Static vs. Tailored Encounters

[Piratecat]

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

This is true, as static encounters can be lower level as well as higher. Nothing is more fun for powerful adventurers than to occasionally run across the wimpy kobold raiding party. One fireball = krispy fried kobold (tm) and some very grateful commoners!

 

[AZRogue]

This is true, as static encounters can be lower level as well as higher. Nothing is more fun for powerful adventurers than to occasionally run across the wimpy kobold raiding party. One fireball = krispy fried kobold (tm) and some very grateful commoners!

Exactly. Static encounters just mean "encounters designed because they make sense for that location and/or area" instead of designed with the PCs' level in mind. I just couldn't give every possible example so I showed an extreme which doesn't exist often (in my campaigns).

I think I have a 30% static, 70% tailored mix, with only a few lethal static encounters planned for an area. I know PCs appreciate running across the occasional bandit camp of 1st level fighters and rogues (when the PCs are level 12). "How much to cross the bridge? Well, I don't have gold, but I believe I have what you require right here" <draws sword> PCs should be able to shine now and then.

It seems, so far, that I am not unique. A lot of people use some static encounters. That makes me feel better, as I didn't plan on stopping with 4E.

 

[Sphyre]

I use what I like to think of as Tailored Static encounters.

The world exists at least from the point of immersion. I want the world to actually feel like it revolves. It doesn't need to, but the illusion has to be there.

As the players are the focus of the story, if they do stumble across said red dragon, instead of being blood thirsty he may just be really pissed that someone was foolish enough to enter his lair. This would be the cue for the players to run, if they don't run, I'm not going to break immersion, and have the dragon not eat them. The world is a dangerous place, and there are bigger fishes in the sea than you, don't bite off more than you can chew. I'm not here to make situations in which your characters can accomplish anything simply because you're there. But as opposed to a roll for initiative and TPK, they were given a chance to run. In most cases I'm sure I'd give a bit more than that - such as seeing a huge dragon footprint.

Again, I like it when the players know there are bigger fish in the sea than them - and it gives them a sense of accomplishment when they defeat them, or get high enough level to say "Remember that X that was planning Y? Lets see what ever happened with X and see if we can stop Y from happening." If not Y happens and it may or may not come around for the PCS.

For example, I recently finished a campaign. The players fought against a group of people that they knew were evil, but they didn't know what they were up to. Near the end, they found out that the leader was actually an ancient dragon in it's years of twilight attempting to become a dracolich. Obviously a 10th level party could not face the ancient dragon, but they did stop him from becoming a dracolich by stopping his lackeys from finding and gathering all the necessary components. While the story had an "impossible" monster to defeat, they had a way to deal with the situation, and the players actually liked how they did something so significant at level 10.

So I guess you could say, I attempt to take the best from both and weave it into one happy medium for play.

 

[sinecure]

I don't know about you, but my Death Giants almost never take up residence in goblin warrens. I guess you could put me in the static encounters camp because I build everything to fit in the world so it makes sense.

Except I also build everything to the preferences of my players. Everything is tailored to how they want to play anyways, so I think everything including encounters could be called tailored. That puts me in both camps.

 

[S'mon]

...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.

What do you think the DM was simulating? Call of Cthulu?

That wasn't a simulationist DM, that was just a killer DM.

 

[AZRogue]

What do you think the DM was simulating? Call of Cthulu?

That wasn't a simulationist DM, that was just a killer DM.

I agree with you completely. I don't see what happened there as an example of anything less than a DM who wanted to kill the party, or an inexperienced DM who wasn't used to providing plot hooks to his players or clues when they are about to walk into a Really Bad Situation. If I, as a DM, say a meteor falls from the sky and destroys the continent where the PCs are living, I'm not being simulationist. I'm just being a jerk.

 

[SKyOdin]

I have to wonder something about some of the arguments that the static camp are making. There has been some talk that if the party wanders into the lair of the local red dragon or tries to take on the giant fortress while they are still low level, the PCs should not be able to win.

My question is, why is there a red dragon nearby, or a giant fortress that the PCs can get to? What does the existence of these places add to the plot? Is it intended that the PCs eventually go to them? Why would they even be living close to where the low-level PCs start?

I am someone who thinks that every encounter should have some kind of meaning to the plot. If a monster is extraneous to the plot, why would the GM even mention it in the first place?

 

[AZRogue]

From my perspective, it adds verisimilitude to the campaign world to know that there are some creatures and beings out there far more powerful than yourself. One day you may do battle with them, but their presence is felt early on because ... it would. Such things don't live in a vacuum. They don't just pop out of nowhere the day the PCs are high enough to take them on. Likewise, the lowly goblins you defeated at first level don't cease to exist when you hit level 20. They're still there, and if the PCs ride through their camp again the goblins will still exist and PCs will wipe the floor with them.

For some people, the loss of verisimilitude from having only tailored encounters is too great. Having a few Static encounters adds a bit of WEIGHT to the setting, so to speak. The world isn't ONLY constructed as the PCs walk there. It has some form and shape of its own, outside their influence.

 

[Mort]

I have to wonder something about some of the arguments that the static camp are making. There has been some talk that if the party wanders into the lair of the local red dragon or tries to take on the giant fortress while they are still low level, the PCs should not be able to win.

My question is, why is there a red dragon nearby, or a giant fortress that the PCs can get to? What does the existence of these places add to the plot? Is it intended that the PCs eventually go to them? Why would they even be living close to where the low-level PCs start?

I've noticed (and I doubt I'm alone) that players like to feel they're in a living breathing world. Part of this is knowing that there are things out there that they are not now dealing with or that are out of their league.

Also it allows the sense of a building threat. For example, the dragon in the neighboring hills raids the town of the 1st level characters. The goal of the characters at this point is survival. Encounters center around them finding a safe hiding place, evacuating townspeople, helping put out the fires the dragon set etc.

As the characters power grows they can eventually conceive of directly dealing with the dragon, but it's an interesting set piece that constantly makes the PC's think "are we big enough?", "are we good enough?" Just because th answer may be "no" doesn't mean the placement of the dragon is not worthwhile.

I am someone who thinks that every encounter should have some kind of meaning to the plot. If a monster is extraneous to the plot, why would the GM even mention it in the first place?

But the encounter (or potential encounter) doesn't necessarily have to have meaning "right now."

 

[S'mon]

I am someone who thinks that every encounter should have some kind of meaning to the plot. If a monster is extraneous to the plot, why would the GM even mention it in the first place?

I don't run a plot-based game. The high-CR threats in my campaign area are there as potential high level challenges, sources of future adventures, part of simulating a dangerous borderlands area, etc. That there is a powerful red dragon & a frost giant fortress in the area may be very useful when I'm thinking up future antagonist actions, eg a villain could recruit both to head his evil army of DOOM!