Static vs. Tailored Encounters

[rounser]

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

Exactly.

A sign of a world with verisimilitude is having the PCs hear about and find the locked and warded door to the Tomb o' Doom in the graveyard in the PC's village at 1st level...then finally finding the keys to it at 18th level.

Mix in a whole heap of rumours about the Tomb o' Doom throughout the campaign, and that's just gravy.

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?

Because you're running a sandbox campaign rather than a railroad campaign, would be the simplest answer.

 

[Hussar]

Because you're running a sandbox campaign rather than a railroad campaign, would be the simplest answer.

It always makes me giggle that the sandbox crowd automatically equates having a story in the game to railroading and that anything less than absolute freedom in the game is railroading.

It is entirely possible to have a plotline in the game without railroading. Strange but true.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Your question seems somewhat rigged towards saying Static encounters are bad, given the kind of example you cite.

Static encounters of the sort you describe are what I would call a Triggered encounter. That type of encounter is not one that I am not entirely opposed to. However, the players are going to be given every opportunity to discover that doing so would be dangerous long before they trigger it.

Triggered encounters of that sort are most useful for fleshing out a campaign world. You can set it up, and have the players hear of it. Then you provide a reason to go ahead and poke around it, and leave the decision up to them. The only real drawback is if the players never trigger it.

Encounters that are level appropriate are good. But there are a few drawbacks. First, if you only throw fights at the players that they can win. The one time you decide to change it up can backfire. Sometimes you just need to achieve a plot point, or establish someone as a badass.

Now, I use the term Tailored Encounter to describe something different. A level appropriate encounter is just a CR 8 monster against an 8th level party. Outside of some rather specific considerations, the players ought to be able to handle it. A Tailored encounter is a CR 8 encounter against an 8th level party where the opponents are optimized to exploit the parties weaknesses and neutralize the parties strengths.

As an example, consider this party:
8th level Barbarian, high damage output, low AC, likes to run out ahead.
8th level Rogue Archer, uses improved Init and likes to set up flanks.
8th Wizard, classic evoker who tosses Fireballs and Magic Missile
8th level Cleric, Buffs up and wades into melee.

Now, consider an encounter that consists of a group of 3 HD Hobgoblin Warriors with Mounted Archery feats led by a 3rd or 4th Level Sorcerer. The Warriors perpetually move away and shoot. The Sorcerer starts firing away with Blindness spells on the Wizard and Rogue, and drops a Grease spell on the Cleric. If the Sorcerer is hit with Silence, they all retreat and return when the Silence expires.

That encounter is designed to essentially kill the players. Using ranged combat with low HD combatants will neutralize the staggering melee output of the Barbarian. The Rogue and the Wizard have crappy Fort saves, and depend on line of sight to be effective. If they are hit with Blindness, their ability to perform in combat is greatly impaired. Using mounted archery also impedes the Wizards ability to hit the opponents with a blasting spell. The Cleric has a low Reflex save, and is vulnerable to Grease. And even if he does hit the Sorcerer with a Silence spell, the encounter description has them retreating until the Silence spell expires.

From time to time, I will tailor an encounter to exploit the players weaknesses, but I only do so if opponents manage to escape and report back on the tactics that the players use.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[StarFyre]

combined

I use both...

Since I try to make the settings as detailed as I can....there will be stuff there -- natural animals/plants, monsters, other people, etc that are weaker, equal, and stronger than you are.

What I won't do is purposely let something stronger attack them unless i have a true purpose for it, however, that doesn't change the fact that they could run into a guard house and try attacking everyone. There would obviously be some soldiers there higher than them (party is level 5 and 6 now, after about 2.5 years of playing!) so if they really piss them off, they will die for it.

WHen I write up stuff, adventures, places for them to go, or the few things that I force them to go to, those places will be in the range of slightly easier for them , about equal, or just a bit harder.

I still prefer this since it gives the setting a more believability to it. THey don't seem to mind since it helps their roleplaying "oohh the legend of the witch in the mountains...don't go to the mountains...blah blah" THey will use that type of stuff in their acting to make dialogue seem more real and smoother.

I try to avoid simple linear quests (ie. start page 1, go to page 25)...in those style games, statis could be very bad...

in a more 'full breathing world' style campaign, I think they are necessary ...

Sanjay

 

[Incenjucar]

Both.

The world lives and breathes at its own pace, full of minor powers and greater, at all times. Some can be picked off by a band of fire-spitting monkeys, some are threats that can decimate armies, and have done precisely that.

But the world reacts to the PCs, and, as they grow in prominence, they attract the attention of that which was static prior.

Really, it's like a growing river as it moves through a mountain. At first it flows where it's allowed, moving aside for the smallest of pebbles, unnoticed by the greater world. As it grows, it cuts deep, until it drags boulders along with it and carves a deep canyon that the world will not soon obscure, even long after the river dries up.

