Static vs. Tailored Encounters

[Arkhandus]

Eh, I use a mix. Some areas are more dangerous than others, though, so as long as the PCs stay in areas that are generally known to be relatively safe (or which is known to have monsters of sorts that the PCs recognize as ones they can handle), they won't have any significant risk of running into big nasties they can't handle.

But it can still happen. I still roll random encounters sometimes rather than just picking out an encounter appropriate to the area. And there are definitely some powerful critters and NPCs around, but most of those are well-known within their home region or city, or at least rumored.

Chances are, if some random spot near civilization or near a well-used road is the lair of some powerful monster, people will have heard of folks disappearing near that area before, or will know of hunters hearing thunderous roars or earth-shaking footsteps in that area sometimes when they're out that way.

But deep wilderness? There lie monsters. Often very big and very nasty monsters. Where no one is around to bother them with pointy magic sticks.


But, y'know? The scariest thing the PCs in my Rhunaria campaign have probably faced is Martus, the friendly but strange, eccentric wizard living in one of the towns they passed through. Not the ancient red dragon they saw out in the desert by the cliffs, who destroyed one PC's hometown and family in their background; not the Green Lord, mighty kobold druid and frequent problem for them in their home region, who commands several mid to high-level kobold sorcerers and druids along with orcish and monstrous minions.

No, it is Martus, the friendly mage who identified their magic items and traded some with them, trained two of them in a bit of magic item creation, and let two of them study for a while in his lab. Martus, the possibly-probably-crazy, maybe-Alienist, maybe-demon-summoner, maybe-unspeakably-evil-to-the-point-where-he-can-be-perfectly-nice-and-still-come-off-as-creepy-and-dangerous, who didn't so much as blink or lose his friendly smile after a random burglar was reduced to ashes by the warding upon Martus' open door. Martus, who seemed to emanate wrongness and sinister purpose, even though by all accounts he's a kindly old man who occasionally makes magic items for the rich people in town.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I think the OP is presenting a kind of false dichotomy that actually doesn't cover the most common case.

I think MOST DMs prepare one or more adventure-paths-on-rails for the party to follow. The beautiful village girl tells you that orcs stole her grandpa, and your PCs know they're off to Orc Country.

Obviously, everything on that adventure path should be fairly well-balanced for the party. It should also be pretty clearly marked-out; if the players aren't "supposed" to tackle the orc fortress head-on, the DM should make it clear that they've got little chance of surviving an attack.

But sometimes players will jump the tracks and decide to attack the town guards, or go fight a neighboring dragon, or charge headfirst into the orc king's fortress. When this happens, all bets are off, and the players might get smooshed in one blow if they wade in over their heads.

Now, I know there are some DMs who improvise everything as they go. And there are other DMs who conscientiously prepare notes about EVERY possible thing in the same hemisphere as the PCs, just in case. But probably the majority of DMs come to the session with at least a few pages of notes on what they expect the party to face. Flexibility is a great DM merit, but helpful guidance is another. The DM should lead the party towards a fruitful and level-appropriate adventure, whether they decide to take it or not.

 

[AZRogue]

Yes, I agree. As a DM I always make it clear (in-game) where the adventure paths lie and the PCs can choose which to pick up and run with and depending on what they do things may be easy or hard, but it's all been crafted with them in mind: tailored.

But I like to have other things out there that fit my setting that the PCs could run in to, even without trying. I deliberately might make a dangerous iron golem out in the forest that has sat there for a hundred years when his creator was killed before him. He attacks anyone in range. If the PCs walk by this area, they will encounter the golem and it will probably be a TPK, but I will provide clues that "something nasty and deadly and ugly lies ahead and it will kill you dead". I leave the clues for them to pick up, but won't prevent the encounter since I like what it adds to the setting to have them. There are some places out there you avoid. But you might want to investigate later.

