|
Is changing encounters on the fly really a completely different thing from aiming for a particular balance when you design them up front?
Yes, it's 100% different.
Enough so that the former is primarily GM Fiat/I want them to succeed/fail vs. the latter which says - this encounter was designed to be balanced and appropriate when it was written - even though now they hit it at half their hp, didn't research it, or use caution and now they may die.
A GM runs the latter encounter as he wrote it - is not using Fiat or "GM must let them succeed". Because if he runs it as written with dice out in the open and they fail, they didn't succeed.
Amazing concept really.
What if the GM screwed up the balance? It's not like the CR system is infallable.
"You learn more from mistakes than from successes." quoted from some ancient wise person who's name I forget. If the GM messes up the balance they learn from their mistakes and the game gets a little better.
That is a valid play style. After my first three Adventure Path TPKs, I made a character who survived through an entire Adventure Path. It teaches you caution and system mastery and makes success more satisfying.
Very slightly more satisfying.
What if the GM screwed up the balance? It's not like the CR system is infallable."You learn more from mistakes than from successes." quoted from some ancient wise person who's name I forget. If the GM messes up the balance they learn from their mistakes and the game gets a little better.And this campaign dies in a TPK.
Joy.
Does it? You are making a huge assumption. I suppose it can in extreme cases, but that is the rare case not the normal one. Most mature players/GMs accept that this sort of end can happen if both they and the GM screw up. You pick up the pieces and joke about it after the game gets moving again.
You know I have been searching for an analogy for the no XP style and I think I have it. It is like putting training wheels on a bicycle. It KEEPS you perfectly balanced regardless of the skill of the rider.
While I prefer to run without the training wheels it makes perfect sense that some prefer to leave them on. They can focus on learning other elements of the game without unbalancing the levels in the party. In my opinion I like the increased sense of achievement and danger of riding without them, but I can see the allure of leaving them on.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know I have been searching for an analogy for the no XP style and I think I have it. It is like putting training wheels on a bicycle. It KEEPS you perfectly balanced regardless of the skill of the rider.
No, it really doesn't. You can certainly play that way, but as Aux has pointed out running identical challenges over and over will cause people to lose interest. But using XP or not doesn't force you to play that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know I have been searching for an analogy for the no XP style and I think I have it. It is like putting training wheels on a bicycle. It KEEPS you perfectly balanced regardless of the skill of the rider.
No XP style leads to perfectly balanced games? That sounds great! Can you teach me how? Because I've played in APs where we level up by milestone instead of by XP, and it really doesn't seem to affect the balance at all.
You know I have been searching for an analogy for the no XP style and I think I have it. It is like putting training wheels on a bicycle. It KEEPS you perfectly balanced regardless of the skill of the rider.No, it really doesn't. You can certainly play that way, but as Aux has pointed out running identical challenges over and over will cause people to lose interest. But using XP or not doesn't force you to play that way.
You are confusing XP systems with encounter difficulty. Something I did as well in the past. They are NOT equal. It doesn't matter how you hand out XP for the encounter at hand... that only matters AFTER the encounter is over. I am talking about the small differences in XP between party members not encounter balance.
Encounter balance is fairly off topic isn't it? This IS an XP thread.
|
|
You know I have been searching for an analogy for the no XP style and I think I have it. It is like putting training wheels on a bicycle. It KEEPS you perfectly balanced regardless of the skill of the rider.No, it really doesn't. You can certainly play that way, but as Aux has pointed out running identical challenges over and over will cause people to lose interest. But using XP or not doesn't force you to play that way.
I don't think Xp or runnin games without Xp has anything to do with game balance and it isn't relevant to the discussion on the merits of xp or no-xp systems.
And for the record, I think a no xp actually removes a potential headache from AP style play. If you make it from the Hill Giants lair to the Secret waterfall, who cares if you killed x giants/ogres or wardogs or if you dodged them?
If the information about the Secret Waterfall was gained from fighting, stealth, research or guessing they are still there, at the Waterfall. And if it says they should be 5th level by the time they get there then it isn't really a big deal to level everyone up.
Since APs are 100% fixed objective and mostly railroad, getting from points A-D and surviving can be enough of a metric to level up the group as suggested in the module. Since this is built it I can see how the need to micro track xp can be jettisoned if the GM thinks it isn't necessary/worth the effort.
