D&D General Should difficulty increase to match optimization

[briggart]

Both. I don't tune encounters to the PCs capabilities, but intelligents opponent may plan accordingly if they are aware of what the PCs can do. So a T-Rex on the hunt may be in for a nasty surprise if the PCs punch significantly above their weight, the local mob boss for whom the PCs have long been a thorn in the side, may realize he needs to commit his full resource and call in a few favors to get rid of the party.

 

[Morrus]

Generally as a DM I frequently seek to challenge the players, and use encounters accordingly, because I feel that the game is often more fun for everybody when that happens.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sometimes. Part of the fun of optimization is getting to punch above your weight class, and part of the fun is steamrolling content that was supposed to be a challenge. I also generally think the difficulty of the game should be dynamic. You should have a tough time at first, then level up and the difficulty should even out a bit. Eventually you should reach the point where content that used to be hard is now easy, so you get to feel like a badass. And that’s when you should hit a difficulty spike and the cycle should start over.

 

[J.Quondam]

I voted no, but not for the reason specified.*
Each challenge is just the power of whatever it is. No need to make every door extra-unbreakable just because the party has a door-breaker specialist.
The party should seek out challenges appropriate to their power level (whatever that means for them).


* Multiple-choice options shouldn't give qualifiers, as that limits the choices in possibly unintended ways. Let the qualifiers emerge naturally in the replies.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It becomes a ridiculous arms race. Which is why optimization is dumb to do in the first place.

Maybe we can stop with the badwrongfun here? Optimization is a completely valid and fine playstyle. You don't have to like it, you just have to restrain yourself from calling it "dum". Just saying . . .

 

[Xetheral]

My preference is to leave combat difficulty up to the PCs. As long as the GM is accurately telegraphing how powerful various opponents are, the players can make informed choices for their PCs based on how much risk they're comfortable taking. That's true regardless of the party's level of optimization.

Sure, sometimes the PCs will make enemies of an organization that will come hunting for them. In such a case I prefer that the strength of the team sent to deal with the PCs be determined by comparing the enemy's available resources to the amount of trouble the PCs are creating relative to other threats to the organization. Hopefully the PCs are smart enough not to stand out as troublemakers to an organization that could casually wipe them out.

 

[GMMichael]

(And as a side note, that tuning also extends to other types of challenges besides combat.)

I wouldn't call that a side note. It's an important consideration not present in lots of the discussion here: what is being optimized, combat ability or something else? (And which combat aspect is optimized?)

The nature of optimization requires the neglect of a character aspect. Read: optimized characters have big weaknesses. There's no need to "turn up the difficulty of the campaign" because a DM just needs to challenge weaknesses when things seem to be getting too easy.

Also, regarding combat optimization, a PC can't be good at everything. The fighter who smashes up close is probably weak vs. combat magic or ranged fire. Does it not matter, because that PC has All The Hitpoints? Mind control might defeat her. Or wearing the best armor is great, until you have to swim in it. Or until Zombie Fleas crawl up in it...

 

[Ath-kethin]

PCs can optimize all day want. I have a minimum of combat in my games most of the time, and I am upfront about that fact, but the players are free to spend their character development time as they see fit.

 

[Iry]

20% Rule.

20% of the time your player should absolutely shine. Player builds a tank? Let him have moments where he shrugs off hordes of little guys, holding the line and being amazing at what he decided to play. Player builds a CC spellcaster? Let him successfully dominate minds, twist the hearts of leaders, etc. 20% of the time your player should struggle. The tank runs into enemies that attack different saves, or a single big brute that forces a tough choice about taking the damage or not. The CC spellcaster runs into a high save enemy, or just one high save that requires attacking a different save than usual, etc.

I don't remember who came up with the 20% Rule, but what it taught me is to let players have their crowning moments of awesome, to not be afraid to throw challenges they might struggle to overcome, and that both of those things should happen in moderation. 60% of the time, everything is normal.

So my answer to the OP is... both? Sometimes the challenges will be tailored to different players, to really challenge them and keep things interesting. And other times there is no increase in difficulty, to give them moments of badarsery. And often, both are happening in the same skill challenge (one person shining, another person struggling, etc). And sometimes the dice gods make their own stories.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I tend not to actually calculate the CR of encounters, I just throw monsters at the PCs. Most of the time they stomp all over them, but when I want to challenge my players I make sure to throw really tough monsters at them.