[rant] Balance schmalance

[Bendris Noulg]

Yes it does. 3.0E DMG, page 102, Table 4-2: Encounter Difficulty

[Snip]

There . Emphasis mine. That part in the DMG clearly encourages difficult challenges as a part of D&D.

80% of encounters are equal to party or lower... Forgotten about that. One of the reasons I tend to ignore this book... It sucks.

That said, we aren't talking about an adventure, which your quote is discussing, we are talking about a random encounter with a Hill Giant in the wilderness, for which straight CR/EL is more relevant than adventure design.

An encounter, consequently, that Acid Crash's players whined about because they did exactly what I claim over-emphasising balance promotes: A false assumption that charging in is equally viable to thinking it through, which it should almost never be. Remember, it is the manner of people to read what they agree with (and memorize it verbatum) and to overlook what they don't agree with (not munchkinism, per se, but rather just the Human condition of wishful thinking... The favorable part is remembered easier and faster than the non-favorable.).

Maybe they changed it in 3.5E, but that isn't relevant as you said that this started with 3.0E. I quoted to you a part of 3.0E that directly contradicts waht you said. Overpowering ancounters are an encouraged part of the 3.0E D&D experience. YMMV.

Fair enough. However, as Acid Crash's and my own experience seems to be showing, it's not what players expect and something they will complain about when it blows up in their face.

But, like you say, YMMV. I've moved four times in the past 2 years, so maybe I'm just finding poor players (i.e., the good players are already in good games). Unfortunately, the demographics of these players fits the description I gave earlier: Came into gaming via 3E. If I note a change further down the road (Pheonix or Seattle-bound in May; Contract still under negotiation, but I'll likely be there long enough to buy property), I'll be the first to post it. Until then, though, I gotta stand by the personal experiences I've had regarding the result of WotC's labors.

 

[Desdichado]

More on topic, at the last Chicago gameday in November, I had an encounter with some 5th (I think?) level characters -- six of them if I recall correctly, and Dagon, a CR 16 or so Baatezu Lord in Legions of Hell. I thought it was pretty obvious (both from my summary of the game before they even signed up) and the events that were happening in game that they had no chance to defeat this baby in combat, but they still had to make a few ineffectual attacks before they got the message. Actually it helped that William Ronald's character summoned a celestial giant bee to told it to attack. That way I could make comments like, "What are the stats on a celestial giant bee, anyway? Does a 57 attack roll hit it? Yeah? OK, it takes 41 points of damage. Is it still with us?" That kinda helped scare them into running. And it was better than a near TPK too.

 

[Umbran]

Actually, there are more than a few when Xena doesn't appear or appears at the beginning and then again at the end.

Yes, but over the course of the series, does Gabrielle get nearly as much screen time as Xena? No. This is not a criticism of the series as a TV series. In TV, having a single focus character is okay. But it isn't so good in gaming.

While you see an episode focusing on Xena as a game with Gab sitting around bored, I see a solo adventure where Gab doesn't even show up, followed the next week by a session where Gab plays and Xena stays home.

Sorry, you cannot point to the series and say, "This is a good example", and then have to shore it up with things that don't actually appear in the series. We don't see the side adventures. If they are there, they are not mentioned and have no impact on the plot (an indication of how important they aren't). The simple fact is that the program as shown is a poor example of equitable PC importance. Sure, if you throw in things that aren't seen you can balance it up, but then you start getting into the realm of "Friends" being an example of a high fantasy series, it's just that all the magic and spellcasting happen offscreen.

This being aside from the fact that repeated "side adventures" that split up the party are not something that many gaming groups can work with. College students can usually manage to do it, but folks in the working world frequently don't have the extra time.


And, as an aside:

Maybe they changed it in 3.5E...

Don't worry, they didn't. The 3.5e DMG has the same table on page 49.

So, if any player wants to mouth off in terms of "official" balance of encounters, then the DM can point them to the appropriate page in the DMG and explain that encounters that only use 20-25% of the party resources are only a sort of average. In fact the DMG explicitly states that the authors intend there to be a mix of encounters, ranging from easy to nigh-impossible difficulty.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Actually, I'd say Will and Jack were fairly equal level. They fought each other to a standstill when the first met -- their combat prowess brought them to an impasse. Given Will's capabilities, they arguably could be a similar swashbuckler class. I'd say their differences in abilities stem more from Jack probably have a higher INT score, and having spent his skill points in other places, whereas Will had fewer skill points to mess around with in the first place and sunk a fair amount of what he did have into Profession (blacksmith) and Craft (weapons) or something like that.

A few notes, though.

