Encounter Paradigms

[Jkeown]

In discussing my upcoming Caleon FH game, I've talked to my girlfriend and my "lead" player about encounters.

 

Returning to FH after a year long D&D game, we find that we have certain expectations when it comes to "monsters." I've never done monsters in Caleon, preferring enemies of a more intelligent nature. However, D&Der's expect slavering beasties and awfulness.

 

In D&D you have the Encounter Level system where:

 

(Party Average Level)/(Monster Level)=1=(25% of resources needed/consumed to beat the enounter)

 

Or something very close to that. In my opinion, the only reason that ever works is because of d20's reliance on "Classes" and "Levels" that provide certain abilities, hit dice and other factors in an easily predicted manner, so the GM only has to look over a few numbers and whamme-whamme (hi) you have a "Balanced Encounter."

 

In HERO this is not so simple. My 150 point warrior is not the same as Killer Shrike's (Again, Hi) 150 point warrior. He might go for more combat effectiveness over skills or design for roleplaying potential, or what have you. I might just design something weird. So why not just have "life" happen, and let the players know that encounters are their doing. If you attack unknown critters, or go into a dangerous area, and you get snuffed, it's your fault.

 

If you use wilderness areas as an example, those two 150 point warriors are near a lake, a bright iridescent fin breaks the surface, and lightning crackles... this might be a good time to run. The PC that jumps in the water gets what he deserves. Should the GM have not had the Thunder Fish show up in the first place? Is the GM or the player to blame for the PC getting turned into fish food?

 

To put it another way, you don't only encounter baby bears in the forest, there must be Mommy Bears and Daddy Bears, otherwise the world sucks. Good PCs will use their heads to avoid "random" encounters that appear too tough. At the same time, more civilized areas will contain very easy encounters, as civilization tends to crowd out nature, even in a fantasy world. (Therefore, PCs are warned not to go too far when alone...)

 

Is that unbalanced?

 

In my view, the PC is to blame for turning a sighting into an encounter. Plenty of things in the real world are dangerous, and we Just Don't Go Where They Are.

 

So, how do you determine "Balance" in a game?

 

In sharp contrast to the player-initiated "unbalanced" encounters, the GM must do his best to provide balance (as hard as that might be...) in scenarios where he, acting through NPCs, sends PCs toward an encounter.

 

I think there are 3 kinds of GM-written (pre-planned or programmed) encounters.

 

1. Too Easy
   
2. Just Right
   
3. Too Hard
   

 

One might add Cake Walk and HOLY **** to that list, but let's keep it simple.

 

How do you balance these? I think balance is provided for Too Easy on the back end. Say, Baron Florwax asks the party to bring him 50 nose-rings from the Sky Vomit Goblin Pirates. They are physically weak, magically inept and are poor pilots to boot. The party prevails with a few scratches and a drunk familiar (don't ask). When returning to Town, they discover that Princess Topheavy has been kidnapped. Back end balance! The encounter was a distraction so somebody could nab the Princess. The plot thunders on to the Baron, who has a lot of explaining to do...

 

The Too Hard encounter is a simple Killer. It's a Deep Aura Deific with a vast appetite for Player Characters. If they survive the trip to Deep Aura, they can't face the Deific alone. The GM must provide help in the form of an NPC who knows a secret of defeating such a thing, or a side trek that provides an item of power that can help ease the dying. Both the NPC and the IoP are Balancing Effects.

 

Returning to the Baron and the Goblins, if the Goblins are waiting for the party, or have reinforcements in the form of Ogres Of Player Slaying, then something else is afoot. Not only is the Princess missing, but the surviving player characters have reason to believe they were set up to be killed.

 

In other words, the GM must balance the encounter with a story- or plot-based reason for the odd difficulty. He is not "to blame" the world is at fault.

 

So... the Caleon Encounter Paradigm.

1. Real World animal/monster behavior. (i.e. many critters will be too tough, most will be about right, large numbers of easy sightings of critters)
   
2. Player Responsibility
   
3. Back End Balancing.
   

Any discussion? What is your Campaign Encounter Paradigm?

[CDad]

Re: Encounter Paradigms

 

I feel that the "balanced encounter" that D&D mandates turns the RPG into a kind of video game, where the characters rarely (if ever) face death. It's the old "kill the monster, grab the loot, mark up the XP" drill, and one of the reasons I don't want to play d20 games. There's nothing wrong with having your hat handed to you once in a while.

 

When I ran FH, I told my players that rule #1 is it's okay to run away. I never ambushed them with an "OH $H!T" encounter. They had plenty of warnings to stay away. Only once did they not heed the three warnings that I gave them. First warning came straight from the mouth of the local mage. Second was from a beaten and bloody warrior that was the only survivor from a group of travellers. The third warning wasthe obvious signs of viciousness (think Monty Python rabbit). They went after the beastie, and only one survived - by running away.

