Static vs. Tailored Encounters

[AZRogue]

I'm curious how other DMs handle the distinction between Static vs. Tailored encounters in their games. For clarification, I mean the following:

Static Encounter: An ancient dragon lives beneath the old hill east of the village, which is actually the burial mound to an ancient king. If the PCs poke around the hill, even at level 3, they will unfortunately encounter the ancient dragon and probably all die. They encounter him because he's there and that doesn't change based upon their level.

Tailored: No matter where the PCs go, whether along the road, in the wilderness, or to the tavern for a glass of whiskey, if they have an encounter it will be with enemies appropriate to their level. Maybe a bit more difficult or a bit easier, depending, but still something that they can handle under normal circumstances. If at 3rd level they go the hill with the dragon mentioned above, the dragon won't be home, but maybe one of his offspring will be.

So, which do you use? I know that 3E kind of encouraged the latter with the idea of CL and ECL. In prior editions both options were usually laid out in the DMG (and I'm not saying that 3E didn't let you use Static encounters, just that the system was set up to use tailored encounters).

Myself, I use both. I do have important Static encounters mapped out (usually a few to each area) that are designed because they fit with the story or setting I've devised, even if they would destroy the party completely if they ran across them. I usually try to drop hints to the players if they approach one of these areas (a farmer saw a huge red dragon steal one of his cows and saw the dragon fly back to the hill). If they still go, then they all die.

If the characters are on a specific adventure, and not just tramping along or investigating some non-adventure-related rumor that I always have as background in an area, I tailor the encounters to their level. They're on an adventure and the adventure is usually designed for them specifically. But they know that if they go to the wrong place they CAN run into something beyond their abilities and be forced to run like little girls if they want to survive. It makes them be a bit more cautious and careful (and is a throwback to my 1E days, I think).

So, which do you do? Should 4E (or 3E for that matter) be played with Static encounters out there? Or should the encounters be tailored at all times, with obvious variation to make some more difficult than others? Should the possibility of running into a ancient red dragon at first level exist? Will 4E, as 3E did, use the tailored encounter model so much that players who have never played in prior editions EXPECT all encounters to be tailor made for PCs of their level?

 

[marune]

Static encounters = simulationist play = I don't want to play with you

Tailored encounters = gamist or narrativist play = I may want to play with you

4E seems to admit itself more a gamist than simulationist RPG, so default will probably be tailored. However, static may be mentioned with warnings.

I could elaborate to death on why I don't like simuliationist play and why your example with the dragon can lead to problems during play but we got enough of these threads recently.


Edit : BTW, a ancient red dragon at "1st level" can be used as a plot-device in both gamist/narrativst play, but that doesn't translate to a Static encounter in known usage.

 

[Campbell]

I prefer tailored encounters both as a GM and a player, although I would hesitate to link tailored encounters and all encounters being level appropriate.If handled properly encounters that are not level appropriate can serve various purposes both from a tactical and a narrative stand point, as well as to firmly immerse players more firmly into a given setting.

 

[HeinorNY]

I create tailored adventures, but I think it's important to keep the illusion of a static or "status quo" gameworld to the players. It helps creating the feeling of a living and believable world, and dangerous world too.

If there is a cave with a red dragon, the 1st level players will know that, and if they go there they will face the red dragon (and we'll have a TPK), but going there would never be required for the current story.

Also, the low level party would never enter a cave and find a red dragon inside with me saying "sorry guys, but that's the red dragon cave, unfortunately you failed to gain that knowledge, roll new characters". This would only create the feeling that I'm a jerk.

 

[AZRogue]

Yes, I use Static Encounters much less than I did before (back when the idea of random monster tables reigned supreme) but I don't like the effects when I step away from them completely. If a group of powerful giants have destroyed a frontier keep and taken over, then that's what happens and if anyone goes to the keep they will encounter .... powerful giants. Low level players, if really interested in dealing with the situation, would have to attack it all from the side, gathering info, scouting, attacking supply trains, poinsoning water supplies, wiping out weaker allies of the giants, etc. until they are powerful enough to make a direct attack.

If they want to go in directly and all die because the giants are 12 levels higher than they are, then I figure they learned a valuable lesson. I provide hints, of course, and clues about the dangers involved should they choose that particular background item to be the one they pursue, but if they insist they have to reap the consequences of their actions.

So, like I said, most things are tailored but the static ones are still out there and they investigate those at their own risk.

