Great video! I think being upfront about what kind of game it is you’re running is good. Maybe it’s deadly and the players need to think about how they approach an encounter, or maybe it’s a casual and sweet game more puzzle oriented. Whatever it is, make sure your players know.
I definitely agree with your mentality of the encounters not being balanced( against or for the players) . It either encourages the players to run or think of other things they can do than just kill their enemies!
GM of 45+ years (wow, I feel old)... I've never felt a need to "balance" an encounter. the players need to make decisions. to stay and fight or run away, are two of the most important decisions they can make!
Hey Loki, congrats on 5k and hello from California! I’ve been playing old school since I was a boy and my dad introduced me to his old AD&D materials, that DM screen art will always inspire adventure and mystery. Been watching your stuff for awhile now and I always find it to be good advice
This reminds me of older D&D versions. 1st and 2nd edition. They had unbalanced wandering monsters, reaction rolls and morale checks. This is how I run encounters. The expectation is that the PCs do not blindly attack anything they meet. If players don't like this "strategic" element I remind them that (1) many video game rpgs don't just have combat encounters, (2) some character classes are designed to be more useful in encounters other than combat, and (3) the players don't raid every settlement or building they encounter, they choose based on their ability or need - so why wouldn't they do the same for random encounters.
I use a very similar sort of method. It almost seems natural. For example, when my players were going through kingmake I rolled for encounters as part of my prep, but then would design the encounter AROUND that roll. If I rolled Bandits on a road encounter, then rolled 3 bandits, I would roll stealth checks for two of them and place them hiding in the foilage off the road, then place the third bandit on the road ready to hail the party. That way it feels a little organic.
How to make rules of engagement, code of conduct for warfare, chivalry on the battlefield, war crime tribunals... a thing again? How to do that in a culture that sees only battle maps?
In the 37 years I am playing and developping my own TTRPG I never got the idea about levels and hence about Encounter Levels and Challenge Ratings. Well I did balancing throw overboard completely so not even the PCs are balanced among themselves. Why I don't use them or don't get my head around them you ask? Well most likely this is that I want to create with my players a damn good story. THIS is the main goal and also the main reward. Hence not game mechanic is for our way to play useful when using level and ratings. But this is our way to play. To each group his own way. Most important is, that you have FUN and get EXCITED! Cheers 🍻
Very cool vid. I started on 2e and it took a while for me to learn balance is can be achieved many ways. The example I use is Willow and the battle of Tir Asleen. A fighter & mage (and goat) can prep for a battle against a numerous amount of soldiers but will eventually be over run. However, throw a hungry & neutral 2 headed dragon in the mix and things change REAL quick.
might have a combat encounter where it's two orcs who have tied themselves to two non-orc slaves who are being compelled to fight against their will. If they don't land a hit, the orc twists the rope and hurts their hostage-slave-fighter as for encounter balance, Ive been getting into PF2e and i like the way its tight numbers allow for more predictable encounter balance, and then for encounter design, roll randomly to determine how lopsided the encounter will be. Ah, I got a trivial encounter, how about a group of already-wounded goblins (maybe the players will have mercy, if only to learn what wounded the goblins). For me, I like that I end up with a better sense of the encounter difficulty/imbalance so I can choreograph hints of "this group is pathetic" vs "if you fight this you will die"
i fully agree with you on the morale thing, but an issue i run into with enemies retreating is that when you game it out using the rules, it tends to be that the enemies just cant escape because they have equal or less move speed than the PCs. (exception being in dungeons since typically my players wont want to run off into the dark to chase down retreating enemies). but any fight outside they will just be run down
and that's fine tbh. If your players try to cut them down, it just gives opportunity to your other creatures who haven't routed yet to get some attacks whilst the PCs are distracted and rally their allies back.
That’s why many TTRPGs have separate rules for retreating from combat and chases. Realistically, routed party should have a bit of an edge, unless chasing party has decisive advantage in mobility(e.g. being mounted) or stamina. Chasers have to be wary of ambushes and unfamiliar terrain.
You are correct. I find players often just let them go, particularly if they're traveling. It's also potentially a role playing moment because some characters may not agree with attacking routed enemies.
Let them throw stuff : food, money, caltrops, etc. and use the surondings to make obstacles (pushing crates, making the food stand fall, knocking down a wasp n'est, etc.)to motivate the pcs to quit chasing them.
I joined a game where the DM has been overtuning encounters a lot. I got kinda upset the DM didn't kill my character because he didn't want a SECOND character death from the same combat in a session where a new player joined. By all accounts my character should have died, as I think he was at zero hp when the bridge he was on broke. The bridge was connecting islands in the sky. Now the DM is wondering why we try to do whatever we can to avoid fights.
Balance is a lie. All balanced encounters do is Encourage players to solve them by fighting. Encounters need to be fair, not balanced. If they encounter 100 orks, they need to have Alternative solutions available, and if they choose to fight, they are most likely to get their chins kicked in. Run, Talk, Hide, Fight, what's your poison?
Nice vt ... Randomness is nice but it can cause problems that you don't see. Creating really underpowered or over powered fights , which were only meant to be incidental fights. However the GM is a player too so surprises can be fun too. After all the dice gods run the game too
Here is the thing : The players arent forced to fight every enemy and to escape them is also valuable as an option than to attack. Thats why leveling up is there to give the players the power-boost to overcome enemies that were threatning at the beginning are few levels later a push-over or almost at the same level as the PCs. And most EXP isnt always by killing monsters but from discovering treasures , having successfull checks and completing their main-objective . If its all combat then its getting really exhausting pretty fast. 5e videogamified everything into a round-based beatem up with a horribel action economy and no adventures in it. I was baffled what curse of strahd actually had in this entire campaign. Its full of fights , Lore and exposition dumps and some traps that are easily avoided .
If there’s major power differential between two forces, disadvantaged party will most likely try to run, surrender or use underhanded tactics. So, most of the time there shouldn’t be any combat in this case. It should be taken into account, that in some TTRPGs combat stays deadly no matter how seasoned are the adventurers. For example, in Runequest a lowly farmer can still kill a runelord with a lucky stone throw if it hits head and crits.
How would you handle xp for fleeing monsters? My instinct is to give full xp so players aren’t incentivized towards war crimes but I’d be worried about monsters fleeing in dungeons and then coming back to fight again giving double xp.
Yeah I don't actually do EXP for killing monsters. I do treasure for Shadowdark and Milestones for 5e, but if you're certain on remaining with exp for monsters, I personally think they should get the exp for the ones they've killed.
Sometimes the XP system can influence this need for "balanced" encounters. If the PCs can only level up by beating the baddies, then making those encounters beatable is crucial to the game design. In old-school games where most or all of the XP is gained by acquiring treasure, balancing an encounter isn't as necessary.
Great video! I think being upfront about what kind of game it is you’re running is good. Maybe it’s deadly and the players need to think about how they approach an encounter, or maybe it’s a casual and sweet game more puzzle oriented. Whatever it is, make sure your players know.
Very true.
I definitely agree with your mentality of the encounters not being balanced( against or for the players) . It either encourages the players to run or think of other things they can do than just kill their enemies!
I wish Bethesda would have learned this shit before they made Elder Scrolls 4 and 5
Another great video ❤ congrats for 5k!!
GM of 45+ years (wow, I feel old)...
I've never felt a need to "balance" an encounter. the players need to make decisions. to stay and fight or run away, are two of the most important decisions they can make!
Hey Loki, congrats on 5k and hello from California! I’ve been playing old school since I was a boy and my dad introduced me to his old AD&D materials, that DM screen art will always inspire adventure and mystery. Been watching your stuff for awhile now and I always find it to be good advice
That's cool. My first child is due next month and I'm excited to teach him the ways of the D and D. Thanks for watching the channel!
This reminds me of older D&D versions. 1st and 2nd edition. They had unbalanced wandering monsters, reaction rolls and morale checks. This is how I run encounters. The expectation is that the PCs do not blindly attack anything they meet. If players don't like this "strategic" element I remind them that (1) many video game rpgs don't just have combat encounters, (2) some character classes are designed to be more useful in encounters other than combat, and (3) the players don't raid every settlement or building they encounter, they choose based on their ability or need - so why wouldn't they do the same for random encounters.
I use a very similar sort of method. It almost seems natural. For example, when my players were going through kingmake I rolled for encounters as part of my prep, but then would design the encounter AROUND that roll. If I rolled Bandits on a road encounter, then rolled 3 bandits, I would roll stealth checks for two of them and place them hiding in the foilage off the road, then place the third bandit on the road ready to hail the party. That way it feels a little organic.
How to make rules of engagement, code of conduct for warfare, chivalry on the battlefield, war crime tribunals... a thing again?
How to do that in a culture that sees only battle maps?
Charming and informative, Loki
Currently playing Pathfinder 2e which has highly consistent and tight encounters - however less flexibility because of prep.
In the 37 years I am playing and developping my own TTRPG I never got the idea about levels and hence about Encounter Levels and Challenge Ratings. Well I did balancing throw overboard completely so not even the PCs are balanced among themselves. Why I don't use them or don't get my head around them you ask?
Well most likely this is that I want to create with my players a damn good story. THIS is the main goal and also the main reward. Hence not game mechanic is for our way to play useful when using level and ratings. But this is our way to play. To each group his own way. Most important is, that you have FUN and get EXCITED!
Cheers 🍻
That's the spirit! love all your videos and hope you prosper to and beyond your goals!
Thanks Trokkin!
Very cool vid. I started on 2e and it took a while for me to learn balance is can be achieved many ways. The example I use is Willow and the battle of Tir Asleen. A fighter & mage (and goat) can prep for a battle against a numerous amount of soldiers but will eventually be over run.
However, throw a hungry & neutral 2 headed dragon in the mix and things change REAL quick.
It's so nice to hear that people out there feel the exact same way I do. Great video!
@@finnfish5418 Thanks man. I wish more people who thought like me lived near me so they could join my IRL game! 😂😂
@@LokisLair dude. You and me both. To the letter.
ay you hit 5k! Congrats!
@@CawmeKrazee thanks man!
might have a combat encounter where it's two orcs who have tied themselves to two non-orc slaves who are being compelled to fight against their will. If they don't land a hit, the orc twists the rope and hurts their hostage-slave-fighter
as for encounter balance, Ive been getting into PF2e and i like the way its tight numbers allow for more predictable encounter balance, and then for encounter design, roll randomly to determine how lopsided the encounter will be. Ah, I got a trivial encounter, how about a group of already-wounded goblins (maybe the players will have mercy, if only to learn what wounded the goblins). For me, I like that I end up with a better sense of the encounter difficulty/imbalance so I can choreograph hints of "this group is pathetic" vs "if you fight this you will die"
i fully agree with you on the morale thing, but an issue i run into with enemies retreating is that when you game it out using the rules, it tends to be that the enemies just cant escape because they have equal or less move speed than the PCs. (exception being in dungeons since typically my players wont want to run off into the dark to chase down retreating enemies). but any fight outside they will just be run down
and that's fine tbh. If your players try to cut them down, it just gives opportunity to your other creatures who haven't routed yet to get some attacks whilst the PCs are distracted and rally their allies back.
That’s why many TTRPGs have separate rules for retreating from combat and chases. Realistically, routed party should have a bit of an edge, unless chasing party has decisive advantage in mobility(e.g. being mounted) or stamina. Chasers have to be wary of ambushes and unfamiliar terrain.
You are correct. I find players often just let them go, particularly if they're traveling. It's also potentially a role playing moment because some characters may not agree with attacking routed enemies.
Let them throw stuff : food, money, caltrops, etc. and use the surondings to make obstacles (pushing crates, making the food stand fall, knocking down a wasp n'est, etc.)to motivate the pcs to quit chasing them.
I joined a game where the DM has been overtuning encounters a lot. I got kinda upset the DM didn't kill my character because he didn't want a SECOND character death from the same combat in a session where a new player joined. By all accounts my character should have died, as I think he was at zero hp when the bridge he was on broke. The bridge was connecting islands in the sky.
Now the DM is wondering why we try to do whatever we can to avoid fights.
Balance is a lie.
All balanced encounters do is Encourage players to solve them by fighting.
Encounters need to be fair, not balanced. If they encounter 100 orks, they need to have Alternative solutions available, and if they choose to fight, they are most likely to get their chins kicked in.
Run, Talk, Hide, Fight, what's your poison?
caros amigos sejam bem vindos a mais um video de hoje no mundo militar
Nice vt ... Randomness is nice but it can cause problems that you don't see. Creating really underpowered or over powered fights , which were only meant to be incidental fights. However the GM is a player too so surprises can be fun too. After all the dice gods run the game too
Here is the thing : The players arent forced to fight every enemy and to escape them is also valuable as an option than to attack. Thats why leveling up is there to give the players the power-boost to overcome enemies that were threatning at the beginning are few levels later a push-over or almost at the same level as the PCs.
And most EXP isnt always by killing monsters but from discovering treasures , having successfull checks and completing their main-objective .
If its all combat then its getting really exhausting pretty fast.
5e videogamified everything into a round-based beatem up with a horribel action economy and no adventures in it.
I was baffled what curse of strahd actually had in this entire campaign. Its full of fights , Lore and exposition dumps and some traps that are easily avoided .
If there’s major power differential between two forces, disadvantaged party will most likely try to run, surrender or use underhanded tactics. So, most of the time there shouldn’t be any combat in this case.
It should be taken into account, that in some TTRPGs combat stays deadly no matter how seasoned are the adventurers. For example, in Runequest a lowly farmer can still kill a runelord with a lucky stone throw if it hits head and crits.
How would you handle xp for fleeing monsters? My instinct is to give full xp so players aren’t incentivized towards war crimes but I’d be worried about monsters fleeing in dungeons and then coming back to fight again giving double xp.
Yeah I don't actually do EXP for killing monsters. I do treasure for Shadowdark and Milestones for 5e, but if you're certain on remaining with exp for monsters, I personally think they should get the exp for the ones they've killed.
First comment 🎉
Sometimes the XP system can influence this need for "balanced" encounters. If the PCs can only level up by beating the baddies, then making those encounters beatable is crucial to the game design. In old-school games where most or all of the XP is gained by acquiring treasure, balancing an encounter isn't as necessary.
I disagree, the characters can either avoid the stronger encounters or play up to the difficulty.
Day 35653 of asking for a video on inspiration/luck systems
Heres a take you didnt ask for: dont use "meta currency", there are far more immersive and meaninful mechanics to try.