1. Jack was a pirate captain prior to Will being found in the water as a child. That's a good 10+ years.
2. Jack had never actually fought before encountering Jack, just practiced a lot. He was also still an apprentice, likely having recently "come of age" (the girl, after all, had just reached an age to be married off...). His combative style also favors dodging and defense over strike and attack.
3. Most of his stand-off with Jack involved using the smithy environment which Will has intimately familiar with and Jack had only about 10 minutes to map out in his mind. This allowed him to recover a weapon when disarmed, duck below the moving work-wheel, balance on the beams better, and so forth. (By contrast, when on a ship, Jack distinctly has the upper hand as proven by pulling just a single belaying pin and a turn of the helm).
4. It's rather clear that Jack would have rather not killed Will, even after drawing his "one shot". Indeed, alignment wise, I'd put Jack at CN, with good leanings towards people and lawful leanings towards his ship and crew. Will, in contrast, was very interested in killing Jack, but couldn't gain the killing blow dispite his home-court advantage.
5. Jack is either the worst or the greatest pirate that ever lived... Take your pick. Either way, the boy's a lunatic.

Oh, well, the 4 year old's letting me know it's time for father duty. Be back later, folks. Hope this discussion remains productive.

 

[Numion]

80% of encounters are equal to party or lower... Forgotten about that. One of the reasons I tend to ignore this book... It sucks.

That said, we aren't talking about an adventure, which your quote is discussing, we are talking about a random encounter with a Hill Giant in the wilderness, for which straight CR/EL is more relevant than adventure design.

An encounter, consequently, that Acid Crash's players whined about because they did exactly what I claim over-emphasising balance promotes: A false assumption that charging in is equally viable to thinking it through, which it should almost never be. Remember, it is the manner of people to read what they agree with (and memorize it verbatum) and to overlook what they don't agree with (not munchkinism, per se, but rather just the Human condition of wishful thinking... The favorable part is remembered easier and faster than the non-favorable.).

The DMG also addresses Status Quo vs. Tailored Encounters, which is basically what we're talking about here. Status Quo encounters are of the sort that "there are Hill Giants on the Black Cloud Mountains, whether the PCs are 1st or 20th level". Tailored Encounters mean that the encounters are about CR equal to the PCs. There's a great deal in the DMG for writing random encounter tables of varied average ELs, so I'd say it applies to random encounters too.

(I don't see how it's important to the debate whether the encounters are random or not; the same basics still apply - the Hill Giant encounter would've gone exactly the same if the Hill Giant had been a planned éncounter instead of a random one. Or there is some serious metagaming on the players part if they react differently to random encounters.)

DMG allows for the use of both, but encourages DMs to inform players that there are going to be random encounters too hard for them to handle. As far as your statements go the DMG doesn't seem to back them up. Slacking on your rules studying? (Just a joke, I don't use those tables either - just using them to illustrate what D&D was really intended for).

Fair enough. However, as Acid Crash's and my own experience seems to be showing, it's not what players expect and something they will complain about when it blows up in their face.

But, like you say, YMMV. I've moved four times in the past 2 years, so maybe I'm just finding poor players (i.e., the good players are already in good games). Unfortunately, the demographics of these players fits the description I gave earlier: Came into gaming via 3E. If I note a change further down the road (Pheonix or Seattle-bound in May; Contract still under negotiation, but I'll likely be there long enough to buy property), I'll be the first to post it. Until then, though, I gotta stand by the personal experiences I've had regarding the result of WotC's labors.

Claims that 3E invented players whining about too tough encounters are just as asinine as the claims that 3E brought about the first munchkins and powergamers in RPG history! There have always been players unhappy with tough encounters. Hell, thats what half of the strips in Knights of the Dinner Table are based on!

Remember that 3.0E brought a lot of new players into RPGs .. so it's not unlikely to find a player who started with 3.0E and whines about too tough encounters. That doesn't mean the two are related. If their DM had read the adventure suggestions in DMG, that shouldn't be the case.

Until then, though, I gotta stand by the personal experiences I've had regarding the result of WotC's labors.

Well, WotC designers' labors are pretty clear on this subject. 20% of all encounters are labeled as such that they will lead to probable deaths. If your players aren't familiar with such encounters, they haven't played D&D as the designers intended.

 

[MerricB]

In that case, all the changes were pretty much pointless, since they end up giving no more front time to a particular character class than happened under 2d edition or original AD&D in my campaigns.

Oh good - your anecdotal evidence outweighs the evidence otherwise.

IMO, 1E and 2E were most successful at levels 5-9. Before that, the magic-users were too weak. (Play a 1st level MU in AD&D and see how much you get to do). After that, the MUs were too strong.

The balance isn't perfect in 3E, but it's a lot closer than it was in 1E.

Cheers!

 

[hong]

While you see an episode focusing on Xena as a game with Gab sitting around bored, I see a solo adventure where Gab doesn't even show up, followed the next week by a session where Gab plays and Xena stays home.

Do you have any idea what the phrase "spotlight time" means?

Of course, I do this kind of thing all the time, so it likely just seems more natural to me for it to occur. Consequently, when you have a level desparity, solo-treks are a great way to seal it up. For instance, IMC, a 7th Level Channeler (Wizards with Fatigue Rules) decides she wants to go to her Mistress' tower and create a magic item. What does the 4th Level Fighter do for the next month of game time? Simple! An invite to an NPCs home turns into a search for an abandoned mine to reclaim a lost blade of legend. Now, the two reunite after the month is up, the Fighter at Level 5 and the Channeler not likely to reach Level 8 any time soon. Do this 2-3 more times, and the Fighter is up to the Channeler. 2-3 more times, and the Fighter can easily surpass the Channeler (barring Level Drain or death/death-cure effects).

