How do you balance encounters?

[Guest Celebrin]

It's been an age since I've really run a Champions game, let alone a campaign of any length, though I have player in many. Now that my game has finally found the characters securely placed in the scheme of things at the moment, I'm looking at providing serious challenges for them and am wonder how different GMs balance encounters or decide what is a challenge and what is not.

 

Do you base it on the specific group and their weaknesses, do you base it off of point totals, do you have other methods?

 

I'm not talking about creating a specific challenge rating-style concept, but just to give me a sense of how to balance encounters so that I don't completely crush my players by accident...I'd prefer to do that by design.

 

Darren

[Dr. MID-Nite]

Generally, I just look at what kind of powers and abilities my players have and balance accordingly. I have a large group(6 players) so I'd rather err on the side of too much power than too little. With players, they tend to pull stuff out of thin air, so even if you're villains are tougher than you had intended, the heroes can usually still win. For a single vilain, he has to be tough enough to take about a turn of abuse generally. Plus an attack than can harm all or at least most of the players. A group can be made of weaker members, but they still need to be able to take a couple phases of abuse. Beyond that, you need to analyze your players characters a bit to adjust encounters appropriately.

 

Rob

[zornwil]

I do look at points as part of it; I stat out my villains inefficiently (not wanting to take the time otherwise) but ensure they aren't monstrously more points than my PCs. Moreover, I do consider the PCs' weaknesses and I also consider what teamwork the bad guys can muster.

 

Also, I'm not afraid to adjust on the fly, adding a few more points of defense or attack as the battle engages and I suddenly realize something is off a bit. You have to be careful with this - you don't want the villains to be changing in the middle of combat in such a way that it detracts from the consistency'"realism" as well as in such a way that the PCs can't predict things in the way "real" superheroes could in a combat.

[Blue]

Wish I knew

 

So far it seems I'm always underpowered. Much like the villains I run, I always underestimate the heroes.

[Supreme Serpent]

Everyone's had good points, and I'll second Blue's wish. ;)Start based on the heroes' capabilities. Gives you a good starting point.

 

Not that all encounters need to be "fair". Sometimes you intentionally want the PC's to have an easy time, sometimes you want them to have a hard one.

 

As a GM, I am a major STUN cheat when it helps the drama. Often, but especially if the PC's are having a rough time already, if a villain goes out, he's out - proceed automatically to -31 land. If the villain is being taken out much too easily, then STUN gets added on.

 

Usually I only need to do this early in the campaign when I'm not as in tune with the PC's abilities/methods, or when people switch out characters.

 

If going into it, I know the PC's are outmatched, I also try to make sure to include some environmental benefits they can take advantage of - high-voltage transformer they could arrange to KB the villain into, fire hydrants when fighting flame character, etc. Of course, these things come up normally, but I put more thought into them if the PC's are outgunned.

[Guest Celebrin]

Thanks for the input, folks, it's muchly appreciated.

 

I tend to have similar problems, Blue - having my encounters and battles be a little too easy for the PCs, but hopefully that will change as I get a little further into the game (we've only played about 4 sessions so far).

 

The players are starting to get the hang of their powers and work with tactics, so I'm going to have to work on my villains and their flunkies a little more to make things challenging for them without making it too tough to begin with. I'm saving some of the real toughness for a little further down the line when they start to get cocky. (I hope).

 

Thanks,

Darren

[TheEmerged]

Here are some metrics I find useful. No order implied.

 

#1> Point value, simple form: add up the point totals of your PC's and their opponents. If the total is way out of whack, it isn't going to be balanced. If you understand the next statement use it: you should never have more than 3 standard deviations difference between them and more than 2 is probably a mistake.

 

#2> Point value, difficult form: determine a "cutoff" value that in your opinion represents the point total of a baseline henchman. I use 150 in my current campaign (PC's are in the low 400-point range). Subtract that from every PC's point total and add the remainders. Repeat for the opposition. Same scale as above.

 

#3> Attacks per Turn, simple form. Add up the SPD value for the two sides. If off by more than 50% you're likely to have a problem.

 

#4> ApT, difficult form: If the PC's are more powerful than the NPC's, subtract 2 from each NPC's SPD before totally to reflect the fact that several will be eliminated well before the combat is over. If either side has significant "crowd control" powers that take out more than one phase on the other side per phase, take that into account.

 

#5> Avg Hits to KO. Determine the average damage result one side will have on the other -- this may require you to "chart" every PC against every NPC if the damage and/or defense scores differ wildly. Divide each character's STUN by the average damage; this gives you an average number of hits necessary to knock out that player. This metric usually requires the most work and consequently is often the best listed yet.

 

#6> "Effectiveness Rating" -- I've seen a couple attempts at this and I've yet to see one that adequately figures in crowd control powers. They are, of course, hard to quantify to be fair. One I've seen sums the "effective CV" (including skills and physical or mental CV), SPD, and "DC's against average" (if the average is 8 DC, a 10 DC character gets +2 and a 6 DC character gets -2).

 

#7> "The Henchman Rule of Fingers". If the PC's are significantly more powerful than the NPC's, chances are you're going to need at least 4 NPC per PC (hence the "rule of fingers" instead of rule of thumb). This is especially true in the superheroic genre where it's not at all impossible for a PC to eliminate 3 henchman-level NPC's per phase...

[Herolover]

As a HERO GM one of the hardest things to do is judge encounter strengths. There are no guidelines or given and with the system so flexible it is hard to figure out what is what. I have come up with a couple of rules that I go by though and I share them here.

 

1) Points are not Important.

Total points are NOT important. Yep, I DO NOT look at point totals. I don't look at point totals because they are very deceptive. If a character spends 400 points on Contacts, Perks, Talents and Skill they will be more points then the characters, but without any kind of attack, defense, or ability to hit the players they will not make a good encounter.

 

2) Break the Campaign Limits

When I look at a challenge for my players I look at OCV, DCV, Defenses (sometimes this is a high DCV), and attacks.. Let me give you an example. Everyone fears King Leo in my campaign. Why? He is built on 350 points and the PC's are built on 375 points. So what makes King Leo so nasty in an encounter. Well, King Leo has a normal DCV of 12 and can boost that up to a DCV of 15 if needed. Second he has a killing attack that is worth 80 active points when the characters can only muster attacks of 70 active ponts. That is what makes Dr Destoyer so bad. He breaks campaign limits. Because of that Character's can't hurt him and he continually can hit and hurt the players.

 

3) Specific Powers.

Mechassassin just became a major problem for the players in my campaign. It isn't that he has any great defenses, is isn't that he has any great attacks. However, his Darkness grenades just stop my players cold. None of them can see through or in them and thus Mechassassin knows to use his grenades to his advantage.

 

4) Tactics

This cannot be overlooked. Be aware of what creature or villain you are using. An example of this could be Mummies. I could write up mummies that would scare the pants of people. However, being mindless they won't use their best ability all the time, they won't use tactics, they will just mindless go. I took Bulldozer up against a player one time and realized that I could really make the combat close. However, Bullldozer, though not an idiot, isn't really smart enough so I, as the GM, made major tactical errors that allowed the player to win easily.

 

 

5) Cheat

Yep. CHEAT. CHEAT. CHEAT. Players would drather have you cheat and create a great story with a close run combat than a boring encounter in which they loose or win so easy that they yawn. Cheating, fudging, or whatever you want to call it can be done in several ways:

• Dr. Destroyer has Tactics and a very high intelligence. I do not. According to the rules you should declare what he aborts to before the attack happens. However, Dr. Destroyer is smart so why not let him delcare after? He is so smart, he knew it was coming. He knew the players would go that route so he just happened to have agents set up around that corner. D&D books of challenges talks about GM'ing intelligent creatures and I think every GM for any game should read it.
  
• Obviously you can fudge dice rolls. I have found though that it adds a lot of drama to keep the dice rolls in the open. This is just my opinion roll because I roll very good usually. I know one GM that can never roll good and if I was him I would never roll in the open.
  
• Change the encounter. I am sure every GM that has ever played the HERO SYSTEM, or any othe system for that matter, has the encounter where he plans on it being very nasty and something that really presses the players. Then, the players suddenly start walking through the encounter. Change it. Add more agents, give them better weapons. Just because you planned to use 6 agents doesn't mean you can't through another 10 in there. This can be used another way to maybe you watching the players get killed by 6 agents don't use the other 10.
  
• Change the Character Sheet. Yes I know Kill Man was suppossed to be hurting the players, but his 14d6 EB just isn't hurting or scarring the players. Change it. Make Kill Man's attack be 18d6. Or maybe Kill Man is getting to hurt by the players. Increase his defense.
  
• Stun times. Okay sure Kill Man got knocked out and is in the area where he only recovers once every post segment 12. Who says? Have him recover quicker. The players shouldn't know how much defenses or stun he has anyway.
  

 

I hope any of this helped.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Blue

Wish I knew

 

So far it seems I'm always underpowered. Much like the villains I run, I always underestimate the heroes.

 

Five heroes vs five equal villains. The heroes will pretty much always win. Why? The GM is running five characters with one mind. The players each run one character and bring 5 minds to bear on the overall tactics, and are more familiar with their characters. After a few scenarios, the players know their teammates better than the GM knows his villains.

[Trebuchet]

Lots of good advice here.

 

I'll throw in a couple of thoughts. First, the purpose of fights isn't to beat up the PCs (or let them pummel the bad guys). The purpose of combat is to provide drama and excitement to the overall story. It's no fun if it's either too hard or too easy. If you look at all role playing games as interactive fiction where the GM provides the setting and plotline and the players provide the action and dialogue then you've got the right idea. You're not screwing them if you give them a really tough fight, you're giving them the satisfaction of accomplishing a difficult task despite overwhelming odds.

 

Second, while a group of players can generally outthink a single GM, they probably can't outplan him. The GM knows what powers the PCs have and what the villains have. The players seldom have much idea of exactly what a villain can do, especially if he's new. Furthermore, the GM can coordinate better than any group of individual players. So use those advantages. If it's a smart villain team, they'll probably plan for superheroic intervention. So hold a member or two of the villains in reserve, or post agents as lookouts for the inevitable hero arrival.

 

Finally, remember the joy of ambushing. Heroes seldom get to ambush bad guys, but the reverse simply doesn't hold true in the genre. (Not every fight should be an ambush, but at least some.) Hit them with that AE attack while they're still milling around discussing tactics. Jam their radios or Mind Links. Throw smoke bombs. Nobody's all that tough when they can't see.

[Edsel]

I, like a lot of us apparently, have been playing Champs since the 1st Edition. Balancing a game has always been more art than science for me. I have never much liked the various mathematical schemes that have been proposed to balance games. That's just a matter of personal taste.

 

One of the biggest unknowns in the game is the quality of the player's tactics. Players vary in their tactical apptitude and then there are always those nights that they think more or less clearly.

 

I rarely run one-shot games. Usually I have an adventure build-up with lesser encounters at first. This gives me a chance to guage the power and capabilities of the player characters. I find this to be critical in a new campaign. After a while I get a pretty good sense of just what the players can and can't handle.

 

I am not above fudging a few things if I necessary to help out the play balance, but I only do this if it is apparent to me I have screwed up the power level. I fudge as little as possible and not at all if I can help it. If a villian or team that I have devised mops up the players I try to make sure that in subsequent encounters conditions have changed. Perhaps there just happens to be a condition that hurts the villian and helps the players during their next encounter. Perhaps a weakness is discovered.

 

On the occation that I under power my villian. Perhaps he is actually the front man for the villian they'll meet next week. That wasn't Doom it was a Doombot.

 

There is no easy answer.

