Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 98025" data-attributes="member: 2205">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.&nbsp; Both are examples of the same principle: DM fiat controlling the world to make sure the PCs get appropriate challenges for their abilities.&nbsp; I find it extremely odd that anyone would claim that it's the players responsibilities to come up with a &quot;balanced party&quot; yet it's the DMs responsibility to come up with appropriately levelled encounters.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 98025, member: 2205"] 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 [i]their[/i] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification