D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[AlViking]

If you're running a level-appropriate canned module, do you run the combats as written or do you tweak them on the fly?

I don't run canned modules for my home game, but for public games? I adjust encounters for the group. Depending on if it's people I've run for or even after an encounter I have options for adjusting, not just numbers but also tactics. In general I'm better at tactics than most so it's a matter of getting a read on what people like.

Why, though? If one side or the other is getting hammered then so be it - just let it happen.

I don't get to game nearly as often as I would like so I want the combats to be tough but fair. I also don't want to TPK the party. Although they were forced to surrender a couple sessions ago or it would have been a TPK.

You could run the same tough combat ten times and get ten very different outcomes depending on a host of factors not least of which are dice. For me, if I'm not willing to let all ten of those outcomes occur I'm doing it wrong.

Ideally I do any tweaking (or, if it's a homebrew, have it fully written) before I even know which specific characters the players will have in it. At some point, though, I say to myself "that's it" and lock it in.

I don't adjust things very often, if I do its before combat starts and usually because I goofed and realize it after I do one last read of the monsters. I don't think it matters when I adjust, and I don't really change expected difficulty. Sometimes I realize the difficulty will be different from what I had expected.

Probably wouldn't be an issue if I spent more time on prep or ran more linear games.

If the players then throw me a curveball and go off mission or do something unexpected then of course I have to wing it, but even there if I dream up something that's too easy or too hard it is what it is and they have to deal with it.

Too easy is boring, too hard and I'll want to make it obvious and give them an escape route(s)

 

[Maxperson]

And yes, I do struggle to see how actions which cause the same sorts of effects meaningfully differ simply because the enactor means well. There are cases where that applies--mitigating circumstances, one might say--but I don't see any such circumstances here. The difference seems to be little more than "I know and like doing X to interfere, but Y is unacceptable because it is interference." It's that last bit, the "because it is interference", that I'm catching on. If the reasoning were instead that all interference is bad, but some is an unavoidable badness that one would like to escape from, then that would make sense.

Keep in mind, this is a conversation where folks have repeatedly said that doing things in order to make the experience more interesting or exciting or the like is never okay. Now, though, it seems that it is okay, under various conditions, which seem pretty ad hoc.

Method matters. 10x10=100. So does 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1...........+1+1+1=100. It's not about the result in many cases. It's about how you got there. 10x10=100 is fine to me. The second method there is super annoying.

That's why the cook being there with a sim method is fine, but having her be there just because of a failed lockpick roll isn't.

Also, folks have repeatedly said that doing things where the primary purpose is to make things interesting is not okay in our style of play, but using interesting as a secondary or tertiary factor is fine where there are multiple primary reasons that fit the circumstances and are sim.

 

[Hriston]

In my 5.0E games, I reduce the number of monsters in a given encounter based on an adventuring day budget that depletes throughout the day as the party engages and overcomes opponents in combat. I usually try to do this as part of my prep between sessions to keep things running smoothly.

 

[Faolyn]

I would argue that what you describe isn’t what is happening.

Instead, what you get is more akin to “Trad DMs would never add setting details. Adding setting details is inconsistent with trad DMing”

“But what about Jim. He describes himself as a trad DM and all other posters recognize him as a trad DM and he’s adding details.”

But that's not really what @Hussar is saying. He's saying "You do X? But I've been told by everyone that you can't do X!" No matter what it is you're talking about--if one or two people on the thread say that they do or don't do something, or that GMs do or don't do something, then that seems to be the status quo for him. Or at least, that's how he writes it. I have no idea what he's thinking or personally believes. But he writes as if everyone is supposed to agree on everything--either that, or like he's hoping to stir something up by saying "people (who aren't me) say you're wrong!"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Consider

I know and like doing X to Q​

​

Y is unacceptable because it is R​

Q and R are differentiated on some account. Labelling them "interfere" and "interference" ambiguates them.

EDIT I notice an implied claim in "meaningfully differ" to some proper criteria for differences; so that differences on other criteria are to be discounted. This is the sort of thing I have in mind in "sensitivities"... what different posters notice and care about (what they count as meaningful).


You appear to be arguing that others ought to see Q as R, whereas my recent few posts observe that Q is not from all perspectives identical to R: perhaps explaining failures to see how Q can be favoured whilst R is disfavoured. In evidence of which I cite posts in this thread.

As an aside, "or the like" elides possible differences. For example, I read some to say that they may alter an encounter on the fly to redress balance. Redressing balance isn't exactly "like" making an encounter more interesting or exciting. But I could say that redressing balance isn't a "meaningful" difference, discounting it.

Okay. If someone sees a distinction and uses that to explain their position....and then I say "okay, those things are the same", the onus is on them to actually explain why there is a difference, even if it isn't that important to me.

Not even going to touch the meaningfulness thing. I should not have to accept that "well it was done on Tuesday" (to invent an intentionally obtuse example) is a meaningful difference. When a participant, such as AlViking, has said that it is absolutely unacceptable to alter, modify, insert, remove, or reframe anything in the game for the purpose of making things interesting or exciting or enjoyable, specifically to reject "narrativist" mechanics, only to then specifically say that they do, in fact, alter, modify, insert, remove, or reframe things in the game for the purpose of making things interesting or exciting or enjoyable, that looks really weird and warrants explanation.

Is that specific enough now?

Further, the posters in question are the ones saying that this redress of balance IS to make it more interesting, enjoyable, exciting, etc. I'm taking them at their word, not inserting this myself.

 

[Faolyn]

We're not talking May 5th to June 5th, though; we're talking May 5th at 2:43 p.m. he has five thugs when the combat starts and at 2:44 p.m. somehow there's ten thugs dead on the deck.

Except...

Did the players make an effort to determine how many thugs were in this location ahead of time? Because those five extra thugs aren't going to suddenly and mysteriously materialize (well, I suppose they could if there's magic or teleportation or whatnot). they were in another nearby location--an adjoining room, below decks--and they moved to the combat location during the combat.

In fact, that's a common ability in some games. In Level Up, one of the river dragon's lair features is:

The dragon’s domain supports one or more riverside villages whose livelihoods depend on the dragon’s survival. At the beginning of each round of combat, roll a d6. On a 5–6, 1d4 locals with the statistics of thugs arrive to defend the dragon, acting on the dragon’s initiative. The locals fight until killed or until the dragon instructs them to stop.

In Daggerheart, several Leader adversaries (such as this Pirate Captain) will have features such as:

Reinforcements - Action: Once per scene, mark a Stress to summon a Pirate Raiders Horde, which appears at Far range

So, to you (and others), does it make it OK to add new baddies because the statblock says to? And if so, how is that different from just deciding?

 

[Maxperson]

Okay. If someone sees a distinction and uses that to explain their position....and then I say "okay, those things are the same", the onus is on them to actually explain why there is a difference, even if it isn't that important to me.

Not even going to touch the meaningfulness thing. I should not have to accept that "well it was done on Tuesday" (to invent an intentionally obtuse example) is a meaningful difference. When a participant, such as AlViking, has said that it is absolutely unacceptable to alter, modify, insert, remove, or reframe anything in the game for the purpose of making things interesting or exciting or enjoyable, specifically to reject "narrativist" mechanics, only to then specifically say that they do, in fact, alter, modify, insert, remove, or reframe things in the game for the purpose of making things interesting or exciting or enjoyable, that looks really weird and warrants explanation.

I've shown how the method to get to the result can matter a great deal to people. It alters the feel of the thing sometimes a little, and sometimes by a huge amount.

Further, the posters in question are the ones saying that this redress of balance IS to make it more interesting, enjoyable, exciting, etc. I'm taking them at their word, not inserting this myself.