I just don't think xp-less systems work for open games/open objective games without more work than it's worth. For me at least, it would feel too much like Fiat GM awards and control if I didn't place hard points where the PCs would level up in an open world, xp-less game.
Can I design a system for it? Sure.
Would it be worth it? I doubt it - not for all the baggage and doubt it would instill in me as a ref (I have enough of those already).
I am talking about the small differences in XP between party members not encounter balance.
Hang on, when you're talking about XP versus No XP, are you also suggesting giving different amount of XP to different PCs? Because the standard Pathfinder system is to use XP and share it equally among the party.
Yes the characters remain perfectly balanced against each other in a no XP game. No effort needed by the GM or Player.
In an XP game players actively seek advancement through the XP system this can lead to some imbalances between party members depending on the GMs skill with the XP system and how engaged the particular player is in the game. But handled with skill it can lead to some exciting scenes with players trying things they might not have come up with otherwise. If handled poorly it can lead to a crash when people get way out of sync with each other.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes the characters remain perfectly balanced against each other in a no XP game. No effort needed by the GM or Player.
Where is BMX Bandit when you need him?
I don't think we agree about perfectly. Class differences, player skill, and random die rolls mean even characters with equal levels aren't balanced against each other.
And yes the default XP system is little different than a no XP system Matthew, only rewarding differently based on attendance. As a GM gains in skill she usually alters the XP mechanic to better suit her groups play style.
To be honest the "modifying" behavior is a good thing. I often play in mixed groups and that extra bit of encouragement that helps a player out of his shell greatly enhances group dynamics. Once all the players reach an equal skill level in playing the game then riding with or without the training wheels is no different. At that point XP just sort of vanishes into the background anyway.
|
|
What if it's you who screwed up the encounter balance and it came out much tougher than you expected?
Then I need to go back to encounter design basics and get better. Also you can run things slightly underpowered (as pre-designed) until you can get a better handle on: the system, the players, the overall recovery time and resources of the group, etc.
I would tell any new GM to go low until they get a strong handle on things and then ramp things up.
-
Because I can really write up an encounter at a given CR and kill off damn near any party that hits it or another that the same group wipes without a problem.
Again, that goes to knowing your players and their abilities or limitations. Even though this isn't writing fiction it still is writing to an audience. The players are the audience who also are the actors at the same time. If you keep writing encounters that steamroll/tpk your players or ones that they steamroll you, as GM need to get a better understanding of your group of players.
-And whether they hit it with half hit points, properly researched or with enough caution is partly on the GM as well.
Partially yes. The GM has to place the seeds and clues and hint at pacing. The players job is to find them and set the pacing. If all aspects were written well and the leads were dropped/communicated yet the players did not play well or do not find them I have no problem with the resulting outcome.
If they were not written well then I don't have a problem with a GM changing things to address the issue. Changing stats in a fight, during a fight is another story.
-
The design of previous encounters, how much time pressure they're under, what the consequences of stopping to rest are or going back to a safe place, what their opportunities for research were and how much they could find out. All of it based on what the GM designs. And on misunderstandings and bad assumptions because the GM is the only conduit for world information.
This is why good GMs are (imo) hard to come by. Wotc tried to bad-Gm proof the game with their CR/Encounters need to level system - with mixed results and plenty of room to make mistakes.
Encounter design is a tightrope act, that's why I laugh when I hear that it's all GM fiat/GM must let them win arguments. There is in fact a very narrow range a GM has to work with when designing encounters - even those that go way above or below appropriate range - the latter still need to serve a function and need to playable. Even if playable means running away.
-
Or they could just be cocky and walk in unprepared. :)
If you go one tick lower on challenge level (or even lower) this can be a safe default for these kinds of players:
GM - The dying old man reaches out to you, struggling to pull you close to speak to you
Badass one - What does he have? I search his stuff.
Badass two - We don't have time for this, we need to track those raiders!
BA 1 - Maybe they missed something in his gear? I search it for clues
BA 2 - I try to make the guy comfortable till he passes, then we head on the road.
BA 3 - Watching the horizon for trails of smoke or signs of the raiders
GM - The old man struggles to speak and then expires from his wounds
BA 2 to rest of party - "Lets go find this scum and kill these bastards!"
GM - (Cries inside)
This group doesn't care about clues, or going to the church to talk to the priest. They just want to trounce. Going a tick lower on challenge sort of proofs this style of play. It helps these clueless players (not stupid, just not taking the GMs bait to follow clues) and it gives them the game they want.
-
But no. It's really much simpler than that. As long as the dice are in the open and run as written, then it's completely the player's problem. The TPK is fair.
This may sound cold, but yes - it's fair. I've done this before and while the group got upset, they didn't feel cheated or blamed me. They can usually see it coming as it unfolds and they have no one to blame but themselves.
And when it happens they still have a good time. It just adds more to value for when they do succeed.
-
Again, everyone wants something different out of gaming. Some players/GMs want the threat of PC death without actually dying while some players/GMs demand that death and failure be a real thing for their characters even it they get upset (short term) when it does.
In generaly I've rarely seen it work out well. I prefer players to be motivated by in-character goals and rewards and like to keep the metagame rewards minimal to keep them from modifying behavior.
New players or players used to a very different style than the one at your table probably will be looking for things completely different than an in-character motivation to move forward. They may well end up confused or bored. Better to give them a motivational boost in XP for setting their in-character goals. Then they know how to act in your group and can feel comfortable trying out a character driven approach like this rather than waiting for a plot driven or combat driven que. They can try it out under the guise of getting more XP without being embarrassed by their inexperience with this sort of game.
Hero points might work too... I just worry they might be trickier to balance since typically they matter more during play.
|
You know I have been searching for an analogy for the no XP style and I think I have it. It is like putting training wheels on a bicycle. It KEEPS you perfectly balanced regardless of the skill of the rider.
While I prefer to run without the training wheels it makes perfect sense that some prefer to leave them on. They can focus on learning other elements of the game without unbalancing the levels in the party. In my opinion I like the increased sense of achievement and danger of riding without them, but I can see the allure of leaving them on.
Could you explain this further please? I don't understand how using XP is more difficult or more challenging than not using XP.
Could you explain this further please? I don't understand how using XP is more difficult or more challenging than not using XP.You know I have been searching for an analogy for the no XP style and I think I have it. It is like putting training wheels on a bicycle. It KEEPS you perfectly balanced regardless of the skill of the rider.
While I prefer to run without the training wheels it makes perfect sense that some prefer to leave them on. They can focus on learning other elements of the game without unbalancing the levels in the party. In my opinion I like the increased sense of achievement and danger of riding without them, but I can see the allure of leaving them on.
See earlier. There were quite a few posts about it. Mine follows.
Hmm… I’m probably going to make a hash of explaining this, but I will give it a try.
I do understand most of the reasons some people vastly prefer to use individually awarded experience points. To a large extent I agree with most of it. However…
I was finding in our group (when I was GM) that I was needing to spend nearly as much time trying to figure out what to do with XP as I was with all of the other parts of being a GM. That was causing me to be a much less effective/entertaining GM. I wasn’t hearing a lot of complaints (I wasn’t hearing much praise either), but I did not find it to be acceptable in myself.
Some examples
1) Party with a diplomat and diviner were managing to avoid entire sections of the AP suggested sidequests. Party will not be high enough level to be likely to succeed. Do I give XP for figuring that stuff out to get them up to level? So they gain a level for casting see thoughts (because one of those side quests was easily a level’s worth of xp)? If yes, do I give it only to the guys that figured stuff out? How much do I give and to whom? What about the next time? Now everyone or just some of them are gaining a level every session because they cast a few spells or used a high diplomacy on some NPC. Either the martials are a couple of levels behind or they are gaining levels just for walking near the smart guys. I ended up trying to dance down the middle of the extremes. They got some XP for bypassing stuff. The martials were a bit behind but not too far. The next part of the story was hideously difficult for them. They just didn’t have the levels to cope with what they were encountering without me rewriting everything. And I could figure out a way to do that with the storyline still making sense. X type of demon or a disintegrating wizard were quite literally written into the story and they couldn’t deal with them.2) Exact opposite. After the 1) above. The next campaign the party tried to make sure they didn’t skip anything. Literally every single thing that might be an adventure hook was pursued to make sure they had the levels to deal with what would come later. The campaign bogged down in sidequests. I actually stopped reading the given descriptions since almost everything described something in some way that would make them think there might be something else they should do before proceeding.