 

[Sphyre]

It always makes me giggle that the sandbox crowd automatically equates having a story in the game to railroading and that anything less than absolute freedom in the game is railroading.

It is entirely possible to have a plotline in the game without railroading. Strange but true.

Yes, every sandbox DM is automatically assuming.

It is entirely possible for a sandbox DM to have a story as well. Strange but true.

 

[SKyOdin]

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.

Okay, in this example, you decide to send a dragon against the party in order to create a survival situation. You know the PCs can't defeat it at the moment, but you intend for them to be able to overcome it someday. I assume this is one way to motivate the PCs to go adventuring.

Isn't that a tailored encounter? It isn't just throwing a random creature at the PCs to flesh out the world. This dragon was specially chosen by the DM to be stronger than the PCs and threaten them in a specific manner. It is still playing out a role that was designed by the DM.

Just because it can't be killed by the PCs doesn't make a monster Static. A monster that is designed by the DM to be stronger than the PCs is still tailored to fit a specific purpose.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

This is an interesting opinion since nearly every tailored encounter I've seen in the last eight years has been tailored for the PCs to win. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that 90-95% of the encounters are so clearly tailored for the PCs to win that it is practically impossible for the PCs to actually lose (where losing equates to a TPK). One death--may be possible if highly unlikely. But the PCs actually losing? That is only a real possibility in a very very small number of encounters. In fact, it's so small that if I tried, I suspect I could remember every single situation where it was possible in all the D&D I've played since 3.0 came out.

The fact is that the party losing is generally not what any particular encounter threatens. Most encounters threaten the PCs with lost resources and possibly the death of one or two unfortunate party members before the PCs inevitably prevail. After that, the future encounters might threaten the PCs with actually losing since the weakened state of the PC party makes the encounter that much more challenging.

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.

 

[Mort]

Okay, in this example, you decide to send a dragon against the party in order to create a survival situation. You know the PCs can't defeat it at the moment, but you intend for them to be able to overcome it someday. I assume this is one way to motivate the PCs to go adventuring.

Isn't that a tailored encounter? It isn't just throwing a random creature at the PCs to flesh out the world. This dragon was specially chosen by the DM to be stronger than the PCs and threaten them in a specific manner. It is still playing out a role that was designed by the DM.

Just because it can't be killed by the PCs doesn't make a monster Static. A monster that is designed by the DM to be stronger than the PCs is still tailored to fit a specific purpose.

That's an extraordinary broad definition of tailored. By it all encounters are technically tailored because the PC's may at some point encounter them or the DM may have them in proximity with the party.

In my example, the Dragon is attacking the town. The PCs just happen to be there to respond and are not the reason for the attack (sure they "are" in a metagame sense but in that sense everything is there for the players).

But let's back up for a moment and forget about attacking the town.
Lets just say that at 1st level the PCs overhear that there is a dragon strongly rumored to be 100 miles to the west, orcs are raiding settlements to the east, and a few other "adventure leads." Because they are curious they choose to investigate the dragon rumor. They learn that in the last 3 years at least 2 sets of extremely experienced adventurers (read high level) have gone to investigate the dragon and have not come or reported back.

This is clearly a static encounter the dragon has been there for years and will likely remain so regardless of the PCs. The party can investigate or not but if they choose to do so at this stage in their career they are likely in deep dog doo. Still, leaving the potential out there is not wasted space it's a fun encounter for later - even though it likely matters little now.

This whole discussion is somewhat academic though. As has been said, the "best" encounters are those that have elements of both static and tailored because those have the most verisimilitude as well as generally being the most fun for the party (always a good combination).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I'm also a bit surprised that more people haven't taken off from Piratecat's viewpoint.

I've found that I've been using more and more static encounters in writing modules the longer I've written. (Most of my writing has been for Living Greyhawk). The reason I have done so is that one of the problems I have had with the generally tailored nature of a Living Greyhawk mod is that, even when you are very high level, you rarely get the feeling that your character is powerful. You are in town where the 11th level bishop of Pholtus gives you a mission. You walk past the town gates which are guarded by a squad of first or second level warriors led by a 3rd level fighter. You're on the road and you get jumped by bandits. You're tenth level, so the bandits consist of an 11th level barbarian, a 9th level cleric of Erythnul, a 7th level archer, and two Rogue 4/Fighter 1s. (Total EL 13). You get to the village and no-one has heard of the small gang of bandits who could probably have taken out the entire militia of the first town looted it, and burned it to the ground as long as the bishop was away on business. (And since the bishop is an old man with a con penalty from age, they might even have a chance if the bishop was there). Since you are tenth level, every random thug is higher level because he has to be tough enough to challenge you. When you hit 15th level, your wizard is on a par with the weaker members of the circle of eight and while not Lord Robilar, your fighter might expect to be numbered among the best swordsmen in any nation you happen to visit. Random thugs should not be a challenge any more, but you won't actually feel that unless you actually encounter random thugs who do not provide a challenge every now and then.