Pathfinder 1E This is why pathfinder has been successful.

[Neonchameleon]

Ahhh! So basically you have a second non-explicit source of wandering monsters that wander in by DM fiat, but aren't placed into the sandbox directly. Which is essentially a version of the 1e solution of making wandering monsters much more a part of the setting to force a local ticking clock even if you don't have a global one. This is another part of what I mean by comparing people who started with 1e to those who started with 3e.

Many of them really dent my sense of versilimitude; top level predators should be rare, and I don't care if a party of level 6 PCs are almost exhausted - almost anything is easier prey. Most wild animals won't attack humans, and for a very good reason. And it's a lot easier to tell that PCs who've been bloodied by taking the fight the hard way are exhausted, than that PCs have run out of spells.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Ahhh! So basically you have a second non-explicit source of wandering monsters that wander in by DM fiat, but aren't placed into the sandbox directly. Which is essentially a version of the 1e solution of making wandering monsters much more a part of the setting to force a local ticking clock even if you don't have a global one. This is another part of what I mean by comparing people who started with 1e to those who started with 3e.

Many of them really dent my sense of versilimitude; top level predators should be rare, and I don't care if a party of level 6 PCs are almost exhausted - almost anything is easier prey. Most wild animals won't attack humans, and for a very good reason. And it's a lot easier to tell that PCs who've been bloodied by taking the fight the hard way are exhausted, than that PCs have run out of spells.

Tell me - did you bother reading Kingmaker? Really?

It freaking tells you what those monsters are for.

It is not just fiat, read the freaking books again. Those critters are there for use if an encounter is too easy. Using them in that manner is in their descriptions.

At this point, I would say that all the problems you are having do come down to not only letting the PCs enjoy that 15 MAD, but outright encouraging them to do so.

And I suspect that nothing that I say will ever convince you that the biggest problem isn't the game, it is the fellow sitting behind the GM screen. Willful user error is not something that can be corrected except by that user. You are blaming the system for your own mistakes and weaknesses. Then, when other people do not experience those same problems that you have you try to claim that they are playing the game wrong.

Guess what? We aren't playing the game wrong, and if you are having those problems then, sorry, it is by your own choice. You know how to correct the flaws in your game, but have decided not to do so.

I think that I am pretty much done with this conversation, if we continue I will begin getting annoyed and it will slide downhill. You know my view, and I know yours. You have problems with your game, and I don't. I think that my view has the advantage....

The Auld Grump

 

[Banshee16]

Ahhh! So basically you have a second non-explicit source of wandering monsters that wander in by DM fiat, but aren't placed into the sandbox directly. Which is essentially a version of the 1e solution of making wandering monsters much more a part of the setting to force a local ticking clock even if you don't have a global one. This is another part of what I mean by comparing people who started with 1e to those who started with 3e.

Many of them really dent my sense of versilimitude; top level predators should be rare, and I don't care if a party of level 6 PCs are almost exhausted - almost anything is easier prey. Most wild animals won't attack humans, and for a very good reason. And it's a lot easier to tell that PCs who've been bloodied by taking the fight the hard way are exhausted, than that PCs have run out of spells.

I'm really unsure where you think random encounters are not in 3E. They're right in the DMG.

Honestly, I've been reading these comments and it feels to me like you're creating problems for yourself by not including random encounters, then blaming the system for not working. Really, all you have to do is implement some of the rules right in the DMG and the problem would disappear.

As to top predators, whether they avoid people or not is not clear cut. It depends on species, location, food supply, exposure to people and a bunch of other things. Wolves for instance, have been involved in a very small number of attacks in North America in the last 200 years. But the exact same species is responsible for a much higher number of attacks in Europe. In a medieval setting I'd be willing to bet it would be higher.

Banshee

 

[Hautamaki]

All that needs to happen is that players need to be aware that there are penalties for abusing the idea of the 15MAD. If players are abusing it and you don't like it because it's wrecking balance and/or adventure design, just punish them for it with some wandering monsters or the villains powering up their lairs or whatever there's 100 ways to do so that we all know about. One or two object lessons in the dangers of using all your day's allocation of resources in a single encounter and then resting for the rest of the day should be enough to get your players off that style of gaming.

I think that one of the big psychological hurdles you have to overcome is a willingness to punish your players for poor strategic choices. There has been a big movement in D&D over the years to say 'yes' to whatever players say; to give them what they want; allow them to try whatever they want. However this has been conflated in many cases with meaning that players can never make a poor choice and thus it would be wrong to punish them for any choice they make. In my experience, players do not actually want this much narrative control; in world where they can do anything and get away with it, their choices lose all meaning and thus the fun is sucked out of the game.

Therefore as a DM I think it's important to have a vision of what 'good' play is and enforce that vision with real consequences for the players. It doesn't have to be an excessively narrow vision, and certainly the DM should try to remain open to possibilities he/she didn't foresee, but still there does need to be obvious poor choices that are duly punished in order for the game to have any meaning to the players. The DM needs to be willing to kill the PCs at any time if they make poor choices, EVEN IF those poor choices aren't necessarily immediately apparent to them. If you take off the kid gloves, you may find everyone having a lot more fun.

 

[Nightson]

Random Encounters aren't just in 3.5, they're explicit in kingmaker. 5% chance of running into something each time you enter an unclaimed hex and a 15% each time you camp in one according to the book. And the table drawn on has very, very deadly options. The DM is cautioned that not every fight needs to be combat (rolling up 4 trolls for the brand new level one party for example) and that the DM should probably limit them to no more then once a day, that's it.

Those random encounters have a significant effect on reducing the 15 MAD. If you might have to fight a Shambling Mound or a couple of trolls later in the day, you aren't in a hurry to burn through your abilities.

 

[Rogue Agent]

Guess what? We aren't playing the game wrong, and if you are having those problems then, sorry, it is by your own choice. You know how to correct the flaws in your game, but have decided not to do so.

I'd give you XP for this, but I've got to spread it around.

The 15MAD only works in campaigns where the game world is static, unchanging, and unresponsive.

There is this one, narrow type of campaign that allows the 15MAD to happen. But the number of ways in which you can AVOID having a static, unchanging, unresponsive, and (if I dare say it) boring campaign is almost limitless: NPCs that will hunt down the party. Random encounters. NPCs who will reinforce their positions, set-up traps, or call for allies. NPCs with proactive goals they'll go out and achieve if the PCs let them. NPCs who will kill the hostages. NPCs who will pack up their stuff and go somewhere else if the PCs give them time to escape.

And that's all just variations on the theme of "unexpected combat threats". If you diversify you campaign so that it's more than just combat-combat-combat-combat-combat, you'll force the spellcasters to diversify their toolset.

Those random encounters have a significant effect on reducing the 15 MAD. If you might have to fight a Shambling Mound or a couple of trolls later in the day, you aren't in a hurry to burn through your abilities.

And the important thing here is the word "if". You don't need to actually hammer the PCs every single day: You just need to leave them with the expectation that today might be a day they get hammered and they'll start leaving a little something in the tank to deal with it.

Get the spellcasters to hold back 20% of their spells "just in case" and invest another 20% of their spells in non-combat utility (that may or may not come in handy that day) and you'll have put a major shift in balance even before you look at the actual behavior patterns that result: If you're thinking in terms of managing your resources, then maybe you don't blow through three fireballs on the first encounter. Maybe you just weaken 'em up a bit and then let the fighters do their job.

And suddenly the spellcasters realize that their spells are actually a lot more effective and go a lot farther when they're using them intelligently and in concert with the other party members.

 

[S'mon]

Those random encounters have a significant effect on reducing the 15 MAD. If you might have to fight a Shambling Mound or a couple of trolls later in the day, you aren't in a hurry to burn through your abilities.

I think it really all comes down to player psychology. Some will insist on "I must nova NOW, or we will all die!" - and their response to a risk of random encounters is to always retreat to a safe place, or turtle.