3) Not all of our players makes it to every session. She has to work late, he has a church function, they have relatives in town, whatever. When someone isn’t present we generally assume that PC is back guarding the horses/campsite or whatever. Unless he has a particularly necessary skill for some specific event. Bob is the only one that can handle OoC healing, JJ is the only one that can open a lock without smashing it, etc… So Bob or JJ will come forward for that specific task then be off again. Now the different things that happen in different sessions result in different character levels (sometimes wildly) between the PC’s. Dave happened to not be there when the party got repeatedly ambushed, so he is way behind in levels. The session before that when he was very active was mostly the party planning what to do next and making preparations. Should I give him a bunch of RP experience for being active during the prep session? If I do and he is present at the ambush session, now he will be ahead on level. Eventually we end up with a party that has 7th and 4th level characters in it. In PF that level difference is huge in terms of power and survivability. I believe much more of a difference than in early versions of the game. So if I challenge the 7th level character, the 4th level character has almost no chance of surviving.
4) I do not always have a lot of free time in between sessions. When I am making up stuff on my own (not using published material) I often have to do a lot of my prep work fairly far in advance. I have to guestimate how much the part will have done/accomplished by the time they get to Cave of Awefulness. Ok, they will probably be about level 9. If they really go for the sidequests, the Cave will be a boring cakewalk. I can try to beef it up on the fly, but I’m not really good at that and it will give them more unanticipated XP. If they head straight for the goal they can’t handle the cave. So I have to try and figure out how to give them clues that they can’t handle it without making it a meta-game don’t go yet. Stall in the countryside until you are suddenly more powerful.
Things like the above made it so I was spending a huge amount of time trying to figure out how to get Matt to catch up in levels, not give too much XP to Larry, I need to spread out enough XP for the next 2 towns so they are about level Y when they get to the mountain pass, etc… I’m am certainly not saying there are not potential solutions for the above situations, but I was spending more time in pursuit of those solutions than in any other part of my prep work. I was more worried about the XP of an encounter than whether it was exciting/sensible/challenging. In my opinion, that one mechanic was interfering more than it was helping.
I have been in groups where the GM did not seem to have any of my above problems. But looking at it objectively, I can see essentially no difference between awarding a bit of experience for every encounter/event and just saying after about every 3 session and a major encounter that the party goes up a level. That seemed to be pretty close to what happened anyway.
I will note, I tried the 'no XP' style of play for a 3 module mini-arch. I am awaiting a response on whether they liked it, didn't like it, or are neutral on the subject.
This may sound cold, but yes - it's fair. I've done this before and while the group got upset, they didn't feel cheated or blamed me. They can usually see it coming as it unfolds and they have no one to blame but themselves.
And when it happens they still have a good time. It just adds more to value for when they do succeed.
Bolded!
Your jumping to conclusions and assigning value to things that I didn't say in my post. You aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with an imaginary person that you invented.Actually no, I was busting the terrible examples you cited for your contribution to the "GM must let them win" argument.
So yeah, I was arguing with you, your examples at least. Good attempt to dismiss though, I'll give you that.
I didn't say you SHOULD throw cats or great wyrms at the party. I said that the GM is making that decision between those 3 options. You've made that decision as a GM. By your post, I would guess that you avoid throwing cats and great wyrms at your players.No, but you listed them as a range of "potential" encounter examples for 1st level characters. That may work for new players + new DM as a mistake, but once you understand and accept the premise of certain game assumptions about fairness/appropriate, what makes a good game and having some system proficiency then two out of three of your examples are ruled out immediately.
A choice that you cannot legitimately make is not a choice. Choices 1 and 3 are not choices, not for a proficient GM or a group of players who understand the game. So they are dismissed outright.
Also fairness or appropriate =/= GM must let them win.
There are way too many outside factors that don't let this sit solely as a GM decision. Namely, people leaving your table if you run a softball/too hard of game.
Even still, the XP system does not inherently solve the issue of properly challenging players.Neither does, xp or no xp/GM decides when it feels right system.
Accurate monster ratings or lacking those a GM who understands threat values are the best things for "properly challenging players". So the Xp-less game as argument for "properly challenging players" is inappropriate.
Analogy:
Me: Automobiles exist
You: You're wrong and Ford is better than Chevy.
That is what you sound like to me. You didn't stop sounding like that, you further entrenched yourself. Feel free to argue with the imaginary person in your head, because you aren't arguing with me. Seriously.
Every time you dismiss my point as ridiculous, you then spend several paragraphs proving that my point is correct.