[Javed]

I don't have any specific formula for balancing an encouter. I usually run on a pretty intuitive manner. But I do look at the PCs abilities and figure out what things would not affect them at all, and what would be overwhelming.

 

Of course, everytime I try to come up with an encounter that I know will be a challenge of a specific level, the PCs manage to come up with something that throws the whole thing out of whack.

 

I do normally find that a group of villains has to be slightly more powerful than a group of heros to present an average challenge, simply because the heros can develop tacics more spur of the moment. Each of them only runs one character after all.

[Guest Keneton]

ER

 

My article on the effectiveness rating does work. My players will back me up. The math is solid and I feel I can prove it.

 

My friend Mike Dodd was the genious behind it, I only codified it.

 

My 2 ep.

[zornwil]

Re: ER

 

Originally posted by Keneton

My article on the effectiveness rating does work. My players will back me up. The math is solid and I feel I can prove it.

 

My friend Mike Dodd was the genious behind it, I only codified it.

 

My 2 ep.

 

You guys need a plugin into Hero Designer that would just calc it!

[zornwil]

Re: ER

 

Originally posted by Keneton

My article on the effectiveness rating does work. My players will back me up. The math is solid and I feel I can prove it.

 

My friend Mike Dodd was the genious behind it, I only codified it.

 

My 2 ep.

 

PS - okay, so let me ask you - do you feel it's so strong that you can use the numbers without (much) reference to actual powers and such? Just curious how far you take this in practice.

[BNakagawa]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Five heroes vs five equal villains. The heroes will pretty much always win. Why? The GM is running five characters with one mind. The players each run one character and bring 5 minds to bear on the overall tactics, and are more familiar with their characters. After a few scenarios, the players know their teammates better than the GM knows his villains.

 

Assuming all your players cooperate with eachother. Assuming they all know the rules to the same extent that the GM does. Assuming the characters are willing to cooperate with eachother. Assuming the villains weren't constructed to work as a unit. Assuming the PCs were designed to work together (and don't have any potentially disastrous side effects or special effects on their powers). Assuming the GM isn't a better tactician than the best tactician among the players.

 

Some of the time, you are correct. Some of the time, you are not.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by BNakagawa

Assuming all your players cooperate with eachother. Assuming they all know the rules to the same extent that the GM does. Assuming the characters are willing to cooperate with eachother. Assuming the villains weren't constructed to work as a unit. Assuming the PCs were designed to work together (and don't have any potentially disastrous side effects or special effects on their powers). Assuming the GM isn't a better tactician than the best tactician among the players.

 

Some of the time, you are correct. Some of the time, you are not.

 

I think Hugh in this case is mostly right. Of course there are exceptions, but in my gaming experience where you see 5 equal villains vs 5 equal heroes, the heroes win every time, or at least nearly so.

[Trebuchet]

Re: ER

 

Originally posted by Keneton

My article on the effectiveness rating does work. My players will back me up. The math is solid and I feel I can prove it.

What's the correlation between your ER system and victory in a fight? Will a 91 ER always beat a 90 ER 100% of the time? 75% of the time? 50% of the time? Will a 110 ER villain beat a team of 100 ER heroes most of the time? How much do clever tactics skew the results? (By that I mean, if two opponents stand in an arena and pound on each other it should be pretty easy to calculate the eventual winner even without an ER system. How (and how well) does your system compensate for clever and/or original tactics?)

 

Nothing against your ER system, Keneton; I think it's a useful tool, like dice. But it's no substitute for careful character design and thoughtful and clever GMing. It can prevent a GM from totally mismatching combatants. But some parts of role playing will always be more art than science.

[Vex]

My Exiles Campaign

 

In my campaign, I am going to go with "stylistic exaggeration", in other words, my characters don't know that much about the Hero Games system so I can fudge here and there to make the battles fun. They know some of the basics and are learning the different maneuvers, but haven't really started to fight as a team or even come to consider that option.

