"Unscaled Adventures" -- good, bad or ugly?

[rounser]

It is all about verisimilitude.

Think you're overgeneralising there a bit. Pursuit of verisimilitude can quite easily result in encounters that tend towards the utterly boring or the inescapably deadly. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a lot of verisimilitude can be anti-fun, ruling the fantasy out of swords & sorcery fantasy...e.g. if verisimilitude means no crazy riddle traps or weird magical puzzles in the local mage's dungeon, then I don't want your revolution.

(I see nothing wrong with your example though; if PCs go around picking fights with random high level NPCs, then they reap what they sow.)

As far as the poll goes, I think that wording is about as biased as a kangaroo court.

I don't think the golem examples hold much weight; so long as you follow the rather predictable rules around automatons (i.e. don't touch the chest it's guarding), they tend not to attack. For fans of the idea of verisimilitude foremost, I would point out that verisimilitude to the hilt implies that if your CR-blind wandering encounter table says a black dragon attacks 3rd level PCs, you'll play it to the hilt, and use all of the dragon's capabilities to ensure they don't escape, and do get eaten. Anything less would breach verisimilitude, eh.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

The thing is, if we wanted versimilitude the party would get creamed every time.

The Evil Overlord wouldn't keep his Abominable Horror in his inner sanctum while nosepicking peons gaurded the front gate. He'd put the Abominable Horror right up front and turn the party into hero pâte. Don't talk to me about secret enterances. The second you put in a secret enterance we're right back to talking about encounters appropraite to CR.

So, I can't say that I'm a huge fan of 100% versimilitude. I am a fan of "suspension of disbelief". You keep the adventure as "real" as possible and use conventions of fiction to give the party a fighting chance.

Just my two cents.

 

[Melan]

I don't think the golem examples hold much weight; so long as you follow the rather predictable rules around automatons (i.e. don't touch the chest it's guarding), they tend not to attack. For fans of the idea of verisimilitude foremost, I would point out that verisimilitude to the hilt implies that if your CR-blind wandering encounter table says a black dragon attacks 3rd level PCs, you'll play it to the hilt, and use all of the dragon's capabilities to ensure they don't escape, and do get eaten. Anything less would breach verisimilitude, eh.

Well yes, I use the encounter charts from the 1e DMG. Why did you ask?
So far, there have been no serious accidents. The party spotted a dragon flying overhead once, but they immediately hid in the shrubs and waited until it was safely out of range. In theory, they could run into something very powerful and hostile, but that's the risk associated with leaving well travelled roads and heading off into the wilderness.

 

[rounser]

The party spotted a dragon flying overhead once, but they immediately hid in the shrubs and waited until it was safely out of range.

I bet you didn't use the "who spots who first" rules to determine this, otherwise, without fudging of this sort, they might have ended up dragon chow.

 

[Ed Cha]

I just got Villagoe of Oester in the mail (Thanks Ed!!!) and as I'm slowly reading it there are some notes for the GM. The first one is "Remind PCs at the beginning of the session about options of hiding or running away." Now that's the way to start the game session: Warn the PCs that they can be getting in way over their head. Everything should not be tailored to the PCs level. At low level they should have a chance of running into something powerful, and on the flip side at high level they should also run into very low level thing. My 9th level party last week fought off second level would be assassins.

Yes, that's exactly what I try to create in the World of Whitethorn series: an "open" world where the PCs must decide whether to hide, fight, run, or even bargain when dealing with certain encounters. Some encounters may be too tough for them. If every encounter is specifically tailored for them to kill, then they will. At the same time, some should be relatively easy for them or even too easy to bother fighting against (they could just intimidate and scare the encounter away, after all PCs should feel powerful at times). For example, there should be times when high-level PCs just meet a bunch of lowly bandits on the road attacking an innocent person. So the characters feel like they're in a real organic world.

 

[rounser]

Yes, that's exactly what I try to create in the World of Whitethorn series: an "open" world where the PCs must decide whether to hide, fight, run, or even bargain when dealing with certain encounters. Some encounters may be too tough for them. If every encounter is specifically tailored for them to kill, then they will. At the same time, some should be relatively easy for them or even too easy to bother fighting against (they could just intimidate and scare the encounter away, after all PCs should feel powerful at times). For example, there should be times when high-level PCs just meet a bunch of lowly bandits on the road attacking an innocent person. So the characters feel like they're in a real organic world.

This requires metagaming on the player's part, I'd assume. E.g. Knowing how tough ogres are. D&D is not Everquest, with no "consider" command which tells you whether you're out of your league.

 

[frankthedm]

I like encounters where running is how to survive, though i try and trop a hint or two when the playes should consider using thier feet. As much as i have giving them advice the characters didn't earn, making new charaters takes up valuable game time.

