Status Quo vs. Designed Encounters

[mmadsen]

Well, I was talking to one of my players and told him about this. Thinking I would throw in some Status Quo encounters. He freaked out a bit. He said why put encounters in the world that have nothing to do with the players. He said that would be a waste of time and that I was trying to kill the party. Is this true? That the sole purpose of Status Quo encounters are to kill the party. I thought they made the world a more living breathing thing. What do you guys think?

As Monte makes quite clear in the DMG (p. 100), Status Quo encounters give the world "a certain sense of verisimilitude".

(Aside: "Verisimilitude" is one of those terms you have to use instead of "realism" so people won't give you a knee-jerk response about dragons and fireballs and how none of this is real anyway.)

The purpose of Status Quo encounters is most certainly not "to kill the party", but they obviously can, so Monte warns, "If you decide to use status quo encounters, you should probably let your players know about this....If players know ahead of time that the setting includes status quo encounters that their characters might not be able to handle, they will be more likely to make the right decision if they stumble upon a tough encounter."

How do you get the optimal mix of verisimilitude and nonlethality? First, as Monte and others have pointed out, you have to warn the players ahead of time. There's a lot of subtle meta-gaming going on all the time, and a big part of it is assuming you can tackle what the DM throws at you -- and that you're supposed to. After all, our heroes routinely tackle dangerous quests assuming they'll come out OK, when they have no good in-game reason to believe that.

(Aside: The "Red Queen" nature of D&D encounters can really break verisimilitude. As much as the PCs progress, their enemies progress exactly the same amount. First it's four Goblins, then four Hobgoblins, then four Bugbears, and so on.)

Next, foreshadow Status Quo encounters early in the campaign as background material. Later, when our heroes finally do tackle the dragon in the hills or the king's personal bodyguard, they'll have a strong sense of accomplishment. Before they're ready though, they'll know to run. (Victim alluded to this idea.)

Schmoe makes a great point about giving the party options. If they have legitimate choices, (a) they can't feel too "hosed" by their own decisions, and (b) those choices add even more verisimilitude to the campaign. Everything feels less artificially scripted.

In general, I think the PCs have to encounter monsters and situations they just don't beat in a head-to-head confrontation. Put the PCs up against a Basilisk or Cockatrice long before they have the power to beat it, but make sure they passed an Awakened Dire Weasel along the way; the weasel can kill it for them. Or have a giant, plodding evil marauding through the Dwarven mines. The PCs can't beat it, but they can get around it to rescue trapped miners, and they may hold it off momentarily. Not all encounters should be kill or be killed.

 

[mmadsen]

I agree that status quo encounters should be kept and I have a real hard time understanding how a player could get confused.

Group of 1st level characters: "Man, did you hear? The frost giants are attacking a fortress about a month's travel from here. Let's go reinforce it!"

Most players, not their characters mind you, have a pretty good idea of what power level creatures are and although they shouldn't, they usually use that player knowledge to avoid truly dangerous pitfalls.

Yeah, but new players certainly don't know their capabilities, and even experienced players often meta-game to the point that they assume they'll be OK. Maybe they'll only encounter one giant at a time, or maybe the DM'll drop a giant-slaying artifact into their hands.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Hmmm...interesting discussion. I must say that it is certainly important to have different scaled encounters, but the players should know that not every encounter is going to necessarily be one that they can emerge victorious from. In my campaign, I have humbled the party often. They must retreat, or die. They have lost blood, magic items, pride, and even some friends, because they refused to retreat and admit defeat.

Later on, when they are more powerful, and have done research, and really geared up for stuff, they then have a better chance of success. I just don't usually design encounters so the party can just walk right over them. There are some encounters that are obviously lower level, but the encounters are always designed as to "what makes sense for X to be here?" If it makes sense for X to be there, then it is. If that means that the cave complex is guarded by lower-level Orc warriors, then so be it. If on the otherhand, the party has infiltrated an ancient vampire lord's castle, then they can expect death and fire to be their portion, less they are especially cunning, and have prepared themselves for war in every way, and have the greatest of courage and faith. That particular area is just going to be lethal in every way, and even in the best of plans and skill, there is still only a chance of victory.

