New Campaign Started...check out the PC's

[Desdichado]

I fail to see whatsoever any difference between balancing the encounter level of the PCs foes and balancing the types of encounters based on party composition. Both are examples of the same principle: DM fiat controlling the world to make sure the PCs get appropriate challenges for their abilities. I find it extremely odd that anyone would claim that it's the players responsibilities to come up with a "balanced party" yet it's the DMs responsibility to come up with appropriately levelled encounters. Both enhance fun for the PCs (for the most part) at the expense of verissimilitude in the world.

So, if you have no problem sending your party of 2nd level PCs against a balor, yet planning a way for them to get away without having to fight him, then you can also send your cleric-less 2nd level party up against a ghast or whatever. Personally, I like to occasionally make encounters that the PCs can't hope to win and let them find out how to avoid the encounter. But, to say that they must go through with the encounter anyway, regardless of their lack of cleric, or wizard, or whatever, and then saying that it's their fault for not picking the right classes: that smacks of bad DMing. And being the poor sod who has to take the class nobody wants to play, just because you know you need to or you'll all die: that smacks of even worse DMing.

 

[jollyninja]

merc

when last i checked, the players were at least as nessisary as the dm in a campaign. if you can not even adapt your precious adventure to be possible for whatever make up of characters you happen to be DMing for, you have no freaking right to DM a campaign. leaving something in an adventure that the pc's are clearly not capable of handling essentialy tells your players that you have no regard for their time, in fact you really must enjoy wasting their time. the time it took them to create characters, all of the sessions leading up to the point that your vision clashed with party ability, wasted time that you can never give back to them.

even worse, you have wasted your own time, every second you have spent planning the course of the campaign, drawing maps, preparing npc's and combatants, doing the countless other things that a good DM does. you spent more time on the campaign then anyone else has, why would you want to end it because nobody in your group was in a magical kind of mood.

the goal as i see it is still to have a good time, how fun is it to go through a tpk because the DM decided that the integrity of his dungeon meant more then the campaign. If the party has no wizards or clerics, do not design a dungeon that requires magic to get through for that campaign.

If all the players decide to play rogues, it is a safe bet that they are not really interested in a straight up face to face combat style game. if the dm's story insists that they do so, it's time that he came up with a new story because nobody but him seems interested. If they do all play fighters and nobody stocks up on potions before setting out, they deserve whatever happens to them, just like the adventurer who goes out looking for a random dragon. have fun dying. if the players do something really stupid they deserve death. but if the DM has decided that a great wyrm black dragon lives in a swamp and the players coincidentally decide at level 4 to explore the swamp. that is not a reason to kill them. that is a time to give them clues that perhaps this is not a place they should be. large half eaten carcasses, dragon fear saves (submerged, nearby dragon), magically poisonedfood ect... if they stay after some repeated warnings then you kill them lol.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Well, Joshua, I can't say that I *force* the players to *do* anything. I don't however, think that it is good DMing to perfectly tailor every encounter to match or avoid the precise strengths or weaknesses of the party. That, I think, is folly.

I do however, believe in roughly balanced encounters that are realistic to the environment, and faithful to it. That means that occasionally, the pc's will have the upper hand if they play well,--which also includes some of their choices. It also means that the pc's will run into odd situations where they don't necessarily have all the perfect answers.

The encounters shouldn't be heavily constructed to compensate because the pc's don't have a wizard. Enemy forces may very well have wizards around--regardless of the pc party composition. That, in my mind, isn't bad DMing--but realism, that eschews being neatly contrived.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Desdichado]

SHARK, I don't think we're really disagreeing. All I'm saying is that a DM shouldn't force -- through his choice of encounters -- PCs to take certain classes. There's a difference between a situation that only a rogue, or only a cleric or only a wizard can handle, and one that is best handled by a rogue or a cleric or a wizard. PC groups shouldn't necessarily be optimized to handle every single situation, but at the same time, they shouldn't have to face situations that they literally can't do anything about, nor can they escape or avoid.

If PCs refuse to recognize that they really can't handle a situation, and fail to take the out, though, yes, they should all bite the big one. But, I believe the out should always be offered. In many cases, the out is simply "win the combat" but with certain class selections, that may not be a realistic option. To force that to be the only solution to any problem is -- still in my opinion -- bad DMing.

 

[merc]

Originally posted by jollyninja
when last i checked, the players were at least as nessisary as the dm in a campaign. if you can not even adapt your precious adventure to be possible for whatever make up of characters you happen to be DMing for, you have no freaking right to DM a campaign. leaving something in an adventure that the pc's are clearly not capable of handling essentialy tells your players that you have no regard for their time, in fact you really must enjoy wasting their time. the time it took them to create characters, all of the sessions leading up to the point that your vision clashed with party ability, wasted time that you can never give back to them.

