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

[S'mon]

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

My stance is that it's in the DMG rulebook. As far as I'm concerned everything in the DMG is guidance rather than wrath-of-God-smite-me-down-if-I-alter-it. It's certainly different from AD&D in terms of wilderness encounter tables, since in 3e wildernesses are assigned ELs as if they were dungeon levels, so you have average-EL-1 forests, EL 8 mountains, EL 12 swamps etc. So in 3e you get young, small dragons in low-EL areas and old, big dragons in high EL areas.

Dungeons, by contrast, haven't changed much. In 1e you got orcs on level 1 (7-12 AIR), you also got orcs on level 2+ but in increasingly large numbers as you went deeper down.

 

[Quasqueton]

My stance is that it's in the DMG rulebook.

Yeah, well, the witch is in the DMG too, and I don't know that anyone considers it a "real" class. And there are NPC character stats listed in the DMG for each level, but I don't know that anyone considers that the definitive list.

The DMG talks about status quo and tailored encounters, but as they are mutually exclusive (an encounter can't be both at the same time), I don't see how any info under those subjects to be rules.

I always saw the info you mentioned above as guidelines* to give DMs a headsup (like the info on altering class abilities), not as rules* for the DM to follow (like CR experience point values). That's why I think the opening statement is baloney. Like saying "half-orcs are supposed to be barbarians."

Quasqueton

* I know some consider anything written in the core books as "guidelines". I do not agree with that idea. The rules as written are the rules of the game. Changing, ignoring, or adding to the RAW is a DM's/group's perogative, the same as adding something special to the Free Parking space in Monopoly---but that ain't the official rules.

 

[diaglo]

as long as i give the players fair warning ahead of time. i don't feel anything needs to be left out.

of course, some of the encounters in our current campaign are toned down already.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I dunno about the rules, but in any game I run, if there is a dragon in a cave near town X, there is a bloody dragon in the cave, no matter what level the party is. If they go near his lair, they take a chance on being spotted and eaten. Now, that's not to say I'll intentionally send them that way on a quest, but if the mountain pass happens to be the shorter method of travel, and they decide to risk the dragon rather than go the long way around, well, it's their choice.

 

[S'mon]

OK, you have what I think is a weird take on "Official Rules" vs "Guidelines" - if you asked Monte I'm sure he'd say that the XP by CR table was just as much a guideline as the pg 102 Encounter Difficulty table. He talks about all kinds of other ways you can work out XP other than that table.

The Witch is an example of a variant class, GMs are free to use it or not. There's also an example of a tweaked Hunter-of-the-Dead variant Ranger. The DMG is big on encouraging GMs to alter the rules-as-written to suit their own game.

 

[S'mon]

Above post was to Quasqueton.

Actually Q, your stance on "Official Rules" reminds me a lot of Gygax's admonitions at the front of the 1e DMG.
Monte Tweet & co were always careful to emphasise a much more liberal line.

 

[Quasqueton]

Actually Q, your stance on "Official Rules" reminds me a lot of Gygax's admonitions at the front of the 1e DMG. Monte Tweet & co were always careful to emphasise a much more liberal line.

And aren't those stances ironic, considering their respective systems?

OK, you have what I think is a weird take on "Official Rules" vs "Guidelines"

Do you make a differentation? If so, how? Where do you draw the line? Is the info on altering classes on the same "level of ruleness" as the info on crafting magic items?

Quasqueton

 

[TerraDave]

No. It is a guideline: why bother discussing higher or lower level encounters otherwise, or have an XP chart for them?

But there is a lot more guidance on the issue then AD&D. And the current DMG could pay a little more lip service to the role that circumstances play in an encounter (though it does pay some).

 

[Kast]

When I design an adventure, I try to do so according to the party's level as much as possible. However, in that adventure there may be encounters or NPCs that are unbeatable by the PCs and if they are provoked by said PCs, the PCs will be destroyed or at least humiliated.

When describing a world, there will be information alluding to certain areas or individuals who are of significant power. If the PCs go off in search of these guys with intent of harm or intrusion, the PCs shouldn't be surprised if they find themselves in over their heads.

 

[S'mon]

And aren't those stances ironic, considering their respective systems?

Ironic - not really, Gygax also says in his intro that he intended to make a fun game rather than a simulation. He's a Gamist, he just wasn't as pure-Gamist in his design as Monte & co tried to make 3e. As for 3e, there's nothing un-Gamist or simulationist about saying "These rules are just guidelines, feel free to change them", it's a completely separate dichotomy.

Do you make a differentation? If so, how? Where do you draw the line? Is the info on altering classes on the same "level of ruleness" as the info on crafting magic items?

Quasqueton

Yes, IMO the info on altering classes is on the exact same level of ruleness as the info on crafting magic items. Both are guidelines for the GM to use or not.

The only distinction I make is "rules in PHB" vs "everything else" - because the PHB is the **player's book** and if I'm going to change stuff in it I had better make sure the players know about it. If there are no attacks of opportunity in my game, I must ensure players know this so they can create PCs and plan tactics with this in mind. If I roll d8+d12 for skill checks instead of d20, likewise.