 

[rounser]

I like encounters where running is how to survive,

Best watch the movement rates of the heavies then - if they're faster, this may not be an option...

though i try and trop a hint or two when the playes should consider using thier feet.

Examples of "this is tougher than you and you should run" hints you can drop? I can think of the old standby, an NPC adventurer the PCs know is powerful having wound up a corpse outside the thing's lair, for instance. But there's only so many times you can do that, and I think that "this is tougher than you, run" hints might end up being confused with the more common "the DM is piling on atmosphere and trying to make his monster scarey" stuff.

 

[Deadguy]

Best watch the movement rates of the heavies then - if they're faster, this may not be an option...

Yes, I've encountered this problem - the same applies if you have Small PCs in the party too. If you have access to the appropriate magic items then this can be overcome, but the Run feat starts to look interesting. Depending on the enemy, scattering the party and drawing its attention to someone with better speed can get a monster of everyone else's back.

But I tend to agree that if the DM intends this encounter to be one that the PCs flee from, it behooves him to make this possible, using behaviour, terrain and perhaps treasures. If he doesn't think this through, and puts something terrible in 'for verisimilitude', then it's really just arbitrary PC execution.

Examples of "this is tougher than you and you should run" hints you can drop? I can think of the old standby, an NPC adventurer the PCs know is powerful having wound up a corpse outside the thing's lair, for instance. But there's only so many times you can do that, and I think that "this is tougher than you, run" hints might end up being confused with the more common "the DM is piling on atmosphere and trying to make his monster scarey" stuff.

I think there are quite a few other ways to deal with these clues. D&D3.5 gives us guidelines for using Knowledge skills to know something about a variety of monsters, and even a basic roll can give a 'most people flee from this thing when they encounter it!' clue.

But I think you are right that it can get wearisome for both DM and players to flag these things without just out-and-out telling the players. The standard argument is that players should always assume that something is very dangerous until proven otherwise, and develop tactics accordingly. That, certainly, is how the game started out (read EGG's descriptions of play to get a feel for this style). But not everyone wants to play a game where the party better play like a Special Forces squad or they die. For a more 'fun' romp, this flagging of monsters has to be explicit. And no-one can say this style is wrong: some of us want to escape from worries when we play!

 

[rounser]

Yes, I've encountered this problem - the same applies if you have Small PCs in the party too. If you have access to the appropriate magic items then this can be overcome, but the Run feat starts to look interesting. Depending on the enemy, scattering the party and drawing its attention to someone with better speed can get a monster off everyone else's back.

If the practise of presenting out-of-your-leaguers at sword's length was truly as common as perhaps this poll might suggest, then Run might be up there with Improved Initiative as far as popular feats go.

But I tend to agree that if the DM intends this encounter to be one that the PCs flee from, it behooves him to make this possible, using behaviour, terrain and perhaps treasures. If he doesn't think this through, and puts something terrible in 'for verisimilitude', then it's really just arbitrary PC execution.

And, strictly speaking, these sort of measures may harm suspension of disbelief in their own way, when the safety nets consistently begin to disappear as the PCs gain levels.

I think there are quite a few other ways to deal with these clues. D&D3.5 gives us guidelines for using Knowledge skills to know something about a variety of monsters, and even a basic roll can give a 'most people flee from this thing when they encounter it!' clue.

It does? I guess I'm still wondering why there isn't a Knowledge: Bestiary skill in the game. Too useful? In a world of fantastic beasts, it's a no-brainer that you'd have sages specialising in such knowledge, and that adventurers would make a habit of gathering it. But in 3.0 at least, the issue seems to be ignored or sidestepped.

But I think you are right that it can get wearisome for both DM and players to flag these things without just out-and-out telling the players. The standard argument is that players should always assume that something is very dangerous until proven otherwise, and develop tactics accordingly. That, certainly, is how the game started out (read EGG's descriptions of play to get a feel for this style). But not everyone wants to play a game where the party better play like a Special Forces squad or they die. For a more 'fun' romp, this flagging of monsters has to be explicit. And no-one can say this style is wrong: some of us want to escape from worries when we play!

Well, the EGG description of play also involves such disused ideas as the concept of a player designated as party leader, who sometimes decides what the other PCs are doing for them, and reports it to the DM...very rare nowadays. It's a pity that DMs can only overtly signal to the players that for this adventure, it's time to change pace and go into "Tomb of Horrors" style pensiveness. The singing mushrooms adventure was fun, but now it's time to break out the 10 foot poles and the paranoia, guys.

That, and a lot of the most common archetypes make a point of not acting at all like SWAT teams. E.g. Barbarians, swashbucklers, paladins played as high on valour and low on discretion, chaotic alignment PCs who are chaotic at a tactical level as well as a personality level, dwarves who don't co-operate with elves etc. Maybe the style of play appropriate to the campaign should consistently be a point of discussion before PCs are created, where it isn't already.