How Difficult do you like your Campaigns to be?


Gamer Life General Discussion


Hi all,

Curious as to how difficult people like their campaigns to be. I've inferred from some posts that some people prefer that the PCs never die.

Should the players have to pay attention to the descriptions and plan or strategize to survive, or should they be able to basically rush through the adventures without too much concern?

Should the GM only ever offer CR appropriate encounters, or should the PCs be able to get in over their head if they ignore the warnings?

While I understand some people may like one way one time, and another way another time, I'm asking what your preferred style is, if you could only pick one.


I like organic difficulty. That is, there is no singular level of difficulty throughout the game. I think a variety of CRs should exist from low level play to high. A level 1 character in the right spot should face a CR 20 encounter and vice versa with a level 20 character. Now, whether or not it's combat, necessary to "defeat," etc should be all up to the story, what's makes sense for that context, and so on.


Back in our younger, more carefree days I ran games that were pure meat grinders where the players would practically suffer for little or no reward, but they loved the games just the same for the sake of the adventures. But now we barely get together more than once a month so the games have been tamed down so we can accomplish more in one session and get to the end of the adventure/campaign sooner and with less party sorrow.


I like it when I can play intuitively, focusing on whats cool and thematic as an action rather than what it the optimal move right now, without getting smeared; but also feeling like each battle was a close run thing.


My impression on this topic over the years has been that their is a huge range of opinions on the lethality level of a campaign. This can be heavily influenced by such things as whether death is or is not easily reversed. I'd also venture to say that the specific style of the game can have a big impact here. The same group might well choose different lethality levels in different campaigns depending on what sort of mood they where trying to achieve.

It makes a lot of sense, for example, to choose a much higher lethality level for a campaign inspired by the works of H.P. Lovecraft and dealing with horrible Cthulu like monstrosities corrupting the fantasy world as compared to say a heroic campaign about the PCs working their way up to being the rulers of a new land.

All that said I'm currently working with 'a character should die roughly once per four levels' and there is no resurrection in my campaign however Players can make any sort of character for their next PC and they could choose to bring a dead character back with any sort of fantastic story they want but this story must be play a part in how they role play the character from this point forward. If the PCs soul was captured before it escaped into the ether and was transmigrated into a new body, well what does this experience mean for the PC? How did death and rebirth effect the PC? So far my players have chosen not to execute this option so not actually sure how it'd turn out. They just make new characters.

Sovereign Court

Depends? Roleplay heavy, with high character importance and story? I'd prefer not to die unless in a suitably epic way.

Dungeon crawl? Bring on the insanity difficulty. At least APL+1 encounters as a standard. I love a challenge, when it is the point.

Dark Archive

The group I am playing Carrion Crown with is currently fighting CR 14-15 encounters at level 8 if that's any indication; the harder, the better.


I've usually run what I consider to be an average difficulty campaign, but I throw different situations at the players, and if they can't figure it out, the encounters are much more difficult. So far I've had four PC deaths in 12 sessions. So about 1/3 sessions.

The PC deaths have been as follows:
1. a difficult encounter
2. a PC leaving the group and then suffering the effects of a trap
3. a PC leaving the group, walking into the heart of enemy territory and delivering a message. He then tried to escape, but one of the enemies asked a crowd who delivered the message, and the PC stepped forward.
4. a PC challenged the leader of the enemy forces to single combat.

PC death 1 is the only one that really counts IMO. If you leave the group, you're pretty much asking for a death. Also, if you challenge a very powerful opponent to single combat, you're probably going to lose.


I think it’s very uncool if GMs don’t help players understand the next step to the campaign. In one campaign, we were stuck on a puzzle for 4 hours (without a single hint!). And it was a campaign killer.

In video games, if I’m stuck for any longer than 20-30 minutes, I’m just not “getting it” and it’s best if I look at the walk through. And (depending on the game) it’s almost always a good thing. I think you can pretty much use the same logic with RPGs.