I didn't say that 1 and 3 are GOOD choices. I said they exist.
Consider this: Any time a GM introduces an unkillable GMPC that solves everything, he's introducing an entity that is both 1 and 3 combined. There are literally dozens of stories of this happening on these boards.
Again, I'm not saying that this is GOOD. I'm saying it EXISTS.
We're still talking past each other. The entire point of that snarky bit at the end, in the context of the rest of my post was to say from a certain point of view, no matter how badly the GM screwed up the encounter design, it's always the players fault and it's always fair. Even if they get slaughtered without warning and without a chance to even run.
I'm assuming you haven't actually done that or at least that's not what you're talking about.
Sure, in an ideal world, the GM will be perfect and never screw up, but you switch from talking about the tightrope of encounter design and of laying the clues to what's actually playable and then switch back (with laughably bad examples) of how it's all the player's fault when things go wrong (as long as the dice aren't fudged and the encounter is as written), without realizing that's exactly what I'm talking about.
The GM setting up the encounters is the GM fiat that makes the game playable. When things go wrong it's just as possible for it to be the GM screwing up the design as it is for it to be the players fault.
encounter design...
thejeff... We are all children learning what is too much or too little. I don't care that I am in my 30s that many on here are in their 40s or older, or whatever. As people we are always learning. It isn't something to fear or be sad about. If tragedy happens it isn't necessarily anyone's fault. You learn what went wrong in this simulation and laugh about it. You learn and move on. You are all a team player and GM. If it weren't the case players would always lose. Don't blame each other. If the GM made a mistake and tossed something too tough it was probably to make things exciting. If the players made a mistake and made a bad situation worse or impossible then don't blame them either. They just wanted to have fun.|
|
We're still talking past each other. The entire point of that snarky bit at the end, in the context of the rest of my post was to say from a certain point of view, no matter how badly the GM screwed up the encounter design, it's always the players fault and it's always fair. Even if they get slaughtered without warning and without a chance to even run.
I know you were being ...well, I know you were being sarcastic with the last point. My response though was under the assumption that the encounter design was correct and that the players died due to bad planning, misfortunes, poor intel gathering, etc, etc, then the TPK was fine. It happened because of the players poor choices/bad luck or combination of both.
And that's ok if it happens - because in a game it is going to happen.
Or are you implying that that the only way there can be a TPK is if the GM screwed up? That these should (if the GM fixes things) never happen in a game?
I'm assuming you haven't actually done that or at least that's not what you're talking about.
If I make a mistake I do not make the players shoulder that mistake.
If I do set up a reasonable encounter and the players screw up (for a multitude of reasons) that does not invalidate the original encounter and considerations that went into it.Sure, in an ideal world, the GM will be perfect and never screw up, but you switch from talking about the tightrope of encounter design and of laying the clues to what's actually playable and then switch back (with laughably bad examples) of how it's all the player's fault when things go wrong (as long as the dice aren't fudged and the encounter is as written), without realizing that's exactly what I'm talking about.
If the encounter is set up right and the players screw it up, whose fault is it? Wait, I already know your answer - the GM.
And this is where we differ.
At one point the ball is going to be in the players court - this is a game after all. They make decisions, roll dice (as modified by their choices) and deal with the consequences of their actions. If they screw up a balanced, well written and well delivered encounter its going to be one of two things:
- It wasn't as well written or well delivered as the GM thought
- The players screwed up
The GM has to do his best to make sure it isn't the first thing.
He should try to help the players to make sure it isn't the second thing but there is a limit to that help.
The GM setting up the encounters is the GM fiat that makes the game playable. When things go wrong it's just as possible for it to be the GM screwing up the design as it is for it to be the players fault.
No, it isn't GM fiat. Not unless I wrote the game myself.
If there are things like CR, comparable encounters at level (from other GMs, published modules, etc) then it isn't fiat. The GM is not pulling this content out of his behind, he is actually following an established standard. He has control of some specifics, but the expectations of output are that. Reasonable expectations.|
|
Analogy:
Me: Automobiles exist
You: You're wrong and Ford is better than Chevy.That is what you sound like to me. You didn't stop sounding like that, you further entrenched yourself. Feel free to argue with the imaginary person in your head, because you aren't arguing with me. Seriously.
At this point it does feel like I am arguing with an imaginary person or a piece of fiction.