 

[glass]

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

Not necessarily. Static encounters in some ways make the PCs choices more meaningful, which I consider to be primarily a gamist concern.* If you always tailor encounters to the PCs' abilities, then it doesn't matter what they chose because they will always have just the right tools to deal with the threat at hand. I like a roughly 50-50 mix.

EDIT: Re-reading the OP, I should clarify: I don't mean 50% of encounters should be non-level-appropriate, just not tailored to the PCs specific abilities. Run-away-or-die encounters should be much rarer than that in most cases.


glass.

(* Or I would do, if I didn't consider GNS theory a load of old toss)

 

[glass]

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.

Nah, everybody knows retire adventurers open taverns...


glass.

 

[marune]

Not necessarily. Static encounters in some ways make the PCs choices more meaningful, which I consider to be primarily a gamist concern.* If you always tailor encounters to the PCs' abilities, then it doesn't matter what they chose because they will always have just the right tools to deal with the threat at hand. I like a roughly 50-50 mix.

Static encounters would be like a "sorry, you just have lost the game" square on a board game.

That doesn't make a fun game.

To make fun gamist choices, you don't rely, well at least not 50% of time, on DM winking.

Don't forget that the acceptable range of encounter is not limited to the PC exact level.

 

[S'mon]

Of course there are 'static' encounters IMC, if the PCs seek them out, but the 1st level PCs would have to be crazy to scale the Dragonspire to take on Bezzalt the Terrible, the local red dragon, or climb the highest glacial peaks to invade the Fortress of the Frost Giant Jarl. The PCs are no more likely to accidentally run into Bezzalt than are any other people in the campaign area.

 

[Campbell]

Not necessarily. Static encounters in some ways make the PCs choices more meaningful, which I consider to be primarily a gamist concern.* If you always tailor encounters to the PCs' abilities, then it doesn't matter what they chose because they will always have just the right tools to deal with the threat at hand. I like a roughly 50-50 mix.


glass.

(* Or I would do, if I didn't consider GNS theory a load of old toss)

There are multiple related questions that need to be answered here
1. Are encounters that PCs must overcome in some unconventional way (including avoidance) valuable ?
2. Should encounters against substantially weaker opposition be played out?
3. Is there a game world role for opponents that are substantially weaker or stronger than the PCs?
4. Are encounters that are not designed with some play-oriented goal in mind valuable ?

 

[marune]

There are multiple related questions that need to be answered here
1. Are encounters that PCs must overcome in some unconventional way (including avoidance) valuable ?
2. Should encounters against substantially weaker opposition be played out?
3. Is there a game world role for opponents that are substantially weaker or stronger than the PCs?
4. Are encounters that are not designed with some play-oriented goal in mind valuable ?

1 : In gamist play yes IF all the players understand that the "unconventional ways" are part of the game and I would prefer to have them as much clearly defined as combat.

2 : In gamist play, should combat with opponents who can't win be played out ? I would say no, just quickly describe how the wizard destroyed the goblins with a huge fireball. However, sometimes players like to throw lots of dice to see how powerful their character are, let them do it once in a while.

3. In gamist play, "roleplay/exploration".

4. In any play, of course, some "roleplaying/exploration" is always fun. Even in sim play, GM will minimaly tailor their encounters to make the players discover more about the world (which is the goal of the game indeed).

 

[S'mon]

Static encounters would be like a "sorry, you just have lost the game" square on a board game.

Even if the PCs run into something way over their level without advance warning, that very rarely necessitates a TPK. Smart players know to retreat. I think the assumption that all encounters will be beatable, which is not in the 3e DMG, is what gets PCs killed.

Incidentally one thing that helps the GM running 1e style non-tailored encounters is to use 1e-style parties including a bunch of NPC hirelings and henchmen. When the low level 1e group run into the random frost giant, it kills an NPC, the group runs away; maybe it chases them and kills another NPC before they escape. In standard 3e there are only PCs in the group unless they're 6th+ level with Leadership, so instead of dead NPCs you get dead PCs.

This also works well in Call of Cthulu.