 

It was funny when they complained that Comet (a villainous Cannonball) exceeded the campaign maximum while doing a move through (14d6 at full speed) and that one of the villains had DCV levels bought with Endurance as a superpower that made her difficult to hurt. All I had to do was point out that each one of their characters has one area that they break the campaign "suggested" limits and that all such breaks have to be signed off by me (for instance, Thunderstorm has a 100 point multipower, well over the 60 point normally allowed, but this lets the character call down lightning strikes and such).

[Blue]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Five heroes vs five equal villains. The heroes will pretty much always win. Why? The GM is running five characters with one mind. The players each run one character and bring 5 minds to bear on the overall tactics, and are more familiar with their characters. After a few scenarios, the players know their teammates better than the GM knows his villains.

More like 8 Heroes v. however many villains I dare run when there are already 8 characters on the board. Hardest thing to do is balance a big group.

 

I've decided on the method with which we are most familiar... TRIAL AND ERROR. I'll get it right eventually, if we play enough consecutive games. And I'm still going to blow it one way or another, it's just a matter of making it fun anyway. And it's Champions, so it's unlikely anyone will ever die from a misjudgment on my part.

[Guest Celebrin]

Thanks again for the input, folks. It's given me a few ideas on what to look for by way of balancing opponents, as well as reminded me of a few tricks I've been using over the years but slowly forget about as I rotate through different methods of doing things.

 

Thanks!

Darren

[Kzinbane]

One thing I am sure to do is to have my villains learn as they go along. For example in my game yesterday Viper learned a bit about the mind scan abilities of one of the PC's. You can bet they're going to be working on a way to couteract it or otherwise deal with it. SO next time Viper is used, they're a bit more capable. When he does some new trick - assuming viper agents get away to tell any tales - they'll have yet another up-dated file on the super.

The other thing I do when a "new" super group pops in and establishes itself is to have the villains (smart ones anyway) work to get the supers to show off. My last "issue" of the game was just that - a fake bomb in a public area lured the supers to the spot where they were attacked by some mercs. Whoever was behind this had cam's, audio, potentially other sensors set up to monitor the entire thing. This person (players read here so I have to be a bit criptic) or these people now know quite a bit about the hero group.

 

For sure one good way to piss of your group is to have a villain group that knows all their weaknesses right off the bat. Later in the game howerver, with good reason for this to happen... they're not as liable to get pissed as to say oh S*** - which to me is exactly what I want!

[Quasar]

Re: Re: ER

 

Originally posted by zornwil

You guys need a plugin into Hero Designer that would just calc it!

 

It is my understanding that someone is working on just that very thing.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Re: ER

 

Originally posted by Trebuchet

What's the correlation between your ER system and victory in a fight? Will a 91 ER always beat a 90 ER 100% of the time? 75% of the time? 50% of the time? Will a 110 ER villain beat a team of 100 ER heroes most of the time? How much do clever tactics skew the results? (By that I mean, if two opponents stand in an arena and pound on each other it should be pretty easy to calculate the eventual winner even without an ER system. How (and how well) does your system compensate for clever and/or original tactics?)

 

Nothing against your ER system, Keneton; I think it's a useful tool, like dice. But it's no substitute for careful character design and thoughtful and clever GMing. It can prevent a GM from totally mismatching combatants. But some parts of role playing will always be more art than science.

 

Agreed. As well, there's always a hole in the group somewhere. A lower ER character with Drains and Transfers will likely prevail against a higher ER character with no power defense, for example. A Flash can turn the tables, as can Darkness, but both are useless if the opponent has an ability to target which negates them.

 

Mathematical ratings only carry you so far.

[BNakagawa]

8 Pcs is tough to balance against. With a smaller group, there's always a chance that they won't have trivial access to some obscure power or effect that any particular villain might have a vuln/susc to. With 8, it's almost a gimme that they'll get hammered with the magic bullet as soon as the weakness is discovered.

 

Also, with 8 characters with an average SPD of 6 or so, you're looking at an average of 4 actions per segment. Makes for trivial pile-on scenarios.