D&D General Why Unbalanced Combat Encounters Can Enhance Your Dungeons & Dragons Experience

[Vaalingrade]

I still think it's good enough, and the fact that it can be eyeballed is a point in its favor, not a criticism in my view.

Do you bake?

Because 'eyeballing it' is, in my experience, the core issue with disaster chefs.

With CR though, saying you can 'eyeball it' isn't really accurate because CR is such a failure of a system, that actual wild guesses based on the illustrations might be more useful when all is said and done.

 

[iserith]

Do you bake?

Because 'eyeballing it' is, in my experience, the core issue with disaster chefs.

With CR though, saying you can 'eyeball it' isn't really accurate because CR is such a failure of a system, that actual wild guesses based on the illustrations might be more useful when all is said and done.

Yes, I bake. But this isn't baking. It's cooking. The recipe is a starting place, to give you an idea of where you might end up, but you don't need to follow the recipe exactly to end up with a good dish.

Strained metaphors aside, you'd have some work to do to prove it's a "failure of a system." It does what it says it does. For some groups, it's going to be on the easy side. That it doesn't do exactly what you want it to do - and frankly, I don't think any game could be as precise as some want it to be - doesn't mean it's a "failure of a system." It just means it doesn't work FOR YOU.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Strained metaphors aside, you'd have some work to do to prove it's a "failure of a system." It does what it says it does.

Except the part where it doesn't. Ghouls, Faeries, high level ground pounders that somehow have never developed thrown rock technology, the existence of terrain-- the list goes on of the things CR is woefully inaccurate about or just never acknowledges.

It's just a hasty label placed over the word 'GUESS' instead of something that is actually helpful for doing what it pretends to do.

 

[iserith]

Except the part where it doesn't. Ghouls, Faeries, high level ground pounders that somehow have never developed thrown rock technology, the existence of terrain-- the list goes on of the things CR is woefully inaccurate about or just never acknowledges.

It's just a hasty label placed over the word 'GUESS' instead of something that is actually helpful for doing what it pretends to do.

If you want a perfect system, keep on looking. You got a long, hard road ahead of you. As I've said upthread, it works fine for most situations and most groups, but needs to be adjusted from time to time. (And encounter difficulty is modified by terrain, by the way, per the rules in the DMG. The book nobody reads.) It's too complex to be on the money every single time. If that's your expectation, you should probably realign your expectations.

I don't even know what the rock technology comment is supposed to be about.

 

[toucanbuzz]

My players expect battles from time to time that can't be won by brute force. They're okay with running. They're okay with mundane weapons passing clearly through a ghost without doing anything. They're okay with seeing a random encounter wandering band of cyclops at 2nd level and knowing it'll murder any one of them with 1-hit.

What they're not okay with is the DM springing any such encounter without any other option except brute force to win. In our last session, the party met 3 such ghosts, bad news when between them they had 1 magical weapon, a wizard on fumes, and a cleric who'd exhausted his "turn undead." Behind them waited an army of the dead, before them a locked door. If no one could get that door open, and quick, the ghosts would probably overwhelm them. Cue the rogue or the wizard (with a knock spell). Someone gets to shine.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If you want a perfect system, keep on looking.

I'm not asking for 'perfect', I'm looking for 'can see the light from competent'. Most RPGs manage this. Because they don't use CR.

 

[iserith]

I'm not asking for 'perfect', I'm looking for 'can see the light from competent'. Most RPGs manage this. Because they don't use CR.

Eight years in with many different groups, I just don't see the problems you apparently see. And D&D 4e doesn't have CR and it isn't great either. I'm playing in a game tonight and we are just stomping these "balanced" encounters to bits. Sounds like the DM should just use it as a guide then bump it up to suit the players, just like all encounter difficulty approaches.

 

[robus]

Eight years in with many different groups, I just don't see the problems you apparently see. And D&D 4e doesn't have CR and it isn't great either. I'm playing in a game tonight and we are just stomping these "balanced" encounters to bits. Sounds like the DM should just use it as a guide then bump it up to suit the players, just like all encounter difficulty approaches.

That’s the bit I’m not getting. The CRs make all kinds of assumptions because to do otherwise is impossible. So the CRs are normalized around a bunch of averages: average party size, average player skill, average terrain etc etc. And for safety, errs on the side of easy.

There are so many knobs a DM can twiddle to make things more exciting, both before and during an encounter. Players regularly trounce your challenges, move up the CR table with either tougher monsters or more of the current level.

Players still making mincemeat of your deadly challenge? Oh dear, looks like reinforcements are coming and they‘re particularly nasty.

I dunno, this game lives or dies by the DMs skill and really I don‘t think I would want the game to be able to be run by just looking up numbers.

(That being said, I still think the game sucks at teaching new DMs the ropes!)

 

[Vaalingrade]

Eight years in with many different groups, I just don't see the problems you apparently see. And D&D 4e doesn't have CR and it isn't great either.

Level was a damn sight better than CR. And it had actual, reasoned backing instead of 'I dunno, it's probably fine they can stunlock or summon T-rexes'.

 

[James Gasik]

That’s the bit I’m not getting. The CRs make all kinds of assumptions because to do otherwise is impossible. So the CRs are normalized around a bunch of averages: average party size, average player skill, average terrain etc etc. And for safety, errs on the side of easy.

There are so many knobs a DM can twiddle to make things more exciting, both before and during an encounter. Players regularly trounce your challenges, move up the CR table with either tougher monsters or more of the current level.

Players still making mincemeat of your deadly challenge? Oh dear, looks like reinforcements are coming and they‘re particularly nasty.

I dunno, this game lives or dies by the DMs skill and really I don‘t think I would want the game to be able to be run by just looking up numbers.

(That being said, I still think the game sucks at teaching new DMs the ropes!)

And that's the real problem. It takes a lot of investment to make these calls, and experience to know how/when to make them. What's a less experienced DM to do except fail, a lot?

 

[James Gasik]

Level was a damn sight better than CR. And it had actual, reasoned backing instead of 'I dunno, it's probably fine they can stunlock or summon T-rexes'.

I'm reminded of what the MtG community always says when Wizards prints an overpowered card. "Oh just put more interaction in your deck. It dies to removal, so it's fine."

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that it is.

There are however many DMs who swear by it.
There is a whole DM subculture of just throwing out enemies randomly with little thought and seeing what happens.
Which is fine. However it limits the type of stories and memories the group can make. But if that group is fine with those stories, it's great but not everyone is.

Which goes back to my point about gauging and telegraphing.

One of the starter dungeons I run is one with 3 groups of antagonists fighting over the dungeons' resources with the groups of good guys.

One group is the Cult of the Crab. They are a group of weak common humanoid cultists. Fights against the mare slaughters if they can't swim away. The only reason why they aren't all dead is that their side of the dungeon is flooded in many areas. Therefore if they can escape there is no following them.

On the other hand the Blue Spears is a orc tribe run by orogs. Their section of the dungeon is well guarded and run like a machine. They have many anti-PC tactics drilled into them and many orogs have PC abilities.

So if you go through the contested areas dungeon, I roll a die to see which groups are in the area. A 1 gets you a cakewalk vs the crazed cultists in cloth and peasant weapons. A 6 get you the Blue Spears and the party better prepare to run once I mention orog.

 

[iserith]

Level was a damn sight better than CR. And it had actual, reasoned backing instead of 'I dunno, it's probably fine they can stunlock or summon T-rexes'.

I see the flaws in both, and the uses for both. Neither is strictly superior in my experience and a tool is only as good as its user. Or have we reached the part of these discussions where the usual handful of posters comes into the thread to criticize 5e but offer nothing for DMs to take away from the discussion?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Criticizing CR is not the unholy sin of criticizing 5e.

But no, you're right. This thread is for praising Hard Mode D&D above others and the DM not having tools to gauge the actual balance of an encounter fits right in with that. The DM not actually having any control of the encounters is the ultimate in unbalanced encounter technology.

 

[iserith]

Criticizing CR is not the unholy sin of criticizing 5e.

But no, you're right. This thread is for praising Hard Mode D&D above others and the DM not having tools to gauge the actual balance of an encounter fits right in with that. The DM not actually having any control of the encounters is the ultimate in unbalanced encounter technology.