 

[AZRogue]

I create tailored adventures, but I think it's important to keep the illusion of a static or "status quo" gameworld to the players. It helps creating the feeling of a living and believable world, and dangerous world too.

If there is a cave with a red dragon, the 1st level players will know that, and if they go there they will face the red dragon (and we'll have a TPK), but going there would never be required for the current story.

Also, the low level party would never enter a cave and find a red dragon inside with me saying "sorry guys, but that's the red dragon cave, unfortunately you failed to gain that knowledge, roll new characters". This would only create the feeling that I'm a jerk.

Exactly. I feel you, man, I feel you!!!!

 

[Campbell]

Yes, I use Static Encounters much less than I did before (back when the idea of random monster tables reigned supreme) but I don't like the effects when I step away from them completely. If a group of powerful giants have destroyed a frontier keep and taken over, then that's what happens and if anyone goes to the keep they will encounter .... powerful giants. Low level players, if really interested in dealing with the situation, would have to attack it all from the side, gathering info, scouting, attacking supply trains, poinsoning water supplies, wiping out weaker allies of the giants, etc. until they are powerful enough to make a direct attack.

If they want to go in directly and all die because the giants are 12 levels higher than they are, then I figure they learned a valuable lesson. I provide hints, of course, and clues about the dangers involved should they choose that particular background item to be the one they pursue, but if they insist they have to reap the consequences of their actions.

So, like I said, most things are tailored but the static ones are still out there and they investigate those at their own risk.

I expect to draw some fire for this, but given the above situation I would not play it out unless the players insisted. Instead if my players expressed interest in entering the giants' domain I would take the opportunity to discuss their options and lay out plans on how to proceed on a collective basis. I admit that such a degree of player/GM communication may be at odds with the priorities of some players and GMs (it might interfere with more immersion-oriented play styles), but I'd rather point the game towards more fruitful play (for my style of play).

 

[IceFractal]

Static encounters, in addition to providing verisimilitude, provide something to strive for. It's a great experience to gain in strength and eventually be able to face that dragon you've been hearing tales of, or easily smack around that tribe of lizardmen you used to have to sneak past. So heck yeah, I use them.

Even if your "world" is entirely static encounters though, most of what the party actually faces are basically tailored encounters, because parties tend to go on quests at their own level. The difference is simply that they could go tackle something way above or below them, if they seek it out.


And I posit that everyone uses static encounters, to an extent. If a character, at level 1, decides he's going to go storm the capital city of a kingdom by force, kill the king and all the guards, and take it over ... he's not going to face an equal-level encounter, he's going to fail hard. So the king and militia of that city constitute a static encounter, albeit one that most players will never fight. Likewise, if a high-level player decides to push around a random turnip farmer, that farmer will not suddenly be 15th level (unless the DM is being a jerk, or the setting is extremely strange).

 

[Jack99]

In 2e, my campaigns would be created around static encounters, and it was up to the players to figure out, what would be doable and what wouldn't.

In 3e, I have switched completely to tailored encounters, although there still are static encounters, they are usually somehow related to the meta-plot.

I hope being able to switch more towards static encounters in 4e, although I will never use them as much as I did in 2e.

 

[Voss]

Likewise, if a high-level player decides to push around a random turnip farmer, that farmer will not suddenly be 15th level (unless the DM is being a jerk, or the setting is extremely strange).

Or its the Forgotten Realms, where that seems to be the case on a semi-regular basis. Beware of grey-haired farmers! Odds are, they're retired adventurers.


Anyway, I use both. But there are clearly 'fair warning' signs for anything... excessive. At the same time, if they're really serious about committing suicide, I can accommodate that as well. I've got a legion of skeletons (with leveled commanders) that patrol the main road from the village I intend to start the campaign in to the large city at the other end of the road. Half a dozen people will warn the party about the Legion, and stress they maintain the road, and keep it clear of bandits, marauders and enemies, and that merchant caravans end up tagging along behind out of safety. And when they encounter it, the officers will step forward to talk.

If, after merchants, guards, inn-keepers and so on have stressed that the undead are there to protect travelers, and they still charge 100 or so undead, well... there is only so much you can do to protect people from their own stupidity.

But yeah, they'll hear about the village of ogres off in that direction, and a dragon or two in far off areas, and what happens to non-humans in Imperial lands, but nothing is going to make them go to those places when they can't handle it. Just like while they might slip into Faerie briefly while chasing bandits, they aren't going to end up in the Abyss.