This amounts to the solution to one player being bored for a session, is to spread the love by having the other players be bored for a session. It makes sense, in a fiendishly twisted sort of way.


Hong "LEAST fiendishly twisted DM on EN World" Ooi

 

[jdfrenzel]

On encounter balance

First off, thanks for all the well considered replies! As one poster noted, these types of discussions never get decided one way or another. But the discussion's value isn't in any decision, it's in the process. And I admit that I am honored to have a place in Diaglo's sig. I tip my cocola to you sir!

Just because the encounter exists does not mean that combat is the only solution to it.

I have no problems with balance because the players in the campaign already know that there will be encounters that they cannot defeat with mere brawn.

Living to fight another day is something a DM should let his players know is an acceptable option. He should let them know this long before the first TPK ever happens.

I think he's got it! In my view, a healthy disregard of encounter balance tied with an up-front covenant that such encounters exist accomplishes 3 important tasks in any campaign:

1) PC discretion and valor are increased
2) Younger or new players improve
3) More DM work is finished up front

To explain a bit. If PCs suspect that creatures of any appearance might be more than they can handle, they are much braver when they do engage them. It's true bravery, since the creatures are totally unknown to them. But when they do engage, they do so with a plan and with some measure of caution. Fighters will fight defensively and set escape routes until they have a feel for their enemies. In short, it's easy to be brave if the encounters only make you 20% less alive.

To rebut a bit those who scoffed at dropping a hopeless CR before the players, PCs (the heroes) always have a means to escape. If die-fudging is to be done, this is the place. On the other hand, what if the players were evil and looking for a patron? Perhaps he was badly wounded? Tsk tsk, gentlemen, careful with those assumptions! (For the record, the party was not evil, and the giant was not badly wounded. But anyway...)

Younger and newer players do need lessons, but I agree that death is a hard way to learn it (uh, that sounds really obvious). Finding creative ways to solve problems, using team tactics and picking your fights carefully are good skills in any RPG. Josh Dyal presented a clever and opportunistic method for making it clear to players slow-to-learn that an encounter is Not For Them Yet.

The last one might need some explanation. It is easier to build a small geographic area well than a large area well. Building it small means preparing it for many levels or potential play. Introducing high-level villains to low-level PCs has the advantage of allowing the DM to allow for higher levels from the get go, plants adventure seeds, and generally makes life a bit easier. Those low-level PCs won't stay that way, and when they feel ready fo something tough, they beg to go back to find the giant/dragon/whatever. Near zero prep time for this. Again, fun for players to return from whence they ran and sing "Howdya like me now?"

To be clear, I am a proponent of variety, not PC smack downs or bowling pin kobolds. And I agree that CRs can be a good guideline, but only for balance. If players are being cautious, planning escape routes, and probing their enemies strengths and weaknesses rather than charging in guns blazing, then the CR is only meaningful if everyone rolls 10.5 on a d20. When players do not take these precautions, then CR becomes more important.


--- John

 

[jdfrenzel]

On character balance

I agree with the statements made that players who are ineffective tend to get bored and leave. Big no-no.

But D&D rules attempt to balance characters only in combat. Outside of that, they're all over the place. A 1st-level Bard is probably way better at Diplomacy than a 20th-level Barbarian. I remember lots of posts in House Rules about using mechanical checks against non-mechanical balances - the Forsaker PrC comes to mind as an example.

Hopefully, and in spite of the fact that D&D is very combat heavy, a fair part of the game occurs outside combat. During these times, characters of disparate power levels can win the spotlight with regularity, if the DM is doing his job. When running mixed-level parties, setting up a non-combat objective, then interupting its completion with a combat gives everyone something to do and feel useful ("You young guys grab the orb while we hold off the foul beasts!").

Some players hope only to shine in melee. I shake my head reading the LG forums, where nearly everyone agrees that bards are useless (i.e., can't shine in melee). How sad that these players must never be presented with so few situations and conflicts outside combat! RPGs can be much richer than just fighting, and if you DM to that, then no CRs will help make the characters balanced once the fighting is done.

As for a class being useful all through the levels, I can see some value in this. It's just a bit dull, is all. There was a charm to the game that allowed the Thief to be 3rd level while the MU was just turning 2nd. When the MU held the torche, guarded the door, was invariably made to carry the treasure so the rest could fight, and tried to discern the right moment to cast his rolled-up offensive spell, Light. Alright, for me that was charming. And we still played magic-users knowing this, because eventually we would win the day later on (in melee, of course). I don't remember feeling upset that I wasn't a deadly melee killer when the fighter was, nor did the fighter feel dissed when the mage was. We were a team.

So I guess I'm saying the absence of the spirit of teamwork and/or non-combat challenges and obstacles causes class balance to become more important. And since most feel that the "open the door, kill the monster, take the treasure" style is not as much fun, class balance means little.


--- John

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Drats... I had a post, but the board demon ate it...

Don't feel like repeating it quite yet.

Back tomorrow, folks.