D&D 5E (2014) Mike Mearls on 5e design he regrets. Bonus Actuons.

[Lanefan]

This is interesting and I think kind of illustrates my tuning scale above. If you hadn't missed those few, do you think the challenge would have been less real, if you'd adjusted those few as you'd adjusted the others, to not be above their pay grade? Even though the players rose to the challenge (and that's great!), do you think it would have been not as real of a challenge to have not met them at their maximum? Or were the ones you did tone down (possibly over-down-tuned, if they could raise to the others?) the false ones? I think this is the conundrum the "everything's an illusion" topic is getting at.

I think it wouldn't have been as real if either a) I had re-tuned any of those encounters on the fly or b) I wasn't myself prepared to follow through and TPK them if it came to that.

I didn't do (a). As for (b), they've all been playing in my games long enough to know the threats tend to mean what they say.

 

[Lanefan]

At its coarsest version, I would say "tuned to" is "within the realm of possibility for the players to defeat" or "not a cakewalk", and then we refine it from there. As in, if I have a party of level 8 PCs, I might as DM say...

1. I will give the players whatever encounter is appropriate for the area/random table, including CR 1/8 creatures or a nest of CR 20 creatures. [This I would say is no tuning, and it is absolutely a valid style, I'm not discounting or discrediting it.]
2. I will not throw CR 1/8 creatures at them nor am I going to throw CR 20 creatures at them, everything in between is on the table.
3. I will give them a range of CR 6 to CR 12 creatures.
4. I will follow the book's specific guidance for CR-to-party-level balancing on a per-encounter basis.
5. I will follow the book's specific guidance for CR-to-party-level balancing on a per-encounter basis, and I will fill it with tactics that tickle the party's particular composition (minions for the fighter to mow through, artillery for the rogue to do clever movement tricks to get to, not include bags of HP if the party is all low DPS, etc.).
6. I will [#5], and if a player drops or joins before the session starts, I will adjust the encounter(s) before we start.
7. I will [#6], and if a player character dies or levels up before the combat starts, I will adjust the encounter before we start it.
8. I will [#5, #6, and/or #7], and if the players look overwhelmed or bored, I will adjust the encounter mid-encounter.

I think that's a roughly ascending scale of "tuned to"-ness in my mind. I can't definitively tell you which if any of those challenges isn't "real", so I could see an argument that they're all "illusions", but I'll also readily and happily acknowledge that each DM probably has their own sweet spot, and that's fine.

For me, if they're wandering aimlessly in the wild it's #1 - they get what they get, no tuning involved.

If they're in an adventure or module etc. it'll be tuned to their vague level range - if the party is 7th-10th level then ideally I'll run them in a module designed for that level range. So I guess that's #3?

I haven't got the patience for #4, never mind the guidance always says to vary the encounter difficulties anyway.

I almost never look at or consider the specific makeup or lineup of a party, usually because when I write or select the module I have exactly zero idea what that will be. They each have several (or more!) characters and it's often difficult to predict who will get cycled in and out at any given time. That rules out #5 by default.

As for #6, if a player drops or joins permanently that doesn't change a thing. If a player misses a session the character carries on as normal, played by those who do show up.

#7 and #8 are right out.

One thing not on the list above that I do consider when writing/selecting modules is in-character motivations, and what they want to do both in and out of character.

For example, one player has a character who is very keen on finding a Dragon in hopes of taming it (good luck with that!) and-or looting its hoard; which means sooner or later that adventure will appear, and it'll naturally be level-appropriate as the characters are around the level at which Dragons are quite viable foes.

Another character in that party recently picked up a horrible curse which others in the party want to fix, which (if possible at all) isn't going to be easy and will no doubt involve some adventuring; the level-appropriateness of which may be somewhat more random.

 

[bsss]

For me, if they're wandering aimlessly in the wild it's #1 - they get what they get, no tuning involved.

If they're in an adventure or module etc. it'll be tuned to their vague level range - if the party is 7th-10th level then ideally I'll run them in a module designed for that level range. So I guess that's #3?

I haven't got the patience for #4, never mind the guidance always says to vary the encounter difficulties anyway.

I almost never look at or consider the specific makeup or lineup of a party, usually because when I write or select the module I have exactly zero idea what that will be. They each have several (or more!) characters and it's often difficult to predict who will get cycled in and out at any given time. That rules out #5 by default.

As for #6, if a player drops or joins permanently that doesn't change a thing. If a player misses a session the character carries on as normal, played by those who do show up.

#7 and #8 are right out.

One thing not on the list above that I do consider when writing/selecting modules is in-character motivations, and what they want to do both in and out of character.

For example, one player has a character who is very keen on finding a Dragon in hopes of taming it (good luck with that!) and-or looting its hoard; which means sooner or later that adventure will appear, and it'll naturally be level-appropriate as the characters are around the level at which Dragons are quite viable foes.

Another character in that party recently picked up a horrible curse which others in the party want to fix, which (if possible at all) isn't going to be easy and will no doubt involve some adventuring; the level-appropriateness of which may be somewhat more random.