[Curufea]

Re: Encounter Paradigms

 

I'm a fan of real life, actually - which isn't balanced.

 

I don't use random encounters. If the PCs encounter something that far outmatches them in combat, they will need figure out a solution that doesn't require combat (ie running away, negotiating, possibly even dieing).

 

The only reason the PCs start at the same amount of character points, is the maturity of my players - they would be jealous of each others power levels.

 

I have successfully run games where the PCs are completely unbalanced when compared to each other.

 

Random encounters, balance, it all comes uncomfortably close for me to "wargame" or "videogame" rather than roleplaying.

[CourtFool]

Encounter Penguins

 

I see a difference of style here. I do not want my role playing experience to simulate real life. I game to escape real life.

 

I prefer a cinematic game. The heroes do not flee. They rush headlong against overwelming odds and, somehow, come out successful. Of course with this approach you run into the problem of if the PCs know they will always win, where is the challenge?

[John T]

Re: Encounter Paradigms

 

Point #1 - I don't have random encounters; EVERYTHING in a given scenario is put there for a reason: information, conflict, hindrance, assistance, avoidance... the list is long. Some (many) of the encounters may SEEM accidental to the players, but that's never the case. I have a story I try to follow, and only PC actions are allowed to disrupt it; most GMs would probably agree they don't require assistance in this regard.

 

Point #2 - You're definitely right on one major issue; character point values mean next to nothing when determining the effectiveness of a group in any given encounter. A 150 pt combat monster-style warrior will function VERY differently than the 150 pt warrior who also spends points on his social life.

 

One term/principle I've seen (and used) is the "Rule of X", in which an individual or group can be rated against an encounter (usually combat related). The method I use is to add up the maximum DCs a character can inflict (x1.25 if Killing), the total applicable Defense/5 (x1.25 for Resistant), the maximum OCV and DCV a character can have at the same time in a given phase and the character's Speed x2. This is my "Rule of X" for an individual. This can be added together for all characters in an allied group to compare their general effectiveness against any other group.

 

Needless to say, this doesn't cover everything, such as the combat effectiveness of several non-damaging attacks (Mind Control, Entangle, Transform, etc.) and Movement, but it at least gives me a baseline to work with.

 

Hope that helps!

 

John T

[Eosin]

Re: Encounter Paradigms

 

I use a bit of a hybrid system that seems to work well for me and my group.

 

First, I would use a little more granulated list of challenges.

 

Social Challenge

..No challenge at all

..Easily handled

..A challenge

..Difficult

..Damn near impossible

..Impossible situation

 

Fighting Challenge

..No challenge at all

..Easily handled

..A challenge

..Difficult

..Damn near impossible

..Expect to see someone die

 

Specific Character Problem

****Determined by Disads but usually "A challenge" to "Damn near Impossible"

 

In an evening there are encounters coming from all three categories. Most fall into one of the bottom three "challenge levels" - this isn't d20 where players recover thier HP & Spells as soon as combat is over so I can't really have the PCs face Dracula and then later in the night have them face Werewolves. The big fight of the night falls into a challenge level that varies but is usually "A challenge" to "Damn near impossible" depending on the campaign circumstance and the target of the PCs.

 

Random Encounters: I use them since they make the world fluid and somewhat unpredictible but I use my own method of generating encounters. Normally, during wilderness (not the terrible nasty travel in the evil blood wood) I have the players roll 3d6 for each day of travel. If the number on the die falls outside of the normal range (in this case normal is 7-15) there is an encounter, the further out of range the more problematic the encounter. A second set of 3d6 is rolled to tell me exactly how hard of an encounter and if the the encounter is benifical or detrimental. Again, rolling on the extremes means the encounter is harder. Rolling an 18 for the encounter and then following that with an 18 for the difficulty means a brutal encounter and that someone (if not everyone) is likely to die if the encounter is met head-on. Players have gotten used to this system after years of play and will temper their reactions with what they know has been rolled on the die. For me this works well, most of the time they are able to gauge the situation and meet it with an appropriate degree of caution.

 

Last note - if an encounter occurs, I make it up on the fly. There aren't any charts to tell me that the party encountered a wandering death knight taking the nightmare out for an evening constitutional. I use the terrian, situation, and campaign to give me clues about what the encounter might entail.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Encounter Paradigms

 

For more serious campaigns Im a combination simulation/agenda type of GM.

 

The basic backdrop of the world is there independent of the PC's, and they interact with it as they chose to or as I think circumstances dictate. If they bite off more than they can chew then so be it. Thats the simulation aspect.

 

Splice into the objective and uncaring setting however are storylines, and characters/encounters that are significant to those storylines. Thats the agenda aspect.

