One of my greatest frustrations is the perception that a random encounter has to result in a monster or combat. Trade routes are generally safe, else they would not be a trade route. There are exceptions, but the main routes are safe more often than not. My world is an open sandbox and the players are free to go anywhere, with the fore knowledge that some areas are much more dangerous than others. Thanks again for the vid, preaching to the choir.
Glad you liked it! And you're right about trade routes: merchants would pick the safest route possible. But sometimes geography creates a choke point where bandits might linger, or the mere fact that heavily laden ships or caravans pass through an area may lure potential robbers.
If you roll orcs then its likey that there trying to collect a toll or fee for safe passage. There's multipole noncombat ways to get past that encounter.
My players loathe the random encounter roll of "goblin tracks". It ranks right up there with "burned out farmstead" or "abandoned campsite". "Wolves howling" puts them on edge too. None of those are combat encounters, but they could lead to a combat encounter.
I love your example of a dragon pursuing the PCs back to a safe place. I had this exact thing happen during a solo game a while back. The characters' edge in the situation was that the entire town armed up to defend their home. There were deaths, make no mistake, but now that town has a major historic event, a couple of memorialized locations, a dragon's skull mounted on the tavern entrance and new name: Crimsbane.
Something Baldur's Gate 3 taught me as a DM is building HARD encounters that are much much easier if you take an oblique approach or attack from a flanking direction. Strategic mix of units with their own delineated tactics and reliable ways for the players to dispatch them. Fun times. Great vid!
1) Always have encounters in your world that will be certain death. Knowing their PCs aren't the biggest thing is the world is crucial for dramatic tension. 2) Give plenty of warning about these certain death encounters. This increases suspense, and removes the random pointless death element. 3) When possible, surround the deadliest encounters with less and less deadly ones; this give players the choice of how far into the danger zone they will go. Remember, that dragon didn't accumulate that pile of gold or that lich survive for 200 years by being pushovers. Dozens of adventurers must have tried to take them out; their bones should litter the dungeon.
I played a RPG years ago where you didn't get any experience if you didn't fight anything at least as powerful as you. Earlier editions of the worlds most popular roleplaying game didn't worry about encounter balance. You learned the hard way what to fight and when to avoid an encounter. I absolutely loved the discovery of my first time playing. Sure, characters died, but I just rolled another and kept playing. Excellent video, thanks for this!
Like how you have the nemesis change the area as well as the PCs actions changing the landscape of difficulty. Might make villagers less helpful as danger increases. “Ya think these hooligans are bring out the evils? Never had ‘em when we didn’t help those blade swingers””
Ive been playing since 81 and a wise bard once said : know when to walk away, know when to run. If your good sense isnt enough to keep you safe, there is usually a saving throw. Either way, you can always roll a new character if needed.
Balance went with the bath water. Returning to the game from AD&D to 5e I struggled to find my groove adhering to what I found to be utter nonsense. Now I can challenge a party of 12th levels with well equipped squads of Bugbears, or swarms of poisonous frogs mixed with half a dozen Quasits.
Balancing encounters make players and GMs alike forget that there is more options than just fight. You can run away from zombie horde, you can run past a golem with hp pool thiccker than you mama, you can sneak around sleeping hydra and you can negotiate with ambishing bandits and you can sacrafice bard to a dragon. Only limit to actions they can take is thier imagination. Two examples from games I ran looong ago: 1: party was sent to slay a gorgon, something that shouuld be fairly easy for lvl7 party of four, and so our heroes in high spirits ran into the forests only to find not one but 6 gorgons, what followed was high speed escape and party getting stuck on a giant tree, after half an hour long tyrade from one of the players about how unfair this encounter was followed by me saying that life isn't fair, druid asked very important question: "does gorgon hide count as a metal object?" 2: lvl 1 party on thier first quest, camping in the forest, at some they heard thunderous wing flapping sounds comming closer, and closer, and then followed by fierce wind massive ancient red dragon flew overhead, seemingly not noticing them or rather finding them benath his notice. And then OFC rogue decides to pull out a longbow and shoot the damn thing cause why not? There was forest fire later this evening.
Great examples! In the first, we learn that things are not always what they seem and the wilderness is dangerous place. In the second, player actions cause problems!
Yeah who needs balancing. My first game of DND went as so. two hours creating characters for our party and our DM telling us how DND works. We finally finish creating and rolling our characters. We start at a dungeon, first move, run into a Blob. TPK. We were all annoyed as the DM told us webcam to go through the character making process again. We drank cough syrup instead and that was the last time I played DnD.
@@DDHomebrewNo, you need some kind of balance. Because you have so much years of experience you dont even think how you internally balance the game, it has become instinct. Balance is also not about strong monsters vs PCs, its also about strong PCs vs monsters. When we are designing a dungeon for high level characters, as a DM I have to improve monsters in someway, whether tactics, environments or also equipping enemies with magic items. This is also balance-work. I’m running a level 13 Planescape game and they are armed to the teeth. At this point, there is no way I pop up 5 orcs from Monster Manual and pit them against my party. Its just boring, waste of time. I see your point, there are deadly and dangerous places. But you are confusing encounter balance and challenges. Players should be able to rob a dragon, that they cant defeat. This is a challenge. Or being chased by demons as level 1-2. I want to challenge the party, not TPK. And you instinctively already do this, you tell us your frame in the video, but encounter balance is a good skill to have. You are essentially talking about creating great and fun challenges but not actually giving insight why a DM should not study some encounter design.
@@MissZencefil I did say a knowledge of balance is important, and I mentioned that players could rob a dragon, though it would very angry and possibly hunt them down. And defeating opponents that are more powerful is inherently challenging. I also did a video on thinking about challenges. That said, if you have an area where the challenges are extremely deadly and the players go there, they will have very unbalanced encounters. And so long as it comes out of their agency I say it's fine.
To my mind, and my style of DM'ing, the degree to which a pre-set encounter should be designed as "balanced" is in inverse proportion to the amount of warning, foreshadowing, portents, hints, cautions etc the players have received. When Im designing/populating "The Swamp of Infinite Evil," Im not doing it with a 2nd level party in mind. Can they go there at 2nd level? Of course they can. But they shouldnt whine if they all die. Why not? Because I (as DM) have had every rumor, story, hint, map, puzzle, etc and every NPC tell them, "You will all pretty much die if you go there" beforehand. Also, your examples of player actions causing the "norm" to shift are excellent. What is safe today may not be tomorrow and vice versa. Words to the wise 👍
Rather than balanced I prefer "appropriate", the majority of encounters fit the theme, terrain and threat level with the truly dangerous or diverting being rare. Obviously some places just deadlier, deep woods, forsaken mountains, dungeons, but that too is knowable. The better key is to allow other than brute force to potentially resolve or even allow certain sleeping dogs lie until later. But if you poke some places or kill off somethings, bigger things are now awakened.
@@DDHomebrew and now you hit GM style of play, or choices, how does one want to keep it interesting? Trails or breadcrumbs, landmines, or just gonzo random!