Your examples sucked. Two out of three of your choices were non-choices. No one argued that they exist. They are just not choices. At all.
Dr to patient: You have a very advanced brain tumor
Patient: What are my options?
Dr: well, here they are:
1) We can stop your heart, thus eventually killing the tumor as the cells in your body die
2) Radiation followed by chemo
3) Cut your head off
The above serve as a better analogy of your "choices".
You can use the two bad ones (cats and dragons) and then continue talking to your imaginary players as they have fled your table.
I didn't say that 1 and 3 are GOOD choices. I said they exist.
When you can't use them for all "practical" purposes they do not exist. At least, if you want to run a game with players. And a waste of time.
Basically they are bad examples that you utilized to illustrate a point, where those examples would never come into play. Unless at a bad table that would make anyone want to quit gaming.
|
|
The GM can at will kill the party or let them live just through the challenges he throws at them. If his intentions are good, he's aiming for that fine line down the middle, but that's still a choice.
Yes he can, if he bases off of whim vs. a gaming standard than imo that is a bad GM. Not saying he can't, he can - but there are consequences - like ending up with no players and no game.
I don't see it as much of a choice as it is an expectation based of reasonable play expectations. I don't think we'll agree on this point, but I do not see it as Fiat - and thus free from consequence as you and other posters her view it.
Does the GM have absolute power to make pretty much anything happen in the game - Great wyrms at level 1, etc? Yes.
Will there still be a group next week. No.
And that's what I'm talking about. The GM deliberately goes out of his way to set fights that are stacked in the parties favor. That's the whole point.
I don't agree with the language but most of the premise. The language makes it sound like the GM is on the players side instead of "just doing his job".
A good GM sets up reasonable and appropriate encounters for the players - with variances based upon the player skill and proficiency at gaming.
Analogy:
Me: Automobiles exist
You: You're wrong and Ford is better than Chevy.That is what you sound like to me. You didn't stop sounding like that, you further entrenched yourself. Feel free to argue with the imaginary person in your head, because you aren't arguing with me. Seriously.
At this point it does feel like I am arguing with an imaginary person or a piece of fiction.
Your examples sucked. Two out of three of your choices were non-choices. No one argued that they exist. They are just not choices. At all.
Dr to patient: You have a very advanced brain tumor
Patient: What are my options?
Dr: well, here they are:1) We can stop your heart, thus eventually killing the tumor as the cells in your body die
2) Radiation followed by chemo
3) Cut your head offThe above serve as a better analogy of your "choices".
You can use the two bad ones (cats and dragons) and then continue talking to your imaginary players as they have fled your table.
I didn't say that 1 and 3 are GOOD choices. I said they exist.When you can't use them for all "practical" purposes they do not exist. At least, if you want to run a game with players. And a waste of time.
Basically they are bad examples that you utilized to illustrate a point, where those examples would never come into play. Unless at a bad table that would make anyone want to quit gaming.
The examples are hyperbole, in an attempt to make clear the intent of the examples. I'm sorry that you're getting caught up in the specifics of these examples, even though I stated in the original post that they weren't specific, but rather generalities meant to highlight the actual choice. A more realistic example:
1) 1-2 kobolds
2) 4-5 kobolds
3) 12 kobolds
Now, for a first level party, 1 kobold COULD be dangerous, but it's highly unlikely. Most likely it'll be easy.
A party of 4 first level characters should be able to handle 4-5 kobolds. Assuming that they're going to have another encounter later in the day it's largely down to how well they manage resources in this encounter. Luck could swing it against them, but even then they should survive (mostly).
12 kobolds is most likely too many. The party has a chance of survival at 1st level, but it's too many targets, too many attacks and the damage will be spread out to too many party members too quickly.
The GM has to make the decision designing this encounter. How many is too many? Where is that tipping point? All three encounters are potentially realistic and explainable within the game world.
You got caught up on the analogy, trying to prove the hyperbole as false. Congrats, you're right, hyperbole is false. But I wasn't trying to show that hyperbole is 100% true, I was using it to make my point clear.
I'll reiterate the point for you:
1) When a GM designs an encounter with kobolds, he has to decide how many kobolds are included in that encounter (or pick a method that determines how many are included).
2) The number of kobolds affects the difficulty of the encounter.
3) Therefore, the GM is inherently setting the odds of success/failure by the party.
|
|
The GM has to make the decision designing this encounter. How many is too many? Where is that tipping point? All three encounters are potentially realistic and explainable within the game world.