Well, first of all I don't DM. I'm a player. When I play in a game, I know what sort of world I'm going to play in. I build a character that could live in that world. Other players also build the characters that they want to play the same way. I do not expect the DM to change the way things are run because a fighter can't get through a magically sealed door easily. In the games I play in, there is a plot going on that is greater than our individual party. The fun is how our party interacts and influences the rest of the world. It's never wasted my time before, even if we end up loosing to the bad guy, because it's a challenge and we always play what we want to play. If you want to play a wizard in a world where hand to hand combat is prevelant, go ahead...you just need to be prepared for people wanting to fight you like that.

Originally posted by jollyninja

the goal as i see it is still to have a good time, how fun is it to go through a tpk because the DM decided that the integrity of his dungeon meant more then the campaign. If the party has no wizards or clerics, do not design a dungeon that requires magic to get through for that campaign.

I also think that the goal is to have a good time, but I don't think it's fun if everything is too easy. And letting the integrity of the game stand is not the same thing as killing off the PCs. The PCs have to be prepared for what is coming, through their own investigation and DM hints. My character in the campain I'm in now has died before because she got in the way of our party's dwarven smith(DM's PrC) because he's not much of a fighter. The battle had to be fought to save a village. It didn't waste my time. We also ran into a situation where we had to get ore from a cave system with a Shadow Dragon in it when we were 5th level. We didn't die, but we also went to extremes to avoid it.

Originally posted by jollyninja
if the players do something really stupid they deserve death. but if the DM has decided that a great wyrm black dragon lives in a swamp and the players coincidentally decide at level 4 to explore the swamp. that is not a reason to kill them. that is a time to give them clues that perhaps this is not a place they should be. large half eaten carcasses, dragon fear saves (submerged, nearby dragon), magically poisonedfood ect... if they stay after some repeated warnings then you kill them lol. [/i]

I completely agree with you on those points, and I thought that came across earlier. My DMs don't try to kill my characters, but they present a story that chalenges both me and my character. I would feel greatly disappointed if they didn't.

 

[merc]

Originally posted by jollyninja
when last i checked, the players were at least as nessisary as the dm in a campaign. if you can not even adapt your precious adventure to be possible for whatever make up of characters you happen to be DMing for, you have no freaking right to DM a campaign. leaving something in an adventure that the pc's are clearly not capable of handling essentialy tells your players that you have no regard for their time, in fact you really must enjoy wasting their time. the time it took them to create characters, all of the sessions leading up to the point that your vision clashed with party ability, wasted time that you can never give back to them.

Well, first of all I don't DM. I'm a player. When I play in a game, I know what sort of world I'm going to play in. I build a character that could live in that world. Other players also build the characters that they want to play the same way. I do not expect the DM to change the way things are run because a fighter can't get through a magically sealed door easily. In the games I play in, there is a plot going on that is greater than our individual party. The fun is how our party interacts and influences the rest of the world. It's never wasted my time before, even if we end up loosing to the bad guy, because it's a challenge and we always play what we want to play. If you want to play a wizard in a world where hand to hand combat is prevelant, go ahead...you just need to be prepared for people wanting to fight you like that.

Originally posted by jollyninja

the goal as i see it is still to have a good time, how fun is it to go through a tpk because the DM decided that the integrity of his dungeon meant more then the campaign. If the party has no wizards or clerics, do not design a dungeon that requires magic to get through for that campaign.

I also think that the goal is to have a good time, but I don't think it's fun if everything is too easy. And letting the integrity of the game stand is not the same thing as killing off the PCs. The PCs have to be prepared for what is coming, through their own investigation and DM hints. My character in the campain I'm in now has died before because she got in the way of our party's dwarven smith(DM's PrC) because he's not much of a fighter. The battle had to be fought to save a village. It didn't waste my time. We also ran into a situation where we had to get ore from a cave system with a Shadow Dragon in it when we were 5th level. We didn't die, but we also went to extremes to avoid it.

Originally posted by jollyninja
if the players do something really stupid they deserve death. but if the DM has decided that a great wyrm black dragon lives in a swamp and the players coincidentally decide at level 4 to explore the swamp. that is not a reason to kill them. that is a time to give them clues that perhaps this is not a place they should be. large half eaten carcasses, dragon fear saves (submerged, nearby dragon), magically poisonedfood ect... if they stay after some repeated warnings then you kill them lol. [/i]

I completely agree with you on those points, and I thought that came across earlier. My DMs don't try to kill my characters, but they present a story that chalenges both me and my character. I would feel greatly disappointed if they didn't.

 

[Desdichado]

merc:
Well, first of all I don't DM. I'm a player. When I play in a game, I know what sort of world I'm going to play in. I build a character that could live in that world. Other players also build the characters that they want to play the same way. I do not expect the DM to change the way things are run because a fighter can't get through a magically sealed door easily. In the games I play in, there is a plot going on that is greater than our individual party. The fun is how our party interacts and influences the rest of the world. It's never wasted my time before, even if we end up loosing to the bad guy, because it's a challenge and we always play what we want to play. If you want to play a wizard in a world where hand to hand combat is prevelant, go ahead...you just need to be prepared for people wanting to fight you like that.

That's not really what I was talking about, though. Sure, it is the player's responsibility to make sure his character concept fits into the grand scheme of the campaign. I'm talking about being forced to play a class you don't want to in order to maintain the mythical "balanced party."