Hopefully a new GM has played at a good table with a decent GM to learn the game, and then learns as the campaign progresses. RPGs are very difficult to learn from just reading the rules.
@@DDHomebrew I'm talking about the players ability to understand threats in relation to their own characters' ability, the players' tactics, etc. To use a highly exaggerated example, even the best DM can't balance encounters when the players willfully walk into the giant spider's web after leaving their weapons in town. Running in the way you describe will be great for RPG veterans, maybe not so great when introducing your 8-year-old nieces and nephews to the game for the first time who just want to slay the dragon no matter what warning signs you give them. I have met one guy who had never even played before who wanted to start as the DM, so there's bound to be more out there. Even if we ignore all the people who have only played under mediocre or bad DMs or who are switching game systems, _playing_ under a DM is a totally different ballgame to _being_ the DM, so you're not likely to be able to apply this lesson during your first several sessions no matter how great a table you've sat at previously. I think a qualifier that your advice is intended for DMs who have run more than half a dozen sessions would be good (if you didn't include one already that I missed). All that said, CR is a rough guideline to getting you in the ballpark of balance _at best._ I think the rules for using it in 5E are weaker than in previous rule sets, but for a beginning DM it's often better than nothing. With nothing and little experience you're literally guessing as to what's too easy or too hard, and you'll find out the hard way alongside the PCs if you got it wrong. Veteran players will still get bored with endless lowballed encounter difficulty, and newbies will walk face first into a TPK 9 times out of 10 because how dangerous can half a dozen goblins actually be, right guys? Guys?
I have been told that my content speaks to more experienced GM's, even when I think I'm simplifying things! And for kids or all new players you can't expect them to understand the subtleties of encounters and NPC reactions. What I'm really trying to get away from is an obsession with balance that I sometimes see where 1) players always fight instead of being creative and 2) battles where the players know they'll win but have to roll 100 dice to get there. @@CowCommando
@@DDHomebrew I think that is a very noble goal to reduce the obsession with balance. I missed that if you stated that in the video, and that assumption totally changes my perception of what you're saying. I'll have to go rewatch the video to see what I think about it with this added context. Don't take the words of one grumpy voice on the Internet too seriously. If we were speaking in person, I think my tone and mannerisms would have better conveyed that I agree with your video in general even if my words come across as antagonistic. I haven't been able to put your methods as presented into practice at my table for a variety of reasons. They will not work for me, but they don't have to in order to be good advice. I've come across lots of so called advice for DMs online that is either too niche to be useful or downright incorrect as presented. I think your advice is good, but the video didn't clarify from the start the underlying assumptions it relies on, open world, minimum level of player experience, etc. That's my only issue with the video. The advice itself is fine within that rubric, but I didn't see the rubric stated openly in the video (and as stated in another comment that could be because I missed it rather than it not being there).
And I may have not stated it clearly in the video. Not to worry: I like some pushback on my views: you learn the most from folks who disagree (even just a little) with what you're saying. And often you realize that you're not that far apart.@@CowCommando
I run DCC and don't worry about balancing encounters at all. I actually plan to make a whole series of "Unbalanced Encounters" to pit parties against high difficulty monsters. Something like a DCC Funnel but for higher level characters.
Planning on running a full, proper Cy_Borg game starting tomorrow, and I'm doing the same. Gonna have an optional boss on the bottom floor of the oil rig they'll be on that will absolutely melt them if they're not careful.
DCC is designed not to care about balance because Hp is so low. Every class starts with everything that class encompasses from 3.5 or 5e I love DCC. Favorite DnD system ever. First level hero’s can go straight to end game of the campaign cause they’re rock stars at first level
I was going to run a side DCC game today, since the full group for PF2e couldn't make it... but as I was gonna start prepping something last minute, the first friend showed up. We ended up just laughing, drinking scotch, and chatting. One of these days, I'll get my friends rolling those 14 dice!
Respectfully, you absolutely do in fifth edition. If you have combat encounters with no magic resistance/high wis save they are going to be getting shut down left and right, in terms of absolute power? No. totally agree. Throw a giant at a party because it's just appropriate and the CR matches the table, things gonna be a chipmunk very first round.
So long as the players know that if they go into area X they will run into deadly encounters, and area y not so deadly, then can live with the potential for death and destruction. In my opinion!
@@DDHomebrew I think you misunderstood, I don't mean balance in terms of power specifically I mean you better have encounters that can handle heightened polymorph and hypnotic pattern.
@@danieljones-mh7rb Now I see. I've seen this with a monster that has a frightened ability with a high DC: players who can't make their saves are at a trememdous disadvantage in 5e.
I'd say to any new DMs out there that 5e CR system is a good guide for lvls 1-3 with a group you haven't DMed for before. You don't want to accidentally splatter a party of noobs after all. After that however, if you need a guide line group your encounters into: Annoyance/delay/attrition(Only through pvp can they kill themselves), serious challenge (they could die if they screw up or don't pay attention) and hella deadly (If it were you in their stead, you'd run away). Look at your PCs. A serious combat encounter should be able to K.O. them in a single hit on a crit. A deadly encounter that happens to max damage should be able to either kill them or leave them with a hair of hps left. If your wizard PC has 30 HPs, your monsters are doing either less than 10 hp/attack, 15 hp/attack or 30 hp/attack depending on what you want to achieve. Magic spells throws this system for a loop... And it should. That's why magic is feared.
@@DDHomebrewAlso true. And leave a clear way for them to run away in deadly encounters. Mostly they won't but it should be there just in case. I do tell them ahead of time that I don't balance (I do a little bit), it's their job to decided if they can do something or not
@@DDHomebrewIt could be argued that retreating is one of the most impactful player agency choices. At least in combat. But it's so hard to get a party to even consider it.
I actually decided not to include a CR system in a system I'm building (that's similar to D&D, but also it's own thing), to encourage GMs to come up with better encounters, and also because figuring out CR was turning out to be so frustratingly difficult that I couldn't make it work. Currently testing it out, but ignoring CR is surprisingly enough, a well-balanced way of going about designing encounters, especially since you no longer need to worry about the fact that the Wizard decided to be the Tank while the Barbarian is sitting back and throwing axes at everyone.
@@DDHomebrew Don't get me started on that, unless you're ready for a paragraph of (admittedly awesome) stuff. I implemented Weaknesses with Damage Thresholds (Tied Together), Resistances, Immunities, and lots of things to make monsters not feel as if they're all designed to be beaten the same way. Oh, and you can't forget the sheer variety of builds.
@@SamuelDancingGallewMight I suggest including a few very rudimentary guidelines in your rules for absolute newbies. The TPK you prevent could be your own.
@@CowCommando Of course, basic guidelines to help others get started, such as using Hit Dice and Damage Dice as a baseline, then adjust as needed until mastery. But to be honest, so far I've gotten way too close to killing my players with something that would've been "CR 1/2" according to the numbers I had, and absolutely would have killed them, if I hadn't been smart enough to think of backup plans that don't feel totally cheap.
@@SamuelDancingGallew There's always going to be outliers, and I've yet to see a ruleset where the players' tactics failed to be a significant factor in the challenge an encounter presented no matter how much prep went into balancing things beforehand. I've also seen the dice decide that today the goblins get to win, and there was nothing the players nor I could do to stop it save rules fudging the combat into a negotiation where we could narrate the action without RNG dictating a TPK. The players tactics were sound and the threat was low. Two and a half rounds of the PCs collectively rolling 8 or less and the goblins rolling no lower than a 13, typically rolling over 15 with their boss rolling three 18s and a crit in just 3 rounds left us all wondering how and why someone had rigged a table full of dice.
I use Pathfinder 1st or 3e for the most part. An average goblin has a +12 stealth in those systems and I use it. There are four non-combat encounters on my random tables that hint at goblins being around. "Goblin tracks", "burned out farm", "abandoned campsite" and "wolves howling" scare the hell out of my players without any combat, because I have TPK'd them with four goblins, 3 wolves and third level goblin rogue at 5th level before. You can get a whole campaign out of just a goblin horde moving into an area. One out of every five has character levels, if you go by the AD&D 2nd ecologies, which makes them particularly tough to beat, reagardless of their CR. That 5th level TPK spawned my "keep the fired homes burning" campaign, when the players, to the very last, all made goblin PCs as replacement characters. My goblins aren't cowardly. They're sneaky. They're conniving. They're cunning. They run so they can come back in higher numbers.
This gets into a whole variety of encounter ideas that are worth exploring. You don't always have to have battles, creatures will come up with tactics to compensate for weaknessess in a straight ahead attack, and they understand that there is strength in numbers.
In the sense that winnable fights you intend to happen should be balanced in some way against the players, yes you should balance encounters. In this sense, players do not decide the general strength of the encounters, you do. As for monsters they encounter that you don't intend for them to fight. Make sure the players understand that, tell them IRL if you have to. Players can only work with the information you give them and if they get killed because they didn't know or understand something you did or didn't tell them, well that's kind of on you, not them. Even if you tell them there are high level areas, if they don't understand that they're entering one, that's still on you. Even if they still don't get it after telling them via an NPC, that's still on you. Make sure they understand. So all in all, even if they piss of the duke and he sends hired help at them, they should be able to deal with the hired help. And if they can't, then you should have told them that would be the result of making the duke mad before they did it. Anything else is antagonistic. You shouldn't play with their greed saying, "if you go in this area where you'll probably die, you can obtain an item that can resolve this issue," when you know damn well that they won't have to do that to accomplish what they need to at the end of the day. You could put that item somewhere else, you could invent a different way to solve the problem. You're job is to build the path of success for them, not try and lure them off of it with promises of candy. I mean if the players want this style, I suppose, go for it, but it shouldn't be assumed that most players will like this. As a side note. in my world there aren't really "deadly" areas. There are some areas that are less civilized so higher level creatures are less scrutinized there, but otherwise local adventurers and military can take care of high level threats. For the most part, high level monsters are hiding or hard to find.
Yes, the game master is the absolute arbiter of information, and you absolutely need to make sure the players have enough information to make an informed decision.
I think this is a matter of game style, along with a lack of clarification on my part. I felt like in my video I explained that the players know the world in general and are aware of what areas are deadly. However, the idea that when players make mistakes it's always the GM's fault would not resonate with my players. If I tell them IRL or through an NPC or some other form of information that area X is deadly and they forget or didn't understand what it meant, went in and got in trouble, they would recount the various clues and realize they messed up. They're experienced players who want to run in a challenging world. And the next time they will listen very closely. I also run a sand box campaign, so they can go where ever they want whatever my warnings. I would never place some critical item in an area or with monsters that were near impossible to defeat, because one I almost never used critical items but two because it's not fun to have the story come to a halt if the players can't retrieve an item. As for paving the way to player success, it's just not my style of play. If you poke Godzilla, King Kong or a band of Hells Angels, you will get stomped. That's a rule of real life and baked into the mechanics of monster levels in an RPG. I've said in another video that the GM should favor the players at some level, but the idea that if the players rip off a duke and he comes for them and makes them pay, it's the GM's fault for not using hirelings the players can defeat just doesn't wash for me. A duke knows that he needs to prevent any one else from trying to steal from him. And he's going use the players as an example. I've learned over the years that many players come to realize that in an RPG world where success comes at a risk, and is earned and not a foregone conclusion, they really enjoy thoses successes. And in the far reaches of that world there be dragons and they are not to be trifled with. But I also know that there are players who don't like that sort of game. So to each their own.
I agree. If you have deadly areas, the players should be well aware, whether it's through information they know from living in your world, or through clues as the enter a heretofore unknown area.
@@DDHomebrew Hmm. I'm not sure where or if we exactly disagree, so let me try to clarify a bit. I agree that if you poke godzilla, you should get stomped, but the DM should make it explicitly clear that you are essentially starting new characters if you do that before it's done. I don't have problem with players pissing off a duke and then going against unbeatable hirelings, so long as they know the risk before they do it. I don't believe in this idea of just stumbling into the unbeatable with little to no hope, unless that's the experience that the players explicitly signed up for. What I mean by paving the way to success, isn't clearing out all potential dangers. It's simply presenting reasonable problems and solutions to my players for things they want to overcome, even if that solution isn't immediate. If my players wanted to conquer the dungeon of unimaginable evil, they're going to need to level first. I'll light that pathway for them, I'll let them know things they can do to level up and prepare themselves. Reasonable things that don't risk their lives more than necessary. If they insist on going in before that, I'll let them know that means certain doom and to prepare new characters for next week if they want that. I'm not going out of my way to make everything easy, but I'm also not shrugging my shoulders going, "well okay, if you really insist..." Like let's say my players are trying to sneak around somewhere and one of them tries to use a spell that uses a verbal component, I'm going to let them know about that before they cast the spell. I will tell them straight to their face, "hey this will screw up the whole sneaking thing that you're trying to do," in those words exactly. I'm not going to wink and hint and hope they catch my drift, I'm just going to be very clear with them. What I'm not going to do is handwave away that element of the spell to make things easier. They need to deal with the problem as presented, but I also don't want bear traps just lying around waiting to screw my players over. I want them to struggle against challenges, but I also want them to succeed. It is in my best interest that they do. So I will present a challenging trial to overcome and then I will light the way to success.
Agreed. I do the same thing with the old "are you sure you want to do that?" and then they ask "what do you mean" and I respond with "you are trying to sneak, right?" But if a spell has a verbal component, and you're not playing in a system with silent spell capabilities, it's going to make noise. And you are right again that it is in a GM's best interest for the players to succeed, but I like to see good play win the day as opposed to "well, they messed up again, but I can't kill off the whole party because then we'll have to roll up new characters, etc." @@TheAnimeAtheist
Predictability. While some surprise is fine, what people want to be able to do is to make the right call, and that requires a certain degree of predictability.
Haha, this all reminds me of the time in GURPS where there were literally signs saying, "go back" and "only death ahead". They had to run away after that... unfortunately I had a player that was basically annoyed unless he was killing everything without breaking a sweat... so that game fell apart...
@@DDHomebrew Seriously. Since GURPS has DR (Damage Resistance), his character with full plate would just absorb most damage... so I created undead that could cast 'Death Touch' (I think that was the spell), which just went straight through his armor. The cool / sad part, is I had this awesome idea for these undead... they were guaddians of this area against their will. The cloaks they wore were enchanted... but cursed. They gave armor bonuses, and made it unnecessary to eat... but the longer you wore them, the more you dwindled away until you became one of the guardians that would be drawn to that area...
Agree big time! (just started the video) but yes I also mostly solo play and i try to decided of the character understands what is in front of them and have them decide things. I will have random encounter tables and will have something that will be very very hard to fight or deal with (not every encounter needs to end up as a fight people forget about this) Also this is why I also enjoy DCC (Dungeon Crawl Classics) it is very much not balanced and it is amazing.
@@DDHomebrew it makes it more fun it can backfire big time but also makes use of more creative usage in my opinion anyway. Seems like more experienced players try DCC out from my my experience anyway
I like the idea! It probably is not gonna work in linear story though (perhaps you believe that adventurers should never be linear, but I know quite a few people who like them), and I can see how players may decide not to take much risks and the GM may get frustrated.
Part of this is why they shouldn't have gotten rid of the encounter reaction table, because even if the party just stumbled across something really deadly... maybe it just ate and is feeling a bit tired and not in the mood to fight if it doesn't have to. It might just glare at them threateningly to see how they react. If I'm using an unbalanced deadly encounter, I'm almost always going to telegraph the encounters existence to the players to give them a chance to consider not attacking and make sure there's some way to get past it without resorting to combat. Essentially making it an "optional boss" for the dungeon or region. But if the players can't take a hint, I'm not above making them pay for their lack of wisdom.
I really like your point about encountering something while it's occupied with some activity, like eating its last opponent! It lend verisimilitude and keeps things interesting!
I'm interested in providing missions that players are able to end successfully, and brew monsters that don't cause instadefeat or one shot death, but all else is open world. So, now my second level players angered full half-ork pirate crew, and both of us are interested, how they can deal with this.
Hi KR, found you via M&T... what are your thoughts on applying this to one-shots eg at a convention? Just have backup characters ready for the players? I've always found most one-shots are designed to get the player characters through it, regardless of how rash or ill-considered their actions
It's interesting: I'm at GaryCon as I write this! I think you should warn the players at the outset of a one shot that things could get tricky, and then if they charge ahead let the dice decide things. That said, if players have slotted 4 hours of their valuable time to play your game, don't have a super deadly encounter in the first hour. Even if you warn them, they might assume that "that's where we're supposed to go" and get killed!
I’m testing “magical” grenades. A group of Bugbears tossed Confusion Powder Flash Flasks. The effect lasts 2-4 rounds. It worked great because it gave them a few rounds to actually hinder the party.
@@DDHomebrew Remember 4e's minion rules? the 1 hit point minions that get killed easily and thus makes combat faster? SWADE works just in wounds, and most extras are going down at one wound. This monster having 12 toughness or a bandit with 9 toughness? maybe a goblin with no armor having 6? they go down in 1 hit normally. even the rest of the math is fast. plus the combat and skill usage is much more useful. 5e, 3.5 and pf feel like theyre all about mosnter killing, youre not given much use of say... taunting, intimidating, persuading past combats or even IN combats which still helps the team.
@@DDHomebrew I personally use it to recreate older style DND, it works much better than 5e for a older school feel with the everpresent dangers. If you're interested the fantasy companion and pf edition exist as well for that flavor
All depends on GM, player group, along with setting theme of the game. a.) pop corn video game diving, not much on character rpg since there is a high kill off rate. So sorry, you being a d-ck and not being self aware enough to notice with your group of trolls when bring new players to the group. I went to multiple gaming shops in a few different cities from 1998 to 2004 since I live by a college campus town. I know how bad people can be going from AD&D and WotC 3e change over. b.) Survival horror with multiple PC per player due to the high kill off rate. People find that fun. Couple of years ago I saw some videos of people " overreacting " playing Mine Craft racing the sun back to shelter before the night creatures came out. After I started to play the game, I understand why. My nieces, " Did a Creeper just fell out a tree, blow up and knock you off a cliff edge down one of those few hundred yard/meter open pits ?" Everyone in the room was laughing their backsides off. If that wasn't a video game and you do an instant kill like that during table top, many players will lose their sh-t. Old westerns, the good guys are always outnumber at the start of the show, then you just have to work your way through the problem.
One of my greatest frustrations is the perception that a random encounter has to result in a monster or combat. Trade routes are generally safe, else they would not be a trade route. There are exceptions, but the main routes are safe more often than not. My world is an open sandbox and the players are free to go anywhere, with the fore knowledge that some areas are much more dangerous than others. Thanks again for the vid, preaching to the choir.
Glad you liked it! And you're right about trade routes: merchants would pick the safest route possible. But sometimes geography creates a choke point where bandits might linger, or the mere fact that heavily laden ships or caravans pass through an area may lure potential robbers.
If you roll orcs then its likey that there trying to collect a toll or fee for safe passage.
There's multipole noncombat ways to get past that encounter.
My players loathe the random encounter roll of "goblin tracks". It ranks right up there with "burned out farmstead" or "abandoned campsite". "Wolves howling" puts them on edge too.
None of those are combat encounters, but they could lead to a combat encounter.
@@almitrahopkins1873 The areas outside settlements are scary places, and visual and audio signs of that threat are great.
Exactly!
I love your example of a dragon pursuing the PCs back to a safe place. I had this exact thing happen during a solo game a while back. The characters' edge in the situation was that the entire town armed up to defend their home.
There were deaths, make no mistake, but now that town has a major historic event, a couple of memorialized locations, a dragon's skull mounted on the tavern entrance and new name: Crimsbane.
That's the soul of D&D my friend.
Something Baldur's Gate 3 taught me as a DM is building HARD encounters that are much much easier if you take an oblique approach or attack from a flanking direction. Strategic mix of units with their own delineated tactics and reliable ways for the players to dispatch them. Fun times. Great vid!
Great point! I have my monsters and NPCs use tactics to show the players how much they affect battles. Then they start thinking up their own.
Might as well play pathfinder then
@@DargorV I'm in three different Pathfinder games right now. It's a good system, though a bit crunchy for some.
1) Always have encounters in your world that will be certain death. Knowing their PCs aren't the biggest thing is the world is crucial for dramatic tension. 2) Give plenty of warning about these certain death encounters. This increases suspense, and removes the random pointless death element. 3) When possible, surround the deadliest encounters with less and less deadly ones; this give players the choice of how far into the danger zone they will go.
Remember, that dragon didn't accumulate that pile of gold or that lich survive for 200 years by being pushovers. Dozens of adventurers must have tried to take them out; their bones should litter the dungeon.
Exactly. But I took twelve minutes to say it.
I played a RPG years ago where you didn't get any experience if you didn't fight anything at least as powerful as you. Earlier editions of the worlds most popular roleplaying game didn't worry about encounter balance. You learned the hard way what to fight and when to avoid an encounter. I absolutely loved the discovery of my first time playing. Sure, characters died, but I just rolled another and kept playing. Excellent video, thanks for this!
Glad you liked it! And I think it's great to keep that spirit of the old days alive today!
Like how you have the nemesis change the area as well as the PCs actions changing the landscape of difficulty. Might make villagers less helpful as danger increases. “Ya think these hooligans are bring out the evils? Never had ‘em when we didn’t help those blade swingers””
Exactly! Having adventurers around is not always a good thing!
Been playing since 84, never heard referee until the mid 90s, it is so table specific.
It is always great to hear from folks that played "in the day" and realize that our own experiences were just that: our own!
Ive been playing since 81 and a wise bard once said : know when to walk away, know when to run.
If your good sense isnt enough to keep you safe, there is usually a saving throw. Either way, you can always roll a new character if needed.
Sage advice.
Balance went with the bath water. Returning to the game from AD&D to 5e I struggled to find my groove adhering to what I found to be utter nonsense. Now I can challenge a party of 12th levels with well equipped squads of Bugbears, or swarms of poisonous frogs mixed with half a dozen Quasits.
And your players will enjoy it: great risk brings great rewards and more exciting play!
Balancing encounters make players and GMs alike forget that there is more options than just fight.
You can run away from zombie horde, you can run past a golem with hp pool thiccker than you mama, you can sneak around sleeping hydra and you can negotiate with ambishing bandits and you can sacrafice bard to a dragon.
Only limit to actions they can take is thier imagination.
Two examples from games I ran looong ago:
1: party was sent to slay a gorgon, something that shouuld be fairly easy for lvl7 party of four, and so our heroes in high spirits ran into the forests only to find not one but 6 gorgons, what followed was high speed escape and party getting stuck on a giant tree, after half an hour long tyrade from one of the players about how unfair this encounter was followed by me saying that life isn't fair, druid asked very important question: "does gorgon hide count as a metal object?"
2: lvl 1 party on thier first quest, camping in the forest, at some they heard thunderous wing flapping sounds comming closer, and closer, and then followed by fierce wind massive ancient red dragon flew overhead, seemingly not noticing them or rather finding them benath his notice. And then OFC rogue decides to pull out a longbow and shoot the damn thing cause why not?
There was forest fire later this evening.
Great examples! In the first, we learn that things are not always what they seem and the wilderness is dangerous place. In the second, player actions cause problems!
Yeah who needs balancing. My first game of DND went as so. two hours creating characters for our party and our DM telling us how DND works. We finally finish creating and rolling our characters. We start at a dungeon, first move, run into a Blob. TPK. We were all annoyed as the DM told us webcam to go through the character making process again. We drank cough syrup instead and that was the last time I played DnD.
Too bad you lost interest after one bad experience. Hopefully you played with another GM.
And by that i can tell that you where playing a later edition of dnd.
@@DDHomebrewNo, you need some kind of balance. Because you have so much years of experience you dont even think how you internally balance the game, it has become instinct. Balance is also not about strong monsters vs PCs, its also about strong PCs vs monsters. When we are designing a dungeon for high level characters, as a DM I have to improve monsters in someway, whether tactics, environments or also equipping enemies with magic items. This is also balance-work. I’m running a level 13 Planescape game and they are armed to the teeth. At this point, there is no way I pop up 5 orcs from Monster Manual and pit them against my party. Its just boring, waste of time. I see your point, there are deadly and dangerous places. But you are confusing encounter balance and challenges. Players should be able to rob a dragon, that they cant defeat. This is a challenge. Or being chased by demons as level 1-2. I want to challenge the party, not TPK. And you instinctively already do this, you tell us your frame in the video, but encounter balance is a good skill to have. You are essentially talking about creating great and fun challenges but not actually giving insight why a DM should not study some encounter design.
@@MissZencefilthank you, I was starting to think the world had gone mad when I saw everyone agreeing without any caveats or reservations.
@@MissZencefil I did say a knowledge of balance is important, and I mentioned that players could rob a dragon, though it would very angry and possibly hunt them down. And defeating opponents that are more powerful is inherently challenging. I also did a video on thinking about challenges. That said, if you have an area where the challenges are extremely deadly and the players go there, they will have very unbalanced encounters. And so long as it comes out of their agency I say it's fine.
I don't have much else to say except that I enjoyed your vibe and I think your channel is a good influence in this space.
Thanks for the positivity.
Thanks for watching!
To my mind, and my style of DM'ing, the degree to which a pre-set encounter should be designed as "balanced" is in inverse proportion to the amount of warning, foreshadowing, portents, hints, cautions etc the players have received. When Im designing/populating "The Swamp of Infinite Evil," Im not doing it with a 2nd level party in mind. Can they go there at 2nd level? Of course they can. But they shouldnt whine if they all die. Why not? Because I (as DM) have had every rumor, story, hint, map, puzzle, etc and every NPC tell them, "You will all pretty much die if you go there" beforehand.
Also, your examples of player actions causing the "norm" to shift are excellent. What is safe today may not be tomorrow and vice versa. Words to the wise 👍
You want to have a dynamic dungeon where things change based on the players actions. They should always drive the plot lines of the world.
Rather than balanced I prefer "appropriate", the majority of encounters fit the theme, terrain and threat level with the truly dangerous or diverting being rare. Obviously some places just deadlier, deep woods, forsaken mountains, dungeons, but that too is knowable. The better key is to allow other than brute force to potentially resolve or even allow certain sleeping dogs lie until later. But if you poke some places or kill off somethings, bigger things are now awakened.
Sometimes you can have a deadly area that is deceptive: hiding in plain sight. Only when the players have wandered in do they realize their peril.
@@DDHomebrew and now you hit GM style of play, or choices, how does one want to keep it interesting? Trails or breadcrumbs, landmines, or just gonzo random!
@@michaelwest4325 I know you're not supposed to go gonzo random, but that is when the weird turn pro!
I think the usefulness of this advice is directly proportional to the experience of the players involved.
Hopefully a new GM has played at a good table with a decent GM to learn the game, and then learns as the campaign progresses. RPGs are very difficult to learn from just reading the rules.
@@DDHomebrew I'm talking about the players ability to understand threats in relation to their own characters' ability, the players' tactics, etc. To use a highly exaggerated example, even the best DM can't balance encounters when the players willfully walk into the giant spider's web after leaving their weapons in town. Running in the way you describe will be great for RPG veterans, maybe not so great when introducing your 8-year-old nieces and nephews to the game for the first time who just want to slay the dragon no matter what warning signs you give them.
I have met one guy who had never even played before who wanted to start as the DM, so there's bound to be more out there. Even if we ignore all the people who have only played under mediocre or bad DMs or who are switching game systems, _playing_ under a DM is a totally different ballgame to _being_ the DM, so you're not likely to be able to apply this lesson during your first several sessions no matter how great a table you've sat at previously. I think a qualifier that your advice is intended for DMs who have run more than half a dozen sessions would be good (if you didn't include one already that I missed).
All that said, CR is a rough guideline to getting you in the ballpark of balance _at best._ I think the rules for using it in 5E are weaker than in previous rule sets, but for a beginning DM it's often better than nothing. With nothing and little experience you're literally guessing as to what's too easy or too hard, and you'll find out the hard way alongside the PCs if you got it wrong. Veteran players will still get bored with endless lowballed encounter difficulty, and newbies will walk face first into a TPK 9 times out of 10 because how dangerous can half a dozen goblins actually be, right guys? Guys?
I have been told that my content speaks to more experienced GM's, even when I think I'm simplifying things! And for kids or all new players you can't expect them to understand the subtleties of encounters and NPC reactions. What I'm really trying to get away from is an obsession with balance that I sometimes see where 1) players always fight instead of being creative and 2) battles where the players know they'll win but have to roll 100 dice to get there. @@CowCommando
@@DDHomebrew I think that is a very noble goal to reduce the obsession with balance. I missed that if you stated that in the video, and that assumption totally changes my perception of what you're saying. I'll have to go rewatch the video to see what I think about it with this added context.
Don't take the words of one grumpy voice on the Internet too seriously. If we were speaking in person, I think my tone and mannerisms would have better conveyed that I agree with your video in general even if my words come across as antagonistic.
I haven't been able to put your methods as presented into practice at my table for a variety of reasons. They will not work for me, but they don't have to in order to be good advice.
I've come across lots of so called advice for DMs online that is either too niche to be useful or downright incorrect as presented. I think your advice is good, but the video didn't clarify from the start the underlying assumptions it relies on, open world, minimum level of player experience, etc. That's my only issue with the video. The advice itself is fine within that rubric, but I didn't see the rubric stated openly in the video (and as stated in another comment that could be because I missed it rather than it not being there).
And I may have not stated it clearly in the video. Not to worry: I like some pushback on my views: you learn the most from folks who disagree (even just a little) with what you're saying. And often you realize that you're not that far apart.@@CowCommando
I run DCC and don't worry about balancing encounters at all. I actually plan to make a whole series of "Unbalanced Encounters" to pit parties against high difficulty monsters. Something like a DCC Funnel but for higher level characters.
Great idea! I would love to run some higher level DCC characters.
Planning on running a full, proper Cy_Borg game starting tomorrow, and I'm doing the same. Gonna have an optional boss on the bottom floor of the oil rig they'll be on that will absolutely melt them if they're not careful.
DCC is designed not to care about balance because Hp is so low.
Every class starts with everything that class encompasses from 3.5 or 5e
I love DCC.
Favorite DnD system ever.
First level hero’s can go straight to end game of the campaign cause they’re rock stars at first level
I was going to run a side DCC game today, since the full group for PF2e couldn't make it... but as I was gonna start prepping something last minute, the first friend showed up. We ended up just laughing, drinking scotch, and chatting. One of these days, I'll get my friends rolling those 14 dice!
Sounds cool!
Respectfully, you absolutely do in fifth edition. If you have combat encounters with no magic resistance/high wis save they are going to be getting shut down left and right, in terms of absolute power? No. totally agree. Throw a giant at a party because it's just appropriate and the CR matches the table, things gonna be a chipmunk very first round.
So long as the players know that if they go into area X they will run into deadly encounters, and area y not so deadly, then can live with the potential for death and destruction. In my opinion!
@@DDHomebrew I think you misunderstood, I don't mean balance in terms of power specifically I mean you better have encounters that can handle heightened polymorph and hypnotic pattern.
@@danieljones-mh7rb Now I see. I've seen this with a monster that has a frightened ability with a high DC: players who can't make their saves are at a trememdous disadvantage in 5e.
Thank you, good to see again.
Thanks for watching!
I'd say to any new DMs out there that 5e CR system is a good guide for lvls 1-3 with a group you haven't DMed for before. You don't want to accidentally splatter a party of noobs after all.
After that however, if you need a guide line group your encounters into: Annoyance/delay/attrition(Only through pvp can they kill themselves), serious challenge (they could die if they screw up or don't pay attention) and hella deadly (If it were you in their stead, you'd run away). Look at your PCs. A serious combat encounter should be able to K.O. them in a single hit on a crit. A deadly encounter that happens to max damage should be able to either kill them or leave them with a hair of hps left. If your wizard PC has 30 HPs, your monsters are doing either less than 10 hp/attack, 15 hp/attack or 30 hp/attack depending on what you want to achieve.
Magic spells throws this system for a loop... And it should. That's why magic is feared.
All great points. You always want to give your players information about the world, which includes how Deadly things are.
@@DDHomebrewAlso true. And leave a clear way for them to run away in deadly encounters. Mostly they won't but it should be there just in case. I do tell them ahead of time that I don't balance (I do a little bit), it's their job to decided if they can do something or not
@@Weemadaggie And I think that player agency is a crucial part of fun RPG play.
@@DDHomebrewIt could be argued that retreating is one of the most impactful player agency choices. At least in combat. But it's so hard to get a party to even consider it.
@@Weemadaggie I have stressed retreating since the beginning. But hard to get players to do.
I actually decided not to include a CR system in a system I'm building (that's similar to D&D, but also it's own thing), to encourage GMs to come up with better encounters, and also because figuring out CR was turning out to be so frustratingly difficult that I couldn't make it work.
Currently testing it out, but ignoring CR is surprisingly enough, a well-balanced way of going about designing encounters, especially since you no longer need to worry about the fact that the Wizard decided to be the Tank while the Barbarian is sitting back and throwing axes at everyone.
That's a whole other great topic: how do you players to do more interesting things in combat and other type encounters.
@@DDHomebrew Don't get me started on that, unless you're ready for a paragraph of (admittedly awesome) stuff. I implemented Weaknesses with Damage Thresholds (Tied Together), Resistances, Immunities, and lots of things to make monsters not feel as if they're all designed to be beaten the same way.
Oh, and you can't forget the sheer variety of builds.
@@SamuelDancingGallewMight I suggest including a few very rudimentary guidelines in your rules for absolute newbies. The TPK you prevent could be your own.
@@CowCommando Of course, basic guidelines to help others get started, such as using Hit Dice and Damage Dice as a baseline, then adjust as needed until mastery.
But to be honest, so far I've gotten way too close to killing my players with something that would've been "CR 1/2" according to the numbers I had, and absolutely would have killed them, if I hadn't been smart enough to think of backup plans that don't feel totally cheap.
@@SamuelDancingGallew There's always going to be outliers, and I've yet to see a ruleset where the players' tactics failed to be a significant factor in the challenge an encounter presented no matter how much prep went into balancing things beforehand.
I've also seen the dice decide that today the goblins get to win, and there was nothing the players nor I could do to stop it save rules fudging the combat into a negotiation where we could narrate the action without RNG dictating a TPK. The players tactics were sound and the threat was low. Two and a half rounds of the PCs collectively rolling 8 or less and the goblins rolling no lower than a 13, typically rolling over 15 with their boss rolling three 18s and a crit in just 3 rounds left us all wondering how and why someone had rigged a table full of dice.
I believe the challenge is to be fair to the players and to the story.
I agree: if the plays act sensibly they shouldn't be surprised by something deadly, but if they act foolishly... there's a great story!
I use Pathfinder 1st or 3e for the most part. An average goblin has a +12 stealth in those systems and I use it.
There are four non-combat encounters on my random tables that hint at goblins being around. "Goblin tracks", "burned out farm", "abandoned campsite" and "wolves howling" scare the hell out of my players without any combat, because I have TPK'd them with four goblins, 3 wolves and third level goblin rogue at 5th level before.
You can get a whole campaign out of just a goblin horde moving into an area. One out of every five has character levels, if you go by the AD&D 2nd ecologies, which makes them particularly tough to beat, reagardless of their CR.
That 5th level TPK spawned my "keep the fired homes burning" campaign, when the players, to the very last, all made goblin PCs as replacement characters.
My goblins aren't cowardly. They're sneaky. They're conniving. They're cunning. They run so they can come back in higher numbers.
This gets into a whole variety of encounter ideas that are worth exploring. You don't always have to have battles, creatures will come up with tactics to compensate for weaknessess in a straight ahead attack, and they understand that there is strength in numbers.
In the sense that winnable fights you intend to happen should be balanced in some way against the players, yes you should balance encounters. In this sense, players do not decide the general strength of the encounters, you do.
As for monsters they encounter that you don't intend for them to fight. Make sure the players understand that, tell them IRL if you have to. Players can only work with the information you give them and if they get killed because they didn't know or understand something you did or didn't tell them, well that's kind of on you, not them. Even if you tell them there are high level areas, if they don't understand that they're entering one, that's still on you. Even if they still don't get it after telling them via an NPC, that's still on you. Make sure they understand.
So all in all, even if they piss of the duke and he sends hired help at them, they should be able to deal with the hired help. And if they can't, then you should have told them that would be the result of making the duke mad before they did it. Anything else is antagonistic. You shouldn't play with their greed saying, "if you go in this area where you'll probably die, you can obtain an item that can resolve this issue," when you know damn well that they won't have to do that to accomplish what they need to at the end of the day. You could put that item somewhere else, you could invent a different way to solve the problem. You're job is to build the path of success for them, not try and lure them off of it with promises of candy. I mean if the players want this style, I suppose, go for it, but it shouldn't be assumed that most players will like this.
As a side note. in my world there aren't really "deadly" areas. There are some areas that are less civilized so higher level creatures are less scrutinized there, but otherwise local adventurers and military can take care of high level threats. For the most part, high level monsters are hiding or hard to find.
Yes, the game master is the absolute arbiter of information, and you absolutely need to make sure the players have enough information to make an informed decision.
I think this is a matter of game style, along with a lack of clarification on my part. I felt like in my video I explained that the players know the world in general and are aware of what areas are deadly. However, the idea that when players make mistakes it's always the GM's fault would not resonate with my players. If I tell them IRL or through an NPC or some other form of information that area X is deadly and they forget or didn't understand what it meant, went in and got in trouble, they would recount the various clues and realize they messed up. They're experienced players who want to run in a challenging world. And the next time they will listen very closely.
I also run a sand box campaign, so they can go where ever they want whatever my warnings. I would never place some critical item in an area or with monsters that were near impossible to defeat, because one I almost never used critical items but two because it's not fun to have the story come to a halt if the players can't retrieve an item.
As for paving the way to player success, it's just not my style of play. If you poke Godzilla, King Kong or a band of Hells Angels, you will get stomped. That's a rule of real life and baked into the mechanics of monster levels in an RPG. I've said in another video that the GM should favor the players at some level, but the idea that if the players rip off a duke and he comes for them and makes them pay, it's the GM's fault for not using hirelings the players can defeat just doesn't wash for me. A duke knows that he needs to prevent any one else from trying to steal from him. And he's going use the players as an example.
I've learned over the years that many players come to realize that in an RPG world where success comes at a risk, and is earned and not a foregone conclusion, they really enjoy thoses successes. And in the far reaches of that world there be dragons and they are not to be trifled with. But I also know that there are players who don't like that sort of game. So to each their own.
I agree. If you have deadly areas, the players should be well aware, whether it's through information they know from living in your world, or through clues as the enter a heretofore unknown area.
@@DDHomebrew Hmm. I'm not sure where or if we exactly disagree, so let me try to clarify a bit.
I agree that if you poke godzilla, you should get stomped, but the DM should make it explicitly clear that you are essentially starting new characters if you do that before it's done. I don't have problem with players pissing off a duke and then going against unbeatable hirelings, so long as they know the risk before they do it. I don't believe in this idea of just stumbling into the unbeatable with little to no hope, unless that's the experience that the players explicitly signed up for.
What I mean by paving the way to success, isn't clearing out all potential dangers. It's simply presenting reasonable problems and solutions to my players for things they want to overcome, even if that solution isn't immediate. If my players wanted to conquer the dungeon of unimaginable evil, they're going to need to level first. I'll light that pathway for them, I'll let them know things they can do to level up and prepare themselves. Reasonable things that don't risk their lives more than necessary. If they insist on going in before that, I'll let them know that means certain doom and to prepare new characters for next week if they want that. I'm not going out of my way to make everything easy, but I'm also not shrugging my shoulders going, "well okay, if you really insist..."
Like let's say my players are trying to sneak around somewhere and one of them tries to use a spell that uses a verbal component, I'm going to let them know about that before they cast the spell. I will tell them straight to their face, "hey this will screw up the whole sneaking thing that you're trying to do," in those words exactly. I'm not going to wink and hint and hope they catch my drift, I'm just going to be very clear with them. What I'm not going to do is handwave away that element of the spell to make things easier. They need to deal with the problem as presented, but I also don't want bear traps just lying around waiting to screw my players over. I want them to struggle against challenges, but I also want them to succeed. It is in my best interest that they do.
So I will present a challenging trial to overcome and then I will light the way to success.
Agreed. I do the same thing with the old "are you sure you want to do that?" and then they ask "what do you mean" and I respond with "you are trying to sneak, right?" But if a spell has a verbal component, and you're not playing in a system with silent spell capabilities, it's going to make noise.
And you are right again that it is in a GM's best interest for the players to succeed, but I like to see good play win the day as opposed to "well, they messed up again, but I can't kill off the whole party because then we'll have to roll up new characters, etc." @@TheAnimeAtheist
0:14 this is so wise!
Go now in peace. 🙏
The dragon is always there. Its whether or not you poke it that decides how old you live to be.
But knowing it's there, sitting on a big pile of treasure, makes it hard to resist.
@@DDHomebrew that is true, and it's also why there is a big pile of bones nearby....
Yep.@@BrianM-44041
Predictability. While some surprise is fine, what people want to be able to do is to make the right call, and that requires a certain degree of predictability.
And so you give the players information about different areas and let them make the call.
Thank you for saying this. It's unrealistic to always have a fair fight.
Thanks!
If you stop viewing "encounters" as "battles" it becomes a lot easier. Don't poke the bugbear.
Great point!
45 years of GM experience...
I've never used an encounter balancing mechanism... and I never will.
And it seems to have worked just fine for you.
Haha, this all reminds me of the time in GURPS where there were literally signs saying, "go back" and "only death ahead". They had to run away after that... unfortunately I had a player that was basically annoyed unless he was killing everything without breaking a sweat... so that game fell apart...
You're murder hobos hate it when they run into a bigger bully!
@@DDHomebrew Seriously. Since GURPS has DR (Damage Resistance), his character with full plate would just absorb most damage... so I created undead that could cast 'Death Touch' (I think that was the spell), which just went straight through his armor.
The cool / sad part, is I had this awesome idea for these undead... they were guaddians of this area against their will. The cloaks they wore were enchanted... but cursed. They gave armor bonuses, and made it unnecessary to eat... but the longer you wore them, the more you dwindled away until you became one of the guardians that would be drawn to that area...
@@slaapliedje A very nice cursed item! For the GM that is. Heh heh heh.
Agree big time! (just started the video) but yes I also mostly solo play and i try to decided of the character understands what is in front of them and have them decide things. I will have random encounter tables and will have something that will be very very hard to fight or deal with (not every encounter needs to end up as a fight people forget about this) Also this is why I also enjoy DCC (Dungeon Crawl Classics) it is very much not balanced and it is amazing.
I like DCC for that reason as well, and some others too: the magic system is cool too. But it's also deadly, which takes getting used to.
@@DDHomebrew it makes it more fun it can backfire big time but also makes use of more creative usage in my opinion anyway. Seems like more experienced players try DCC out from my my experience anyway
@@yagsipcc287 I was in a campaign online but it fell apart. Would like to run more of it.
No not at all as the job of a GM is to make an obstacles and it is the job of the players to find solutions.
I like that concept: GM creates problems and the players find solutions.
I like the idea! It probably is not gonna work in linear story though (perhaps you believe that adventurers should never be linear, but I know quite a few people who like them), and I can see how players may decide not to take much risks and the GM may get frustrated.
In a linear story, higher level monsters can be a way to keep the players from wandering too far off the intended path.
I run a sandbox style campaign, so the players can do what they want. And they have avoided my elaborate mega-dungeon because it scares them too much!
Or gain some unexpected treasure that helps them on that storyline!
Excellent and solid advice
Thanks!
Part of this is why they shouldn't have gotten rid of the encounter reaction table, because even if the party just stumbled across something really deadly... maybe it just ate and is feeling a bit tired and not in the mood to fight if it doesn't have to. It might just glare at them threateningly to see how they react.
If I'm using an unbalanced deadly encounter, I'm almost always going to telegraph the encounters existence to the players to give them a chance to consider not attacking and make sure there's some way to get past it without resorting to combat. Essentially making it an "optional boss" for the dungeon or region.
But if the players can't take a hint, I'm not above making them pay for their lack of wisdom.
I really like your point about encountering something while it's occupied with some activity, like eating its last opponent! It lend verisimilitude and keeps things interesting!
I'm interested in providing missions that players are able to end successfully, and brew monsters that don't cause instadefeat or one shot death, but all else is open world. So, now my second level players angered full half-ork pirate crew, and both of us are interested, how they can deal with this.
The players are like a pebble thrown into still waters: those ripples cause problems!
Hi KR, found you via M&T... what are your thoughts on applying this to one-shots eg at a convention? Just have backup characters ready for the players? I've always found most one-shots are designed to get the player characters through it, regardless of how rash or ill-considered their actions
It's interesting: I'm at GaryCon as I write this! I think you should warn the players at the outset of a one shot that things could get tricky, and then if they charge ahead let the dice decide things. That said, if players have slotted 4 hours of their valuable time to play your game, don't have a super deadly encounter in the first hour. Even if you warn them, they might assume that "that's where we're supposed to go" and get killed!
If you want harder encounters in DND, add more magic using enemies. Physical damage is kind of a joke because you can miss.
Especially in the 5e environment, where they just add HPs to compensate for levels.
I’m testing “magical” grenades. A group of Bugbears tossed Confusion Powder Flash Flasks. The effect lasts 2-4 rounds. It worked great because it gave them a few rounds to actually hinder the party.
@@chrisragner3882 I'm going to use those!
@@DDHomebrewI will share them.
@@chrisragner3882 Thanks!
I love this video, Kevin!
Glad you liked it!
Where did you get a Twilight 2000 in a blue box? I have the old GDW yellow box. Did another company release a new Twilight 2000?
I bought the Free League reprint. Some people don't care for the changes from the original but I like it.
@@DDHomebrew I may have to look that up.
@@almitrahopkins1873 I like the Free League system.
Stupidity leads to character creation.
Or bad luck.
10,000 thumbs up.
Thanks!
SWADE is much more fun, quick tense combat, no hit points
And no, balance doesn't really exist.
I've not played Savage Worlds, but I've it runs fast.
@@DDHomebrew Remember 4e's minion rules? the 1 hit point minions that get killed easily and thus makes combat faster?
SWADE works just in wounds, and most extras are going down at one wound.
This monster having 12 toughness or a bandit with 9 toughness? maybe a goblin with no armor having 6? they go down in 1 hit normally. even the rest of the math is fast.
plus the combat and skill usage is much more useful. 5e, 3.5 and pf feel like theyre all about mosnter killing, youre not given much use of say... taunting, intimidating, persuading past combats or even IN combats which still helps the team.
@@elgatochurro Sounds cool!
@@DDHomebrew I personally use it to recreate older style DND, it works much better than 5e for a older school feel with the everpresent dangers.
If you're interested the fantasy companion and pf edition exist as well for that flavor
I will check it out!
All depends on GM, player group, along with setting theme of the game.
a.) pop corn video game diving, not much on character rpg since there is a high kill off rate.
So sorry, you being a d-ck and not being self aware enough to notice with your group of trolls when bring new players to the group.
I went to multiple gaming shops in a few different cities from 1998 to 2004 since I live by a college campus town.
I know how bad people can be going from AD&D and WotC 3e change over.
b.) Survival horror with multiple PC per player due to the high kill off rate. People find that fun.
Couple of years ago I saw some videos of people " overreacting " playing Mine Craft racing the sun back to shelter before the night creatures came out.
After I started to play the game, I understand why.
My nieces, " Did a Creeper just fell out a tree, blow up and knock you off a cliff edge down one of those few hundred yard/meter open pits ?"
Everyone in the room was laughing their backsides off.
If that wasn't a video game and you do an instant kill like that during table top, many players will lose their sh-t.
Old westerns, the good guys are always outnumber at the start of the show, then you just have to work your way through the problem.
Good points. We think of the game as a static set if rules, but it evolves from the attitudes and expectations of the players