With combats, I just don’t want them to be ridiculously easy. Well, some can be easy. But when it comes to bosses, I don’t need there to be 1 person standing at the end, but I also don’t want to see the boss die in 1 round without taking an action. Two extremes, neither of them good.

And just because a boss fight is moderating challenging doesn’t make it good. I want stuff to be unique... and interesting. But that’s just me.

I say I like challenge, but like most people, I don’t like to die. Well, I wouldn’t mind dying if the penalty was much lower (if there was no penalty for dying except not playing the game for a bit, I wouldn’t mind at all). In APs, I definitely don’t want to die more than once per book.


Turn it up to an 11 for me


Here is what I prefer to do, especially when I run my own campaigns and not using given material for story and what not....

Players should face approx. level in CR's about 60% of time, 30% of time they come across below party level encounters. and then 10% is above level.

When it comes to characters dying, I often use the idea of destined warriors. I would rather not see them die often. They do die occasionally and when that happens, I will provide some way to res their character (all my players have too strong of a personal connection to their characters) but only if they were very unlucky in the die rolls or if it should not have happened that way 9/10 times. When I do this i figure creative ways for them to pay for it in game, usually provides fodder for them to spend time and get some more exp.

If they are stupid they deserve death and will have to pay full price for any ressing if they want it.

As far as puzzles, I feel like my puzzles shouldn't be that hard, and can be solved easily but players end up spending far too much time on them...

Scarab Sages

I like the difficulty of the games I run to be tight enough to challenge the players tactically, but still easy enough for lots of fun (not the Dwarf Fortress kind of fun, but fun fun). Its hard enough to replace a PC in a story for whatever reason, making everything abnormally difficult for the sake of hardness just makes it more frustrating for me to ham fist, deus ex machina, or hand wave in new player characters who have to have some way to have the current party's motivation for doing whatever they're doing.

As a player, I like brutally hard, but not redonkulous overwhelming. I love character death, and love throwing together new characters. Also, as a player, I'm not the guy who has to worry about how to fit my new PC in the story!!!

Sovereign Court

I am a very proactive player so I tend to prefer sandbox style of play. I like worlds to explore and mysteries to solve. That said I dont mind a mega-plot on the rails to a point. As long as their is plenty of player agency to engage the encounters(combat, puzzle, social)I can handle it. Carrion Crown is a real good example of that (I was GM though).

I tend to have some old school tendencies in my playstyle. Combat as war is an absolute must. Also, that means that the challenges are deadly and I expect there to be numerous chances for my characters to die. My other players dig it too but maybe not quite as extreme as I. I have a player in his 50's who is a stonecold grognard so hes even more hardcore than I am. Over the years we have worked out a happy medium between us all. On occasion one of us will grow attached to our characters so the addition of hero points has been a wlecome one. (Also, hero points take the sting out of a swingy combat where you may have been killed by no fault of your own.)

I hate high level play in 3E/PF. The APs seem to be custom made for my gaming groups. we are quite ready to call it quits by level 14.


Is "auto-win-while-looking-more-awesome-than-anything-ever" count as a campaign setting?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:
Is "auto-win-while-looking-more-awesome-than-anything-ever" count as a campaign setting?

Not at my table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:
Is "auto-win-while-looking-more-awesome-than-anything-ever" count as a campaign setting?

If you don't fudge, there's no such thing anyway.

For example last session a challenging encounter almost ended with a TPK (3 hp and 1 guy standing). It wasn't intended. If I had intended a killer encounter, I would have needed to cheat and fudge. Fudging and cheating to keep the campaign going is auto-win to me, and the worst part is the players know exactly what you're doing.

In my experience when everything is hard all the time, it gets boring too. And... arduous. Variety is best.

Grand Lodge

Jason S wrote:
Mark Hoover wrote:
Is "auto-win-while-looking-more-awesome-than-anything-ever" count as a campaign setting?

