|
5 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 3:28PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
To clarify: a player's normal expectation in 4e is to be able to win any encounter, so set expectations by making it clear to players when they are facing an overly-powerful encounter.
I see.
The reason for that expectation is that it's assumed that if the PCs don't win, then they have died, and it's assumed that this isn't the intention. Set up a very tough encounter in which the PCs aren't in any danger, but can't win just by killing all the monsters, and let 'er rip.
(If the players are interested in the idea, of course, but as an experiment I would hope most players would be up for it.)
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 3:51PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
I see.
The reason for that expectation is that it's assumed that if the PCs don't win, then they have died
Good point.
I was actually thinking that (because encounters are balanced) if the players didn't win, they messed up (and thus were frustrated because they felt like losers).
Conversely, I've had players die without minding because they knew to expect it (indeed, one player's PC died every session in Gamma World, but she was ok with it because she knew it wasn't her fault... Gamma World was just a deadly environment).
But I can see your point where players may have an investment in their character.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 3:57PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
The reason for that expectation is that it's assumed that if the PCs don't win, then they have died
Good point.
I was actually thinking that (because encounters are balanced) if the players didn't win, they messed up (and thus were frustrated because they felt like losers).
Encounter balance is not an exact science. I've seen DMs ask how they can challenge their players... but not kill them. It's a knife edge. If a DM want to challenge them, but not kill them, the only reliable way is to threaten them with failure, but not death.
One issue people people have with that is that the players might not be invested in anything besides their characters (because they assume that they'll be getting necessary treasure if they survive), and so threatening their characters is handy. But players can easily become un-invested in their characters. As shown by:
Conversely, I've had players die without minding because they knew to expect it (indeed, one player's PC died every session in Gamma World, but she was ok with it because she knew it wasn't her fault... Gamma World was just a deadly environment).
But I can see your point where players may have an investment in their character.
There's that, yeah, but death is just boring, even if the players don't care about their characters. Especially if they don't, actually.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 4:33PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Dec 18, 2011
|
Since I don't use the monster manual I have to have to make an educated 'guess' about how hard encounters are, which had them on the verge of defeat a few times. Because of the difficulty of weighing out an encounter I allow myself to change some factors during combat. For example: granting creatures additional HP if they seem to be dying too fast, or lower it if they are too strong. This never trivialized an encounter or made it impossible, it did balance out otherwise malfunctioning encounters.
(as a side-note: I never cheat on my damage or attack rolls, (bad) luck is part of the game)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 4:41PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Since I don't use the monster manual I have to have to make an educated 'guess' about how hard encounters are, which had them on the verge of defeat a few times. Because of the difficulty of weighing out an encounter I allow myself to change some factors during combat. For example: granting creatures additional HP if they seem to be dying too fast, or lower it if they are too strong. This never trivialized an encounter or made it impossible, it did balance out otherwise malfunctioning encounters.
Those are tried and true methods, just not the ones I prefer.
Sometime, try tossing in some tough enemies, but making the encounter about something other than the HP both sides have. Maybe make it about one side or the other trying to get to a certain location, or perform a skill challenge.
(as a side-note: I never cheat on my damage or attack rolls, (bad) luck is part of the game)
Good on ya. But I assume that if the monster was rolling well you'd just lower its HP, wouldn't you?
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 4:57PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Dec 18, 2011
|
Sometime, try tossing in some tough enemies, but making the encounter about something other than the HP both sides have. Maybe make it about one side or the other trying to get to a certain location, or perform a skill challenge.
I have combats containing both these concepts, though I still have much to learn. This is the main reason I registered; I get to run ideas I have or had by more experienced players and hopefully contribute something aswell.
I had an encounter where the group needed to escape from kobold-infested tunnels, litteraly plowing their way through and endless stream of minions in a 20feet wide tunnel (I had decided on a distance they needed to travel, which was a choke-point they could block by knocking down some supports). I also had the minions roll a d6 to hit, with a high static modifier, the goal of this was to have less 'spread' on the attack rolls. This meant that PCs with high defenses would take little or no damage while low-AC targets would get hit most of the time. In they end they naturally formed a defensive perimeter around the 'weaker' characters, and each turn they would clear out some minions (cleave proved to be invaluable) and move forward a few steps.
Good on ya. But I assume that if the monster was rolling well you'd just lower its HP, wouldn't you?
I thought about this, and I wouldn't be able to give an educated answer to this question. Maybe I do, and if I do I am aware this is just as much cheating as changing their attack and damage-rolls. But somehow, for poor old subjective me, this feels different.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 5:05PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Sometime, try tossing in some tough enemies, but making the encounter about something other than the HP both sides have. Maybe make it about one side or the other trying to get to a certain location, or perform a skill challenge.
I have combats containing both these concepts, though I still have much to learn. This is the main reason I registered; I get to run ideas I have or had by more experienced players and hopefully contribute something aswell.
Good plan. I'm no expert myself, but I've had good succes so far.
In they end they naturally formed a defensive perimeter around the 'weaker' characters, and each turn they would clear out some minions (cleave proved to be invaluable) and move forward a few steps.
Cool scene. Consider, though, the amount of adjustment you had to consider, regarding the attack rolls. And what if the PCs hadn't hit on this protective perimeter idea?
Good on ya. But I assume that if the monster was rolling well you'd just lower its HP, wouldn't you?
I thought about this, and I wouldn't be able to give an educated answer to this question. Maybe I do, and if I do I am aware this is just as much cheating as changing their attack and damage-rolls. But somehow, for poor old subjective me, this feels different.
Ok. I understand the desire to fudge. If you're hoping to get away from having to fudge, or to otherwise rescue the PCs from your or their mistakes, you can find advice here.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 5:11PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Dec 18, 2011
|
I am grateful for the feedback I got so far, thanks!
EDIT: The perimeter formed naturally when the more fragile party members got low on the ol' HP, with the defenders still having tons, so I imagine in most cases this will work out.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 6:03PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2011
|
I know that this stance is not touted much on here these days, but I believe that the threat of a TPK or of a character's death offers the players a level of suspense, that to remove from the game, cheats them out of some emotional investment.
if the players know that there is no threat, why even engage in a combat? I mean really... There has to be some balance.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 6:17PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
I know that this stance is not touted much on here these days, but I believe that the threat of a TPK or of a character's death offers the players a level of suspense, that to remove from the game, cheats them out of some emotional investment.
You'd think, but that turns out not to be the case. Try it sometime.
if the players know that there is no threat, why even engage in a combat? I mean really... There has to be some balance.
There is a threat: of failure. And emotional investment can't be forced. If players don't want to feel it, they won't, regardless of the threat. If they do, then they will, regardless of the threat.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