Neat, thanks for the detail. Just to say it again, I think in the end there's no right answer here, so seeing approaches is fun. I also think it's unexpected to me (in a good way) that there are little hops between options here, so it's not strictly linear or even certain within a scenario. I'm somewhere around #6 usually, and might do a #8 tune-up if the party seems mega-bored, or tune-down if the PCs' victory is inevitable --- kind of a clock mercy rule. I might do a #7 if I did a #8 mercy rule earlier, or if the players did something boneheaded that might strengthen the enemy numbers or something.

I don't know what's real anymore. =)

 

[GobHag]

Integrity.

Yuor example a few posts up is a good one for what I mean: while a DM who sees the party get their faces stove in might want to change the next room from a ambush-filled trap farm to a safe resting place, IMO doing so violates DM neutrality, and thus DM integrity.

The challenge, or adventure, or module, is what it is; and should be locked in once the players-as-characters start interacting with it. And yes, in this respect it's like a video game - you get what you get and it's on you-the-players to deal with it as best you can. Some today would call this adversarial DMing; I do not, instead seeing it as simply how it's done.

I don't believe, or want, DM neutrality--at least as a defining principle of running a game. And as such, their integrity is safe when they try stuff in favour of the players.

 

[Maxperson]

But there's nothing preventing the DM to just ignore that the encounter rolled, decide against their previous prep when on the table, or rewriting an adventure during or before the session.

There's nothing preventing the DM from rolling up a newspaper and smacking one of his players in the nose while yelling, "Bad player!", either.

What's not prevented is irrelevant. Only what is actually done is relevant.

I'm assuming your playstyle is something similar to blorb.

No. It isn't.

While I have nothing but contempt for it.

Okay. Tell me how you feel about something else that has nothing to do with me.

 

[Maxperson]

However, my answer is that to my perspective, the fact that a GM can do that with little to no effort or 'punishment' already makes it not real.

And the fact that you can with little or no effort commit a felony means you should be arrested and jailed, right?

Again, what CAN be done isn't relevant at all. That the DM CAN do something on a whim, doesn't make DMs who don't ever act that way the same as those who do.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't believe, or want, DM neutrality--at least as a defining principle of running a game. And as such, their integrity is safe when they try stuff in favour of the players.

And when they try stuff that's not in favour of the players?

 

[Emerikol]

Keeps what a secret? That the DM tuned an encounter to the party? Isn't that obvious from having created the encounter, unless they openly only use random encounter tables? I see the argument that there's no inherent truth to what the encounter "is" or "should be" before the DM creates it, over, under, or just right-tuned.

The DMG may suggest appropriate encounter difficulty, is it false to follow it? Or to not follow it? Can't that make the appropriate difficulty an "illusion"?

You obviously just read my response and did not get the context of the discussion. Fudging at the last minute. That is the context. None of the stuff you talked about.

 

[bsss]

You obviously just read my response and did not get the context of the discussion. Fudging at the last minute. That is the context. None of the stuff you talked about.

You are not understanding my point: why is changing the difficulty "fudging" only if it's at the last minute --- and even, what is the "last" minute --- compared to before the session starts, or the day before the game when you invited a new player, or a week ago when you originally prepped the encounter? What's the "secret" to keep from the players and how has the game been made to "never be the same" by making the same decision just at a different point in time? If the "secret" is that you made the encounter to be a certain challenge for the players at the table, that's not much of a secret.

I believe there is no right answer to the question of what's the wrong time to tune an encounter, hence the challenge can all be an illusion or it can all be the truth (I prefer the latter, personally --- the encounter is only exactly what it is when it's experienced).

 

[Emerikol]

You are not understanding my point: why is changing the difficulty "fudging" only if it's at the last minute --- and even, what is the "last" minute --- compared to before the session starts, or the day before the game when you invited a new player, or a week ago when you originally prepped the encounter? What's the "secret" to keep from the players and how has the game been made to "never be the same" by making the same decision just at a different point in time? If the "secret" is that you made the encounter to be a certain challenge for the players at the table, that's not much of a secret.

I believe there is no right answer to the question of what's the wrong time to tune an encounter, hence the challenge can all be an illusion or it can all be the truth (I prefer the latter, personally --- the encounter is only exactly what it is when it's experienced).

Look, anybody can do anything they want, anytime they want. I'm not gatekeeping by any means. When I speak to things from my perspective it is how I see it. I do think I'm right when I say so but everyone has their own opinion.

Once you've created it in the campaign world, for me it exists there. I don't change it after the fact. I make note of the battle plans of the enemy for various situations to ensure I don't adjust if the PCs come up with a good plan. My NPCs/Monsters are played as intelligently as they are or as best I can in cases where I can't reach their intelligence. The dice fall where they fall.

My players appreciate my fairness and they really appreciate knowing they achieved their rewards and accolades honestly. See there is a strong element of gamism in my group. We are gamist/simulationists.