I follow CR to an extent. I also prefer just making sure the threat is a viable / logical thing to be in the area they're at. Unless I'm using Xorn, they go great with everything!
To be overly mathematical about it I keep track of my party's damage per round. I keep graph paper to keep track of a round of damage from the party keeping track of resistances. I don't track % to hit so much. With bounded accuracy I feel like a DM after a few sessions can know when AC 14 starts feeling low and when AC 18 feels a little high. After I note the average per round my party does against fairly easy mob-style fights I then set up bigger encounters with that number in mind. My SKT game my group of five level 7 adventurers average between 134 - 190 collective damage. That's a smite heavy paladin, two fighters, a rogue, and a Spirit Guardians loving cleric. So they're due to face a few fire giants soon. Even if it's a party of 5 I'll probably throw 2 melee focused fire giants (cr 9) at them early on to see how they fair. If they chump change them, which they might, I'll have a third rock thrower try to scatter the ranged fighters in the group to keep them from feeling too safe.
I try to make sure the big fights feel dangerous even to my well optimized groups. Keeping in mind that if everyone plans and rolls well the fight could be over in 5 to 6 rounds of combat. I like how 5e finishes things one way or the other in a few turns.
I do think CR is an ok building reminder. Most of my encounters end up about 2 creature ratings higher than intended. But I do like to run at least one difficult encounter every 2 or 3 sessions.
I actually stick to the CR rating, what I do ignore is the difficulty modifier for multiple targets. The DMs that I talk to that ignore CR do so because they don't truly play the monsters to win. In other words, they don't play the monster to the best of its ability. I have found that if you actually try your best as a DM to have the monster "win" the encounter the CR rating holds pretty true. I use the word win in quotes because not all my monsters want to kill the PCs. Sometimes the monster my just want to drive off the PCs. This goes back to playing your monsters as NPCs and knowing what the monster actually wants. And since my group has 5 players, I do have to incorporate the XP system so I can help balance things out a little bit since the CR system is really aimed at 4 PCs and the 5th man has more impact than I believe the game designers gave credit for.
Anyways that is how I do it. Well at least the part where I determine how many foes to use. There is a lot more to encounter design and it would probably take me 5,000 words to explain it well.
J
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
Step 1) pick out creatures that seem cool Step 2) figure out why those creatures are where they are (the creatures' reasons for being there - not my reasons for deciding to have creatures there) Step 3) leave it up to the players how to react upon encountering those creatures (which enables me to use any CR I want, so long as I appropriately telegraph relative threat to the players - i.e. I make sure to describe monsters of higher CR than the characters' levels as imposing, intimidating, obviously dangerous or what have you; though I have to admit this can fail if the players aren't paying full attention... had a player try to take an ogre 1-on-1 at 1st level because he didn't understand that the fresh corpses of soldiers he encountered the ogre picking through were dead because of the ogre).
Really, the only time I look at CR is as a benchmark for when I need to make sure to describe a higher sense of danger.
I use a rubric to create encounters. I try to hit as many points as possible, with hitting at least 3, and not being afraid to leave one out if it doesn't fit. Every "encounter" should have the following:
Story Element: - I jot down in this area what story impact this encounter has. Even if there's no combat, the encounter should expand on the story of either the place, the players, the enemies, or world history.
Combat Element: - I jot down here the enemies that can be fought in this encounter. Even if combat isn't 100% here, it's good to have it at the ready in case you need it. - If the enemies here are going to fight in a special way, I jot it down here too.
Puzzle: - I mark down puzzles, traps, and secret areas here. Puzzles don't have to be actual puzzles either, but maybe something that needs to be "solved" in order to fight the monsters effectively.
Treasure: - This is where I make note of what the players stand to gain in this encounter. It could be gold, magical items, prestige, or important information.
And that's how I'm now designing all my encounters! I don't stick directly to the CR because I try to keep my monsters realistic to the setting; meaning sometimes they'll be more powerful or less powerful. I pay a lot of attention to a monster's intelligence, because that informs me of how "smartly" they'll fight the players. