Author Topic: Taking balalnce too far  (Read 7935 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dragon Snack

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 342
    • Dragon Snack Games and Entertainment
    • Email
Re: Taking balalnce too far
« Reply #20 on: January 23, 2008, 02:05:19 PM »
Well, I use (semi-)random encounters in my game, so I think you are overstating "Dragon = Black Box".  There are plenty of cues that let the players know that the encounter is over their heads.  If they don't get it, there is always the DM looking over the screen and saying "I suggest you run"...

While you can say "why bother running something they can't win" (and I agree to an extent), I think it can add to the game* and, oddly enough, every once in a while, they pull off that "impossible odds" win that is way more satisfying than slaughtering your everyday Goblin.


*This of course is colored by my crazy ideas that the PCs aren't all powerful characters in a book that can do no wrong and nothing bad can happen to...
Visit my Message Boards (they're strangely familiar) and my Blog...

If you look at the entire history of the RPG industry, you'll see the same, long, sad story: a mountain of conventional wisdom, usually backed by selective listening, that leads to a long chain of failed games and bad ideas. - Mike Mearls

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Taking balalnce too far
« Reply #21 on: January 24, 2008, 01:56:52 AM »
I agree that there are usually cues.  Of course that is a little rail-roady to tell a crew that they are "supposed" to run.

Any situation that the PCs find themselves in should have more than one solution, otherwise you are just walking the players down the road.

Also there is a big difference between a creature that the PCs cannot defeat and a creature that can defeat the PCs. 

I also should clarify that I don't think it is bad for the PCs to occasionally need to run away, just that you should not be killing your party for no reason.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Dragon Snack

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 342
    • Dragon Snack Games and Entertainment
    • Email
Re: Taking balalnce too far
« Reply #22 on: January 24, 2008, 12:29:09 PM »
Well, I never run planned encounters that my group is supposed to run from (although the 'boss' fight will usually be a few levels above them).

I do use random encounters however.  While I will usually tailor the encounter to the group to an extent (ie - a low level party will never run into an ancient Red), it defeats the purpose of 'random encounters' if it's always some level appropriate challenge (this is actually part of our groups 'social contract', so I can see it not applying to everyones game).
Visit my Message Boards (they're strangely familiar) and my Blog...

If you look at the entire history of the RPG industry, you'll see the same, long, sad story: a mountain of conventional wisdom, usually backed by selective listening, that leads to a long chain of failed games and bad ideas. - Mike Mearls

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Taking balalnce too far
« Reply #23 on: January 24, 2008, 01:19:34 PM »
Do you use general tables or make them up specific to the adventure?

Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Dragon Snack

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 342
    • Dragon Snack Games and Entertainment
    • Email
Re: Taking balalnce too far
« Reply #24 on: January 24, 2008, 03:15:02 PM »
Both, but with a little more reliance on general tables because I'm a lazy bastard...

I usually scan 2-3 tables and pick something that would be fun to run, somewhat level appropriate, and, sometimes, what I have minis for.

I keep meaning to make up my own custom tables, really I do.
Visit my Message Boards (they're strangely familiar) and my Blog...

If you look at the entire history of the RPG industry, you'll see the same, long, sad story: a mountain of conventional wisdom, usually backed by selective listening, that leads to a long chain of failed games and bad ideas. - Mike Mearls

Jim

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 45
Re: Taking balalnce too far
« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2008, 11:49:38 PM »
Josh, why do you insist on saying that I arbitrarily kill characters when I DM?  I've never said anything even close to that.  Repeating it like a mantra, so you can make a point concerning a false-hood, still doesn't make the false-hood true.  As I said, in the game I just completed (which lasted three years), not a single PC died until the 'final battle' (even though the party had magic enough to raise dead).  No deaths for three years?  Yeah, I'm killin' them PCs left and right.

Your Black Box theory is true in some games, but - again - doesn't have anything to do with the way I run a game.  I've never arranged for players to have to pick between choices with one being certain doom.  I don't arrange anything.  I just create a world with monsters of varying strengths and let the players play in that world.  Very un-rail-roading, the players choose their own path.  If they are smart, they live.  Like I said, the last group was smart.  'Smart' simply means not foolish enough to take on anything they have almost no chance of beating.  Anything that is powerful enough to be a major threat they will almost always know about prior to encountering, so 'smart' really just means 'not stupid'.


In your test, you forgot the final choice

E. Run.

It IS ALWAYS an option. 

Besides, the example doesn't really work when the players decide what directions they go it, because the choices are nearly unlimited.
 

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Taking balalnce too far
« Reply #26 on: February 01, 2008, 01:49:25 AM »
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Jim

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 45
Re: Taking balalnce too far
« Reply #27 on: February 01, 2008, 02:17:18 AM »

The first example could happen.  Hopefully, when the monster casts the first high level spell at them, they get the hint and run.  I might even (and this would be rare) follow the advice Gygax had in the original DMs guide and seeing that the party did everything right and still end up in a situation where they cannot live, have the first spell be high level, but not deadly (at least not to the whole party, after all, death is only meaningless if someone lives to get the others raised).  Of course, such a nasty creature would totally dominate an area which was inhabited by otherwise weak monsters, so the total lack of any other monsters or animals up to that toad crawling forward would be a pretty big hint.  Fact is, the really nasty monsters in any well-designed world are all DEEPLY hidden and just getting to them would be difficult.  Any high level monsters that live on outskirts or out in the open would be well-known.  So, it isn't very likely to happen that way.

As for the second example: What Arch-Mage is going to waste a Teleport (and time) for revenge for a couple Goblins?  Even if that were to happen, a Wizard who had Goblin underlings certainly isn't one fond of doing things for himself, so he would likely send another to do his bidding or force the party to work for him or something else.

Either way, I get your point.  Again, it doesn't relate to me, but I understand.