Static vs. Tailored Encounters

[S'mon]

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.

In 1e one always played them out because they only took a few minutes, resulted in resource attrition, and so would be relevant to tougher fights later on. The main reason not to play them out in 3e is just that they often take so darn long; I once spent an entire session on a battle between 13th level PCs and several dozen Duergar of 1st-5th level. It was kinda interesting but 4 hours was way too long for any fight, never mind one where the enemy have no real chance to seriously hurt the PCs.

 

[xechnao]

Here is how I think encounters should work: each encounter is tailored in the campaign as a strategic point (SP). These SPs should relate to other SPs and still be subject to some randomness regarding their condition. PCs should always try to perceive the condition of the various SPs and how they influence each other -then pursue the strategy they want to acheive what ever they want.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I prefer to play with static encounters, with the caveat that my world is 'tailored' such that I contrive to make sure that my PCs either have warning of such creatures, or have a means to escape somehow if they encounter them unexpectedly.

However, in 3E I run a lot of tailored stuff, because I tend to run modules, because it is just too much work for me to create a static world (though I have run one campaign where I did so, and it was quite successful).

The truth is, I find static stuff intrinsically more fun, but some of the tailored modules I can buy (Paizo adventure paths) is of such high quality that it it makes up for the fact that it isn't static.

Ken

 

[glass]

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

Er, how? 'Not tailored to the PCs' != 'instant death just by looking'.


glass.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I use both.

but static encounters should never be unsuspected. They should be either avoidable, or it must be possible to escape.

Having only tailored encounters makes a really boring game, because you can´t lose whatever you do (except for lucky hits). Static encounters will set goals for your players. Sometimes they may even willingly decide to attack a much higher level foe. This will require them to make plans, try to get allies, try to use synergies with their abilities. Or they could just try to sneak in to get something.

Especially in 3.x, surprise and carefull plannings can completely change the outcome of an encounter. (a silence radiating LVL 3 barbarian can easily kill a LVL 7 wizard.)

The random unsuspected encounters should usually be tailored. But not too much and too obvious.
Even some parts of the adventure can be tailored: no matter if the go south or west, they will find...
And some "static encounters" can also be tailored: when the LVL 3 party goes to the dragon lair they will not meet them on an open field or in a cave where is no escape, but in a place where they can hide or escape through a narrow tunnel.

The most important thing for the DM is to make every encounter look as if there was a chance to kill the players if they acted foolish. (not only by luck). I seems to me that 4e will make that easier by reducing randomness.

 

[Wormwood]

Tailored*

Crafting fun set-piece encounters is one of the only pleasures I derived from running 3e. This approach dovetails perfectly with my group's highly cinematic play style.




*Though I think the two encounter styles are on a continuum rather than a dichotomy

 

[med stud]

I guess my encounters are tailored in the sense that I don't randomly insert something that will destroy them. When the PCs are level 2 and raid an orc cave they will not face a level 8 orc barbarian.

If the PCs seek trouble though, they will get it.

 

[Nikosandros]

For me, it strongly depends on the campaign.

In my high level, epic planar-spanning game all encounters are tailored.

In my Keep of the Borderlands game the encounters are basically static. It's up to the PCs to flee from the tougher ones.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I guess my encounters are tailored in the sense that I don't randomly insert something that will destroy them. When the PCs are level 2 and raid an orc cave they will not face a level 8 orc barbarian.

If the PCs seek trouble though, they will get it.

Similar to how I run things.
I think either extreme is foolish. Static encounters only results in a very difficult game to play in (and run) with the normal span of 1-20 levels. Though its more doable in E6.
Tailored encounters only existing in the game world wrecks my fun also as well as my suspension of disbelief.

 

[zoroaster100]

I use tailored encounters. I'm o.k. with having some static encounters in the player's environment so long as going head on against those encounters is something that they players would have to choose conciously and knowingly. For example, I'm o.k. with the authorities in a town or city being too powerful for players to take on if the adventure doesn't require the players to fight them. I'm o.k. with there being a far too powerful monster in the area that the players can seek out if they want to die, so long as it is widely known how to avoid such a legendary danger by avoiding its lair. I don't believe in randomly throwing overpowerful challenges at the players that can result in meanigless unavoidable death.

My first and only experience with simulationist or "static encounter" DMing was very negative. I had been DMing for a while, but that was the first time I got to play as a player. I made a wizard (or was it called a magic user then?). The other player created a paladin. The DM told us there was a dungeon near the village. We went. The first door in the first corridor we opened there was a pack of harpies. They sang. I missed the difficult multiples saves. My character got eaten before he could cast a single spell or roll a single attack. Game over. That sucked.

I rolled up a second character with the same DM. This time we had a big party of eight players, all playing brand new first level characters. We left the village and within a short time had our first encouter: an entire tribe of bugbears led by yuan-ti spell casters who could cast at least fourth level spells such as polymorph other. Most of the party was killed. A few escaped. One character was turned into a small garden snake by polymorph other spell.

We kept playing in this DM's campaign for a few months and eventually most made it to second and third level, though most went through several dead characters during that time. Then the DM had one of his NPC's mention a haunted tree. We thought he wanted to lead us to check it out as a plot hook. We went there and it was filled with specters who level drained us and killed several characters. My character was back to first level and just barely escaped. The entire group of players never again wanted to play with that DM. I never again got to play as a player and have DM'ed since. I will never again play in a campaign of a simulationist DM.