 

 

I never do "Random" encounters per se -- no rolling on a chart to see if the group is attacked by 1d4 whatevers. However if the PC's wander into an area known to be full of bandits or some such and it seems to me that circumstances would favor said bandits (or whatever) noticing the PC's and deciding they look like a mark (food, interloper, threat, whatever), then I will initiate whatever encounter seems appropriate. Also, if the PC's OPT to go off on some harebrained death mission, Ill play it out to the bitter, bloody end. Thats more simulationist. Wander into the bear cave, dont cry when you get eaten by the bear.

 

If I plan an encounter, on the other hand, I do take some care so as not to hit the group with something they can neither flee, bargain with, nor defeat. That's not part of my story-forwarding agenda.

 

I also craft planned encounters for a specific purpose, and think thru the back story of the how's, who's, and why's that lead up to the encounter. I consider why every single antagonist is involved and what their personal motivation is. Even the ones from "central casting" filling out the bit roles have SOME kind of motivation. Right down to their builds, I try to consider what each of them could do, best case, worst case, singly, and en masse. What do they bring to the story? If they are combatants, are they colorful and interesting combatants, or are they boring to fight? I also consider nuances of referential information gainable by the dress, style, and activities of the NPCs, and so on. Very agenda oriented.

 

Mostly, I tend to set the stage, use a few significant NPCs, or the PC's backstorys, or both to get the ball rolling, and then sit back and let the PC's interact with the setting, splicing in storyline elements when it can be elegantly accomplished.

 

 

I also do not pull punches. PC's that do stupid things, underestimate opponents, overestimate themselves, get in over their heads, or even just get unlucky die from time to time. I let the dice and the players actions fall where they may. I very very rarely make exceptions or revise a story element to prevent a character death -- but were talking less than 5 times in the last 15 years (and all for new players except one, which was more of a "dont be an idiot, the character would have been smart enough to cast their armor spell this morning even if you arent"). Sometimes, when I can get away with it without being obvious, Ill ignore/fudge hidden rolls when they overly interfere with the plotline or a good dramatic moment, or dooms the PC's in an unfun way, but the vast majority of the time I play the dice as they land.

 

 

The main thing though is that in my experience most GM's have a pretty set way of running a game, and they apply it to all games, all genres. While Im sure there is some level of similarity between my approaches to various genres, I try to put genre appropriateness first and to be mindful of the tone and mood of a particular campaign, and to a lesser extent the nature of the players currently playing (though that is perhaps my biggest flaw as a GM -- I tend to get overly frustrated with less than adept players -- but I've gotten a little better about it).

 

 

As far as balancing encounters in the HERO System, I'd like to say I've worked out a formula or rule of thumb, but in reality I just do it by instinct. I've been running the game system for so long and built so many characters that I just have a feel for what will make a good encounter, what is too much, and what is not enough. The main aid in this is knowing the PC's currently in the group inside and out. Since the danger of the antagonists is determined relative to the PCs, it is essential that the GM understand the capabilities of those PC's. And always remember the Spice Rule -- you can always add more spice to the dish, but it's really hard to take it out once youve cooked it in. Just a dash will do ya, so season to taste instead.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Encounter Paradigms

 

My approach has always been to go with the feel of the game. Sure I have ideas that I get that I like to throw in at the players, but I base a lot of what happens, encounter wise, on the actions of the player.

[Markdoc]

Re: Encounter Penguins

 

I prefer a cinematic game. The heroes do not flee. They rush headlong against overwelming odds and' date=' somehow, come out successful. Of course with this approach you run into the problem of if the PCs know they will always win, where is the challenge?[/quote']

 

I prefer a more cinematic game too - but if they players know (or even expect) that they will be successful if they rush in against overwhelming odds, then the chances are great that they will never do anything else.

 

That gets boring pretty fast (at least for me), whether as a GM or a player.

 

How much fun would Lord of the Rings have been if Boromir says "One does not simply walk into Mordor" and Frodo says "You do. You totally do" - so they all get on their horses and just head straight for the black gate at top speed?

 

My solution is:

 

1. Let the players know up front they are NOT the biggest kids on the block.

2. Let them know up front that I will not wantonly kill their characters, but I will if they make me (the "don't make me bring on the babycart" message)

 

When it comes to play, I don't use random encounters - I use "randomish" encounters. If the players go into the mountains where there are lots of savage tribesmen, the odds are good that they will meet some, even if they weren't scripted into the adventure. Depending on what seems rational they might meet 3 - or they might meet 300. If they skulk and hide or use their magic/skills successfully, there's a good chance the encounters can be avoided (if they want). I never "force" encounters.

 

I never put them in no-win situations: if an encounter is likely to end with lots of dead PCs, I warn them in advance, one way or the other. Unless the players simply overflow with the milk of human stupidity, there is always an alternative to death (this is where the cinematic aspect comes in) and there is always a way to salvage the situation.

 

It's just not always combat.

 

cheers, Mark

[Jkeown]

Re: Encounter Paradigms

 

Good thoughts, everyone. I see that the "FH Paradigm" is prevalent. That is, no "random encounters." I think we all run "realistic" worlds, even though any one of us could describe action in terms like "The Essense Master beat the Dryad with a Dragon Bone until she dropped the Healing Potion." Clearly, this is not happening in the real world, but we seem to run those worlds in a very "real" fashion.

 

Excellent. I'd long known the HERO community was sensible like this, and it's nice to see it. I think this whole concept plays into the "Why Emulate D&D?" notion from a while back.

 

Interesting....

[Jkeown]

Re: Encounter Paradigms

 

Had some thoughts while I was at work... it seems that maybe one could map encounter difficulty with respect to civilized areas. As in, the less authority an area has over it, the more dangerous encounters can be.

 

This is, of course, obvious, but how do you incorporate Spheres of Influence in your game. Authority that is friendly to PCs might cause low-difficulty encounters, while areas hostile to them might map out as tougher.

 

I guess the idea isn't fully formed yet... I'll think on it some more.

[Citizen Keen]

Re: Encounter Paradigms

 

I like a video-game paradigm (pronounced pair-ah-DIG-em), just not a simple video game. You look at the classic video games, they follow a very simple formula - normal monsters are manageable, unless you get cocky. Bosses are impossible unless you figure out their "trick" or weakness. Sometimes there are macguffin tricks, which result in characters getting eaten. I love this stuff.

[Curufea]

Re: Encounter Paradigms

 

I think this whole concept plays into the "Why Emulate D&D?" notion from a while back.

 

Interesting....

 

I find it odd that people would want to emulate something that emulates nothing. It's pushing unreality and disassociation to such an extreme, you'd have difficulty ever having empathy with your own character, let alone any NPC in the world ("Should I help this villager? It's worth n XP. Or should I kill them for n XP instead? They have a family? What are they worth in XP?")

 

(I like pah-rah-dimes)

[Jkeown]

Re: Encounter Paradigms

 

The "why emulate D&D?" thing was to suggest that FH is in fact, it's own animal. Instead of piles of encounter tables, I think the idea is to form a ...philosophy? of how this thing is done. I had all sorts of ideas ranging from mapping out areas based on "threat value" to concentric circles representing power bases... As usual... an excellent example of my magpie syndrome... totally obsessed with one aspect of gaming before flittering off to the next shiny notion.

[Curufea]

Re: Encounter Paradigms

 

Ah well, I've just got a personal opinion that combat is too over-emphasized in roleplaying.

[Jkeown]

Re: Encounter Paradigms

 

Ah well' date=' I've just got a personal opinion that combat is too over-emphasized in roleplaying.[/quote']

 

I don't think that's an "opinion." I'd say it was a "fact."

 

This is because a skill system with the complexity of (almost) any combat system would be insane. Let's face it... you don't normally have a chance of dying while digging up a T. Rex in Utah... So task resolution is simpler.

 

If, by the above quote, you mean players over-emphasize combat... you are absolutely right... I've had players who frequently wrote combat oriented characters... but some are more... mysterious and wonderful... The combat players are fun and I love them... but I have one who just loooooves a mystery...

[Ternaugh]

Re: Encounter Paradigms

 

Ah well' date=' I've just got a personal opinion that combat is too over-emphasized in roleplaying.[/quote']

 

Very true. I have been lucky as a FH GM on several occasions to have players who understood that not every session had to have a combat. I have had several intense sessions, where there were no swords used in anger, no spells slung at foes. That is not to say that they were without conflict. There was lots of skulking about, plenty of intrigue, and quite a bit of personal danger.

 

JoeG

[AnotherSkip]

Re: Encounter Paradigms

 

My FH Gm basically sounds like most of you guys. Warn, Live and let die. and having been in a party death situation from said GM (no healing in the party but 8- Churgery Roll, Not good idea.) yeah we should have run. there is plenty of "If you attack the Orcish Army Head on you will die" but you sure as heck can skirmish the heck out of those armies as long as you are bright enough!!!!

 

in this same campaign 46 PC Class characters took out 800+ FH Zombies with less than 20 people dead (and only NPC's too). and IIRC The Zombies/Skeletons had armor and ranged weapons too to boot.

 

Not top tem on the fun list.

 

actually out of a 9000 Zombie Army, probably took out 1000(+/-400) total. Could be off on that though. definately NOT head on colision though. My chartacter barely broke 175 at the time. But teamwork and excellent use of magic made a difference.