Really, I think the 15MAD speaks to a fundamental design imbalance in 3e/PF. I never saw it in 1e, which also had limited-magic casters. Partly it may be that 3e/PF casters are more powerful, but I think it's much more to do with monster/encounter lethality. Every 3e encounter is seen as potentially lethal, everyone wants to go all-out all-the-time. 1e worked that way at 1st level, where short, tense delves were typical IME, but as 1e PCs levelled up they could take on more and more encounters in a row, which balanced with the Magic-Users' increasing power. **Encounter Lethality reduced as PCs levelled up**. By contrast in in 3e/PF the expectation is that encounter lethality stays the same as at 1st level - so PCs behave the way they did at 1st level. THAT is what leads to the 15MAD.

The solution: As PC increase in power, the power of the opposition should not scale commensurately. That whole design paradigm is wrong - it doesn't work with Vancian casting. A 5th level party should face *more* encounters than a 1st level party, not vastly more lethal encounters. This also allows for a much wider range of levels in the adventuring party.

The more I think about it, the more I think this is the problem. By basing the encounter default on a single CR=PL monster that could threaten the entire party, 3e created a cascade of problems with the 1e-2e play balance. Change that, and the 15MAD should disappear.

 

[S'mon]

If you're thinking in terms of managing your resources, then maybe you don't blow through three fireballs on the first encounter. Maybe you just weaken 'em up a bit and then let the fighters do their job.

I think the important thing here is that for most encounters it should be obvious that 3 fireballs is massive overkill. If the PCs meet CR 5 trolls who can rip PCs apart in a single full-round attack, the Wizard-6 will unleash everything he's got. But he won't unleash the heavy artillery vs the war-2 bandits when there's any possibility at all that the group might be meeting CR 5 trolls later.

That's what creates good play balance, and fun tension in the game for the casters - "Do I fireball now, or let the Fighters handle it?" - should be a common question.

Of course at very high level you get scry-and-fry and this breaks down, but I don't think 3e/PF is playable* at those levels. The main thing is to make it fun at what should be the 'sweet spot' levels around 5-10 or 5-12.

*Maybe if you got rid of combat casting, allowed move+full attack, got rid of all the Buff spells...

 

[Nightson]

I think it really all comes down to player psychology. Some will insist on "I must nova NOW, or we will all die!" - and their response to a risk of random encounters is to always retreat to a safe place, or turtle.

Really, I think the 15MAD speaks to a fundamental design imbalance in 3e/PF. I never saw it in 1e, which also had limited-magic casters. Partly it may be that 3e/PF casters are more powerful, but I think it's much more to do with monster/encounter lethality. Every 3e encounter is seen as potentially lethal, everyone wants to go all-out all-the-time. 1e worked that way at 1st level, where short, tense delves were typical IME, but as 1e PCs levelled up they could take on more and more encounters in a row, which balanced with the Magic-Users' increasing power. **Encounter Lethality reduced as PCs levelled up**. By contrast in in 3e/PF the expectation is that encounter lethality stays the same as at 1st level - so PCs behave the way they did at 1st level. THAT is what leads to the 15MAD.

The solution: As PC increase in power, the power of the opposition should not scale commensurately. A 5th level party should face *more* encounters than a 1st level party, not vastly more lethal encounters. This also allows for a much wider range of levels in the adventuring party.

The more I think about it, the more I think this is the problem. By basing the encounter default on a single CR=PL monster that could threaten the entire party, 3e created a cascade of problems with the 1e-2e play balance. Change that, and the 15MAD should disappear.

I can't speak for 1e and 2e, but I see this as the paradigm 4e went for. I think it does cut down on the 15 MAD, but you're losing swinginess and lethality for that, and that's a significant detraction by my own tastes.

 

[S'mon]

I can't speak for 1e and 2e, but I see this as the paradigm 4e went for. I think it does cut down on the 15 MAD, but you're losing swinginess and lethality for that, and that's a significant detraction by my own tastes.

I agree, yes. 4e went all out on the balanced-encounter paradigm, and made it work, but at the price of costs elsewhere in the system.