The players need to be made aware that they live in a dangerous, vicious, ruthless world. This savage world shall crush every ounce of trust they have out of them; This dark world shall with great, vice-like hands, squeese every drop of compassion out of them and discard them like the used husk of an orange, tossed into the gutter; This dark, violent world shall make demands that they be prepared for war, blood, and death, less they be driven insane; Finally, if they are to avoid an early death, and tossed into a grave of soggy, rain-swept ashes, they must gather within themselves a bright, unbending courage, and an absolute faith to stand fast in righteousness. Anything less, and the world shall devour them like a pack of ferocious jackals.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[ninthcouncil]

Status quo encounters don't kill parties.
Stupid players kill parties

If the players know what sort of campaign they're playing in (and the GM should make sure they do), and it's their choice to deliberately confront an obviously superior foe when they don't have any need to do so.... Ensuring a few chastened survivors is always desirable though.

The players need to be made aware that they live in a dangerous, vicious, ruthless world .... they must gather within themselves a bright, unbending courage, and an absolute faith to stand fast in righteousness.

Absolutely, SHARK, except for the righteousness.

Cause of death: standing fast in righteousness, when silly buggers should have run away.

 

[Darkness]

... it shatters my SOD ...

If somebody shatters your SOD, tell the sodding sod to sod off! </Planescape cant>

 

[Atticus_of_Amber]

"sodding"?

Hmmm. I do like the way that Planescape and Spike from Buffy have brought back turn of the century cockney slang but you people *do* know what "sod" is short for, don't you?

I really hope no one tells Eric's Grandmother...

 

[jasper]

Status quo encounters don't kill parties.
Stupid players kill parties
l

Swords done kill monsters. Charac ters do!
So vote the characters registration Act.
An unknown PC could be entering YOUR Lair!
This has been a paid ad for Alfred Orc for Governor campaign.
Draco Redish Treasurer.

 

[mmadsen]

Later on, when they are more powerful, and have done research, and really geared up for stuff, they then have a better chance of success.

This reminds me of a different issue, one the kills suspension of disbelief is some people: why is it always the party that goes in and faces the monsters by themselves?

How many DMs let the PCs cut the adventure short and come back to the Duke with evidence of a gathering Orc horde so they can return to wipe up the Orcs with hundreds of men-at-arms?

 

[MaxKaladin]

This reminds me of a different issue, one the kills suspension of disbelief is some people: why is it always the party that goes in and faces the monsters by themselves?

How many DMs let the PCs cut the adventure short and come back to the Duke with evidence of a gathering Orc horde so they can return to wipe up the Orcs with hundreds of men-at-arms?

<Raises Hand>
I do.

If they could have taken out the lair alone, well, it's their XP to give up and their reward may be less than what the booty may have been. Still, it's their decision.

I've had players cut things short by reporting lawbreaking to the local authorities rather than taking care of things vigilante style a number of times in my current campaign, for instance. Sometimes the PCs are asked to help anyway due to special knowledge or skills. Sometimes not. It's just part of how the PCs operate and I take that into account. It's more important to me that PCs act the way they really would even if that means going for help.

 

[Mark]

Posted by Danny Vermin (from Johnny Dangerously):
You shouldn't hang me on a hook. My father hung me on a hook once. Once.

The sad fact of the matter is that sometimes PCs die. This can happen when players don't approach Designed encounters carefully just as easily as when they go galavanting off to a Status Quo encounter they have no business trying to tackle.

I'm a firm believer in projecting a world that is vast and varied. But I don't think it is enough to just warn players that some things are currently beyond their abilities. I think the versimilitude is strained when there aren't enough interesting Designed choices of which the PCs are capable of handling. They need to be interesting enough to attract the attention, pose a threat and promise an appropriate reward.

Too often I've seen suggested Designed encounters that are propped up as nibbling at the heels of the real villain. If a situation proposes that you go knock off a few underlings of the local tyrant just to stick a thorn in his side and because it's all you can handle at this level, you're likely to find the party planning a direct assault on the local tyrant in the hopes that dealing with him will be a better solution and glean greater treasure. This will often forego the Designed encounter even if the Status Quo tyrant is far too great a match for the party because they feel the Designed encounter has no direct benefit and not enough importance. If, OTOH, you mention that the underlings are transporting a portion of the tyrant's treasure (including something a local temple needs to perform the Spring Ritual) to another location it becomes a worthwhile adventure.

A large part of what I've noticed at games that feel unchallenging is that the DM wants to move his game along to the Status Quo encounters because he's come up with such a neat idea he just can't wait to get the party there. The interim encounters are presented with a yawn and reaching for the dice...yet again. Keeping a sense of heightened excitment at all levels of play is very important. It helps keep the Designed encounters interesting even if they are not much more than slaying a few kobolds.

Just my two cents...