Speaking for myself, I will only alter an encounter or whatever to make it fair. It's already going to be very fun, enjoyable, interesting, exciting, etc. because we are playing a game that is fun, enjoyable, interesting, exciting, etc. I don't need to be redundant with those things.

 

[Lanefan]

Except...

Did the players make an effort to determine how many thugs were in this location ahead of time? Because those five extra thugs aren't going to suddenly and mysteriously materialize (well, I suppose they could if there's magic or teleportation or whatnot). they were in another nearby location--an adjoining room, below decks--and they moved to the combat location during the combat.

If their presence makes sense given the surrounding fiction, I've got no problem with this.

But if the PCs have reason to believe there's only five plus the captain on board, having an extra five come up from below-decks doesn't make sense; even less so if their presence would have been somewhat obvious due to the boat riding lower in the water than it otherwise would have.

In fact, that's a common ability in some games. In Level Up, one of the river dragon's lair features is:

The dragon’s domain supports one or more riverside villages whose livelihoods depend on the dragon’s survival. At the beginning of each round of combat, roll a d6. On a 5–6, 1d4 locals with the statistics of thugs arrive to defend the dragon, acting on the dragon’s initiative. The locals fight until killed or until the dragon instructs them to stop.

And that level of fanatic support is something the PCs could learn about beforehand, and prepare for. Again, fine with this.

In Daggerheart, several Leader adversaries (such as this Pirate Captain) will have features such as:

Reinforcements - Action: Once per scene, mark a Stress to summon a Pirate Raiders Horde, which appears at Far range

I don't know what that means.

Is this functionally the same as D&D's Monster Summoning spells? Failing that, where do the extra raiders come from and-or where were they before; and could the PCs have known about them ahead of time and thus maybe decided to take them out first?

So, to you (and others), does it make it OK to add new baddies because the statblock says to? And if so, how is that different from just deciding?

If the extra baddies are already present somehow in the fiction and can potentially be learned about by the PCs, all is good. Having them show up out of the blue "just because" is bad. If for example the PCs do some pre-scouting and determine there's ten baddies camped out in the dockside warehouse and five more plus the captain on the boat, then they've every reason to expect that's what they have to deal with.

Which means if they sneak into the warehouse and quietly knock off the ten in there before pressing on to the boat, the warehouse can't provide any reinforcements...unless there's a secret area below it, but then the PCs would in theory have had a chance to find that too.

The problem with adding extra baddies on the fly "just because" is that all too often there should have been some sign of their existence and-or presence earlier, except because they didn't exist yet in the DM's mind no such sign was provided. And that's not fair to the players.

 

[Hussar]

Method matters. 10x10=100. So does 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1...........+1+1+1=100. It's not about the result in many cases. It's about how you got there. 10x10=100 is fine to me. The second method there is super annoying.

That's why the cook being there with a sim method is fine, but having her be there just because of a failed lockpick roll isn't.

Also, folks have repeatedly said that doing things where the primary purpose is to make things interesting is not okay in our style of play, but using interesting as a secondary or tertiary factor is fine where there are multiple primary reasons that fit the circumstances and are sim.

And yet, you have zero problem with a method that just says "=100, make up any math you want to so long as it equals 100". And then claim that this is simulation.

That's what I just don't get. If method matters, and I agree that it does, then why do you have no problems with systems that provide no method. That don't "show their work" as was pointed out some time ago.

It really is baffling to me.

 

[Hussar]

But that's not really what @Hussar is saying. He's saying "You do X? But I've been told by everyone that you can't do X!" No matter what it is you're talking about--if one or two people on the thread say that they do or don't do something, or that GMs do or don't do something, then that seems to be the status quo for him. Or at least, that's how he writes it. I have no idea what he's thinking or personally believes. But he writes as if everyone is supposed to agree on everything--either that, or like he's hoping to stir something up by saying "people (who aren't me) say you're wrong!"

No, this is exactly what Hussar is saying. @FrozenNorth has it exactly right. Perhaps, since someone else clearly understood my meaning, it might be you that is mistaken?