Some people enjoy games where the encounters are finely tuned for PCs of a particular level and player skill. Other people enjoy games where it varies sometimes into encounters that can't be resolved with brute force. Some people, like me, enjoy both. But the tools are there for judging difficulty within a reasonable range.

There are however many DMs who swear by it.
There is a whole DM subculture of just throwing out enemies randomly with little thought and seeing what happens.
Which is fine. However it limits the type of stories and memories the group can make. But if that group is fine with those stories, it's great but not everyone is.

Which goes back to my point about gauging and telegraphing.

One of the starter dungeons I run is one with 3 groups of antagonists fighting over the dungeons' resources with the groups of good guys.

One group is the Cult of the Crab. They are a group of weak common humanoid cultists. Fights against the mare slaughters if they can't swim away. The only reason why they aren't all dead is that their side of the dungeon is flooded in many areas. Therefore if they can escape there is no following them.

On the other hand the Blue Spears is a orc tribe run by orogs. Their section of the dungeon is well guarded and run like a machine. They have many anti-PC tactics drilled into them and many orogs have PC abilities.

So if you go through the contested areas dungeon, I roll a die to see which groups are in the area. A 1 gets you a cakewalk vs the crazed cultists in cloth and peasant weapons. A 6 get you the Blue Spears and the party better prepare to run once I mention orog.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. A poster said something that I don't believe anyone has been saying in this thread. Which effectively makes it strawman, at least in this context. Could you clarify?

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. A poster said something that I don't believe anyone has been saying in this thread. Which effectively makes it strawman, at least in this context. Could you clarify?

My point is there are big vocal opinions for and against not represented in this thread that do exist.

There is a vocal DM subculture that is anti-balanced encounter creation and think if each player loses less than 2 PCs, they aren't doing their job.

There is a vocal DM subculture that is pro-balanced encounter creation and think if each encounter should be within a high range of survival.

These aren't strawmen. Entire D&D spinoffs have been designed around one or the other.

 

[iserith]

My point is there are big vocal opinions for and against not represented in this thread that do exist.

There is a vocal DM subculture that is anti-balanced encounter creation and think if each player loses less than 2 PCs, they aren't doing their job.

There is a vocal DM subculture that is pro-balanced encounter creation and think if each encounter should be within a high range of survival.

These aren't strawmen. Entire D&D spinoffs have been designed around one or the other.

Obviously they exist, but it just seems odd to me for someone to raise them when nobody appears to have introduced that particular opinion in the discussion. I may have missed it though.

 

[Enrahim2]

Obviously they exist, but it just seems odd to me for someone to raise them when nobody appears to have introduced that particular opinion in the discussion. I may have missed it though.

At the time I was posting, I thought I had seen someone earlier in the thread posting an argument about death being part of the story, to trivialise the need to balance - and I read your post in light of that. However I am no unable after several quick scans to find what post might have first given me such associations.

Anyway, you do acknowledge that such persons exists, which is good as past me was one of them. I can add that when I post on spaces like this I also tend to keep the lurkers that are not posting in mind.

And even with re-reading I struggle to see what you wanted to contribute into the conversation with your post, if you indeed think my comment to it was completely irrelevant? In particular this particular sentence:

A character dying along the way is just part of that "story.

 

[iserith]

At the time I was posting, I thought I had seen someone earlier in the thread posting an argument about death being part of the story, to trivialise the need to balance - and I read your post in light of that. However I am no unable after several quick scans to find what post might have first given me such associations.

Anyway, you do acknowledge that such persons exists, which is good as past me was one of them. I can add that when I post on spaces like this I also tend to keep the lurkers that are not posting in mind.

And even with re-reading I struggle to see what you wanted to contribute into the conversation with your post, if you indeed think my comment to it was completely irrelevant? In particular this particular sentence:

I did not say your post was irrelevant. I suggested it was criticizing a position that nobody in the thread has to my knowledge taken.

 

[robus]

And that's the real problem. It takes a lot of investment to make these calls, and experience to know how/when to make them. What's a less experienced DM to do except fail, a lot?

A less experienced DM is wise to run published adventures to learn the ropes, and as we know the CR is erring on the easy side, which is actually great for new DMs. Of course, the first encounter in LMoP is a textbook case of throwing DMs in at the deep-end, but as I said, WOTC sucks at teaching the game.