Community

Aug 31, 2010 -- 1:59AM, Madfox11 wrote:

Aug 30, 2010 -- 1:17PM, lorika wrote:

Or are we just worried that it will take the DM too long to figure out that the encounter is too hard (i.e. near-TPK) before toning it down?

Considering the complaints on the more difficult adventures on these boards and other locations: yes, that is exactly the worry.

As for upgrading difficulty, that is usually not that hard. The easiest and often most effective method for me is changing tactics. It does not work well with the optimized well-organized groups, but in that case you can add hit points, bringing in reinforcement (works especially well with minions), modifying intiative modifiers up, increasing damage output and make recharge a bit easier. Sure, not entirely within DME rules, and not something I do very often, but as long as those at the table give permission (and most do), you are not getting complaints. Mind you, I have had players also do things such as Keithran mentioned, setting some personal challenge levels, like: not using dailies unless they make sense due to the situation, not using healing words, etc.

@Tiaranmal: On the extreme sides of the equation you usually know how things are going early on. In fact, more often than not I can point out these tables the moment they sit down and describe their characters. It is the majority of the middle were I get surprised occassional, especially since for them dice tend to have a huge impact on the game. Nobody wants a TPK, but many players who want a challenge want to walk that edge just before a TPK/deaths and the line between those two points is thin

It just seems a lot easier to me to change tactics in a way that reduces difficulty instead of increases it.  For example, if an effective party stuns the BBEG it's not like the DM can just pretend that the guy is not stunned.  Or if the controller locks a guy down in the corner it's not like the DM can just ignore the fact that he's immobilized and have the guy walk up and attack a striker (unless the DM starts using severe DME to give the guy a teleport power or something - which the players will likely call shennanigans on).  Many players looking for a challenge are not interested in the DM "cheating" to ignore/circumvent their cool powers.  And if we're worried about the DM not being able to properly judge table challenge, adding reinforcements sounds like a bad idea.  Maybe the DM thinks the table is having an easy time of it so they add some extra guys, but now the players struggle because they already used their cool tricks on the first wave and it turns into a grind (or a TPK).  And the DM can't do much at that point to lessen the difficulty again.  Especially since 4e has the "bloodied" condition, the DM can't just have the monster die whenever it's convenient (Player: "I do 10 damage."  DM: "Ok, it's dead."  Players: "Wha??????  But it wasn't even bloodied!").  Players have to suspend their disbelief a lot in D&D.  It seems easier to justify reducing the challenge by using worse tactics, like: "It's an ooze.  It just mindlessly attacks the closest thing." 

If combats in LFR need to be on the easier side because that is what the majority of the players want/need, that's fine.  I'm one of the players that enjoy more of a challenge, but if I am in the minority I can accept that the needs of others outweigh my own (and I'll figure out a way to make the game fun/challenging for me).    I just don't buy the argument that the challenge level should be set low because it's easier for the DM to increase the challenge than decrease it.  It might be helpful if future adventures had more tips for "DME" to make each encounter more or less challenging.  I haven't seen "Glory Tier" in action, but perhaps it successfully fills that need.

Aug 30, 2010 -- 5:11PM, -Aribeth- wrote:

Aug 30, 2010 -- 4:19AM, imaginaryfriend wrote:

Sure, there are players I personally would consider good, better, best and worse or worst.

You are a much better person than me because you are leading me to believe that it would not bother you that those players that you consider as the worst players have the same rewards, levels, loot as your characters.  It also leads me to believe that it would not bother you if those characters were dragged, given, slacked, challenge downgraded basically had a much easier time to achieve what your characters have achieved.

It would bother me at work and it bothers me here... if that is arrogant, then so be it.

It's a game.  And a non-competetive one at that.  So who cares?  And yeah, at work is a different story where rewards are real and tangible.  This is a game with fake rewards.  I'd be pissed at a crappy co-worker getting a promotion over me.  I could care less if Bob the crappy rogue gets xp from a mod.

And people wonder why many perceive the RPGA to be a bunch of elitist snobs.

Aug 31, 2010 -- 5:31AM, lorika wrote:

And if we're worried about the DM not being able to properly judge table challenge, adding reinforcements sounds like a bad idea.  Maybe the DM thinks the table is having an easy time of it so they add some extra guys, but now the players struggle because they already used their cool tricks on the first wave and it turns into a grind (or a TPK).  And the DM can't do much at that point to lessen the difficulty again.  Especially since 4e has the "bloodied" condition, the DM can't just have the monster die whenever it's convenient (Player: "I do 10 damage."  DM: "Ok, it's dead."  Players: "Wha??????  But it wasn't even bloodied!").  Players have to suspend their disbelief a lot in D&D.  It seems easier to justify reducing the challenge by using worse tactics, like: "It's an ooze.  It just mindlessly attacks the closest thing." 

There are a couple of issues:
The DMs who don't adjust at all, regardless of what the table is doing. They're out there - the harder the base challenge of the mod, the more likely they TPK tables.

Reinforcements. These are actually pretty easy to modulate - there's a reason the reinforcement wasn't with the main group - they're not the enemies expecting to get into combat(even if they're tougher than a minion) - when they go bloodied, that's an obvious surrender point for them, even if the combat is going well for the monsters. Or they don't die when hit(because they're not a minion), but as soon as their turn shows up, they run away. Not every monster has to fight to the death.

I would like to see one or two no or one combat mods. Just warn people playing that they might not like it if they have to play combats. It might be interesting to have such mods in one specific story area - a story area about political intrigue, structured similar to the QUES1-1 mod. Players who don't want to play the mods don't have to play them.

Now if only someone known for doing things like that was in charge of a story area...