This is not a subjective question but a mechanical one. Which has been my point all along. Criteria such as CR, environment (fighting the kobolds in tight tunnels), etc. All play a factor - but in the end this isn't a GM fiat question.
3/x based games give rules and guidelines for setting up encounters. You go outside those guidelines and the expectation and results change.
But even with all that this still isn't GM fiat. Fiat implies decision by arbitrary decree - while CR is not accurate it is hardly arbitrary. Nor is using other published material associated with correlating PC levels as guide.
If I set up a series of encounters, all APL +4 the players will probably die. That would be a GM choice, fiat if you will. Problem is, the game (and this can be any game system) advises against this. You go outside the rules or expectations and this can be for 0E,1st, 2nd, 3.X or any other game and you have to deal with the consequences of how the players will react.
This isn't rocket science and some people are carrying about that proper encounter design = GM must let them win. We passed that ear decades ago.
With fewer rules in older editions this might have been true, but even in those editions there was a concept called "Monster/Dungeon Level", a crude but effective precursor to CR - that worked as a guide for encounter design.
These encounter choices are not made in a vacuum. You have guidelines, print and digital resources and in the case of people who have played for years - practical experience from trial and error.
1) When a GM designs an encounter with kobolds, he has to decide how many kobolds are included in that encounter (or pick a method that determines how many are included).
2) The number of kobolds affects the difficulty of the encounter.
3) Therefore, the GM is inherently setting the odds of success/failure by the party.
And he has guidelines. These were even present to a degree once the game picked up steam as a system. I would go so far that the decisions for threat selection are a foregone conclusion and already decided for him.
If he follows those guidelines/runs the game/does his job then it isn't a case of fiat. It's a case of doing your job and not exercising some kind of God-like power, where at whim you encounter selection dictates if you spare or crush the PCs. That kind of "decider" mentality going into the process seems very 8th grade 1983.
Fiat - a formal authorization or proposition; a decree. an arbitrary order.
If he goes out of those guidelines then you start reaching fiat territory, but even then - not really. Non-combat encounters can still be set up as CR (difficulty) appropriate encounters.
The last part will go over some heads, but it can be done. A APL +8 encounter can be worked out as a APL +1 encounter based upon the tasks needed to be completed by the players to deal with the encounter. If the GM sets up the encounter with proper foreshadowing, warning and opportunity it can run as a APL +1 encounter. When the players say "F- it" and go in for the fight then it turns into a APL +8.
The GM has to sit down and decide it he put in enough "GM must let them win" options before they decided to lose - which ends up entirely contradicting the "GM must let them win" concept. Again, not really fiat but more risky encounter design/knowing your players issue.
TL:DR - As a GM you have less control than you think you do.
Are you claiming that no GM has ever thrown an encounter too easy or too hard at their players?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Because that is ALL I am talking about so far. I am NOT assigning value statements to anything. If you assign a value statement to anything involved, you are discussing a different topic than me.
|
|
Are you claiming that no GM has ever thrown an encounter too easy or too hard at their players?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Because that is ALL I am talking about so far. I am NOT assigning value statements to anything. If you assign a value statement to anything involved, you are discussing a different topic than me.
No, not claiming that and I never claimed that - if it happens accidentally then it comes from poor GMing, not fiat/GM must let them win.
--
There's encounter design (deliberate weak encounter, due to pacing/xp budget/etc) and then there are GMs softballing things for players.
Two different things because there are two different mindsets and philosophies behind each.
Are you claiming that no GM has ever thrown an encounter too easy or too hard at their players?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Because that is ALL I am talking about so far. I am NOT assigning value statements to anything. If you assign a value statement to anything involved, you are discussing a different topic than me.
No, not claiming that and I never claimed that - if it happens accidentally then it comes from poor GMing, not fiat/GM must let them win.
I'm not talking about why it happens, whether it's good or bad.
Only that it is a fundamental fact about GM'ing. Your choices impact the chances of success/failure of the players.
|
|
Ah, so then XPs are proxied in PFS.Well, there has to be some proxy in D&D based games. Some way to know when you go up a level.
Especially in an organized campaign like PFS, where the goal is a mostly uniform experience across the world.
In a home game, there's not so much need to replace XP with a proxy. I mean, I guess 'when we think so' is kind of a proxy system in the loosest terms...