If you don't fudge, there's no such thing anyway.

For example last session a challenging encounter almost ended with a TPK (3 hp and 1 guy standing). It wasn't intended. If I had intended a killer encounter, I would have needed to cheat and fudge. Fudging and cheating to keep the campaign going is auto-win to me, and the worst part is the players know exactly what you're doing.

In my experience when everything is hard all the time, it gets boring too. And... arduous. Variety is best.

That. Also, I tell my players ahead of time what to expect. I'm very forthright about whether they will want to tackle every encounter they're going to come across or not.


Ok seriously though, I was just kidding around. I've obsessed over making challenging encounters for my players for years. Mad props out there to all who've explained and re-explained the math of CRs to numbskulls such as myself. My current fave is Alexander Augunas' excellent guide on the subject.

The reality is I try and play as close to the hilt as I can, adding just enough grit and challenge to fatigue my players without outright TPKs. I make avid use of the 5-room dungeon model slowly amping up challenges along the way. I also have started adding in rolling encounters; that is that Encounter 1: Zombie Hallway/CR 2 might begin with some zombies wandering near the bottom of some stairs in a hallway, but down the hall is an open doorway inside which hides a pair of kobold slingers and a cleric. As the sounds of battle roll down to them they may sneak out and whip off a couple attacks and a channel to keep the zombies going and then take off deeper into the dungeon.

My point is I enjoy challenging my players.

Sometimes I put in too much and the whole party is nearly slain or worse. In such instances I generally pull a James Bond and have them come to awaiting certain death at the hands of the BBEG. More often than not though I don't do enough to challenge my players or they pull something out of their yin-yang that I completely forgot about "Oh, hey, I have this potion of stone to flesh; the paladin ISN'T petrified."

As for non-combat situations I still like to add an element of danger. Sure they're negotiating peacefully with the arrogant dwarven gate guard for entry into the city, but the 2 behind the captain are white knuckling their greataxes and all assembled look like hardened veterans, so no shenanigans if you value your heads.

TLDR: I'm looking for threat, challenge, victory and glory in my games. Nothing less will do.


Hard, but not ganked every session.


Considering how subjective the terms "hard" and "easy" are as relates to this game, I'm not certain how to answer.

I prefer role-playing immersion, find the need for prodigious game mastery as a necessity for success tiresome, prefer foes of intelligence and motivation other than "they're evil," and appreciate the type of game in which challenges are not geared to my current abilities, but rather those which I gauge and to which I respond according to my abilities.


All of our characters have come close to being killed or have been killed at least once. Thank the gods for diamonds and diamond dust! :D
We like the challenge, but we also like the idea that there is a guy at the end of the tunnel with a sign that says "turn back, not your time".


I like having the illusion of difficulty. I tend to get really invested in my characters, or when I'm GMing (which is most of the time) my player's characters. As such, I don't want to see said characters die unless it serves the story. That said, I don't think I'd be opposed to it happening while playing a dungeon crawl or adventure path strait from the book. Every campaign I've played or GMed the characters' story has been worked in to where they are essential to the plot.

The Exchange

It's hard to find a balance, I think.

For example, in my recent campaign I noticed that the PCs are having too easy a time. So I maximized HP for all the monsters, which sort of makes the fights last longer and forces players to distribute resources more carefully. They were still having an easy time so I started running them into APL + 3 encounters regularly... and for several sessions now they had their ass kicked multiple times. So I'm going to decrease difficulty. We'll see how it goes.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I hate to have a character die, but I also don't get upset when a character dies. Being able to play different things always appeals to me, and having a character die opens up the chance of trying something new. As for difficulty, I don't mind either way. Challenging or easy makes no difference to me.


I tend to be somewhat lenient until the point where the PCs can cast/know someone who can cast Raise Dead or Reincarnate. After that point I tend to be a bit more vicious.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / How Difficult do you like your Campaigns to be? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion