Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Connorsrpg" data-source="post: 5858568" data-attributes="member: 19265">RE MonstersWe played for years without a lot of guidelines on this and I liked that best. Monster numbers were determined by the monsters and their way of living, NOT the number of PCs.I wish we would go back to that division of Tribe, Warband, Hunting party type stuff where numbers were determined randomly. Creatures were Pair, Solitary, Family, etc. I found those the best.Players NEVER expected to meet numbers of critters based upon fair challenge ratings or level equalities. Tougher monsters were just that and you knew/leart when to run and when to fight. (Usually by DM description or story development...or admittedly past experience). This became harder with 3E/4E b/c now those critters you knew weren't that tough could be any level (or tough at first with 27 hp kobolds).We never even considered this until a new player (obvious power gamer) played with us and then the next session would comment on how tough the previous encounters were according to the CR charts. We were stumped. As a DM I certainly was, b/c I never put a lot of thought into 'balanced' encounters. I go by habitat, rumours, and the society/life of the creatures.We always liked the Green Dragon anology. If there is a green dragon in the forest, and the PCs go in the forest, well they may encounter it, no matter their level..WE just don't like that PC level determines what each encounter should look like. Adventures often started with a bucnh of hooks and rumours and the PCs would go, "Well we aint ready to be taking on trolls, they are big, and we don't want to go to the haunted ruins yet, or the forest with the green dragon. How about we check out the bandits on the South Road or those crazy kobold rolling stones out at the vineyard?"Hard to explain this style of play after all these years, given the 'structure' of 3E and then 4E. But it was harder to do with those editions.I am all for having something to judge the relative toughness of a critter, just don't define exactly how many should be met every encounter by an average party. And certainly don't write modules that way! Have some easy combats and a really hard one (or even worse).Players have just come to expect to win (or at the very least have a 'fair' fighting chance) for everything they encounter. That doesn't make for a dangerous world. The options "run away", "parley", "bribe", "sacrifice" etc become used so much less in our later games, as the PCs just assumed (and were supported by the math) that every fight was winnable without too much loss.As I adapted to 4E I changed most encounters (rolling randomly most times and this was made easier with more stat blocks later one) so 4 starndard trolls might become a lot worse or a lot easier, as I just used random troll stat blocks.Anyway, 'nuff said. (I realise this isn't for everyone, but it is a style I would like to see supported).</blockquote>

Verification