I also think that the goal is to have a good time, but I don't think it's fun if everything is too easy. And letting the integrity of the game stand is not the same thing as killing off the PCs. The PCs have to be prepared for what is coming, through their own investigation and DM hints. My character in the campain I'm in now has died before because she got in the way of our party's dwarven smith(DM's PrC) because he's not much of a fighter. The battle had to be fought to save a village. It didn't waste my time. We also ran into a situation where we had to get ore from a cave system with a Shadow Dragon in it when we were 5th level. We didn't die, but we also went to extremes to avoid it.

Tailoring the challenges to the party isn't making anything "too easy" -- that wouldn't be tailored to the party. It's making the challenge appropriate to the party. In KarinsDad's example, he was talking about near total party death because the party lacked the correct specialist. That's not a challenge appropriate to the party either.

I completely agree with you on those points, and I thought that came across earlier. My DMs don't try to kill my characters, but they present a story that chalenges both me and my character. I would feel greatly disappointed if they didn't.

Good! We agree on what makes a good DM! Now, how does requiring that the party have a certain composition of character classes fit into that requirement?

 

[Broken Fang]

WOW...look at all the posts! But lets not get carried away it is a game afterall.
We made the characters at my place and everyone knew what everyone else was making. This is something the party did on their own. The first encounter was perfect for them. Goblins had been raiding farms from an abandoned mansion. With four Rangers it was pretty easy for them to track the gobbos back to their lair and sneak in to attack them. It went relatively easy for the party till the crazed ogre came out and crited one of the PC's! But they still held their own and wiped the nest out. All the PC's survived and recovered in town (the downed PC was healed by their employers cleric).
The second half of the night was spent discovering clues that a goblin force was moving to raid the town. The PC's harried a group of 50 by themselves, as the town defenders prepared for the other force. They actually did a good job, longer ranges with bows, just dropping one or two and taking off. With about 30 left the goblins split up into three groups, the PC's for some reason split up to chase them. One PC hide and intentionally jumped them in HtH. Another came to his aid as he was getting whacked pretty good (this is where I started rolling hot)! PC 1 went down, PC2 was defending his body, as PC 3 entered the fray with goblins chasing her. PC 3 went down and PC 2 moved to cover her body, PC4 was not entering combat and just shotting! He finally entered combat when eveyone told him he was screwing the party since the goblins werre all attacking one guy. He entered combat as PC 2 went down and managed to finish off the last two goblins.
At third level a wizard or sorcerer would havee been a definate help. A cleric (war or even a nature following type) would also have been a help. Like I said earlier I think they realize the error and the two players that still need to make characters might go with some magic ability, while one is thinking of multi-classing to Cleric.
I'm not going to go out of my way to change an encouter because they don't have magic. At the same time I'm not going to just throw things at them they cannot overcome because they do not have magic. It's a bit of give and take. As they approach higher levels and encounters with more powerful creatures/NPC's I believe they will be in for some hurt w/o the magic support! Will just have to wait and see if they adapt.

 

[Broken Fang]

Sammael99 - We tossed the Paladin as nobody decided to play one, but I might be able to recreate it...I actually thin it might still be posted in the House Rules forum. Look for a posting by me there for the Paladin w/o spells.
As for the Ranger this is what we are using:
1. Rangers do not cast spells.
2. Rangers may swap out Ambidexterity and 2-W Fighting for Point Blank Shot and Far Shot.
3. Rangers do not get Favored Enemy.
4 Use the following table for special abilities:

Level Ability
1 Favored Terrain 1, Track
2 Nature Sense
3 Pathfinder
4 Endurance, Run
5 Favored Terrain 2
6 Woodland Stride
7
8 Trackless Step
9
10 Favored Terrain 3
11
12 Animal Companion
15 Favored Terrain 4
20 Favored Terrain 5

Favored Terrain and Pathfinder are both from Dragon Star, the other added abilities are as per the Druid, except Trackless Step adds to DC not just making it impossible to track.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Indeed, Joshua, balancing encounters is important. I believe that as well. I don't purposely design encounters to mold with the pc's weaknesses, or strengths, per se. I simply design realistic encounters consistent with the enemies and campaign environment. Whether the pc's will be able to effectively deal with a particular encounter is up to them, you know?

On occasion, there are encounters that are greater than the pc's--as per campaign realities--but the players can talk, run away, or any number of other responses. Fighting is not always the solution, and if the pc's insited on it all the time, they would no doubt have a short life span!

But it does bring to mind this though, and I agree that the pc's shouldn't be forced to conform to some kind of "party balance." But it is this, again--if the players *choose* to design, let's say a party of all Fighters. That particular composition has many advantages for the players, that they enjoy, doesn't it? In the sense, that they enjoy some advantages over a *balanced* party? However, having a party of all Fighters for example, with those salient advantages in mind, also at different times, would logically endure some disadvantages that a *balanced* party wouldn't suffer. This seems to correspond and balance with the advantages gained. Do you see what I'm saying Joshua?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK