick first. I retain the Simulationist approach in that if the 1st level PCs choose to go looking for the ogre tribe they've heard lives in the hills, the ogres will most likely indeed be there...

 

[Insight]

I find you can throw whatever the hell you want at a party as long as: [1] they have an opportunity to evaluate the encounter properly and [2] an opportunity to get away from it if they want. At the end of the day though, a party is only going to earn (event-based) XP from encounters that they can beat, which means that level progression demands a fair smattering of EL-appropriate encounters.

That's only true if you ONLY give out XP for combat. DMs vary quite a bit on how and why they reward XP, and many give much less credence to combat-based XP than is stated in the rules.

I've seen a ratio somewhere that speaks of Easy, Balanced, and Tough encounters, and how you should, in terms of your planned encounters have an equal amount of Easy and Tough encounters, and probably twice that many Balanced encounters. So, if your adventure has 12 encounters, 6 should be Balanced, 3 would be Easy, and 3 would be Tough. I would be OK with this sort of logic as long as the DM truly understands what 'Balanced' means for his group of characters.

 

[Quasqueton]

OK, so your stance is that it is a rule. Now, is it any different than AD&D?

AD&D had a form of CR/EL: charts listing monsters by dungeon level. Did this mean that orcs can only be encountered in 1st-level dungeons, or only on the 1st level of a multilevel dungeon?

And all versions of the game list wilderness encounters by "what lives there" rather than by level. Even the D&D3 DMG tables list dragons as potential encounters in the wild, without regard to PC levels.

[I don't have any of the DMGs in front of me, so I can't quote pages. Just going of of memory here.]

Quasqueton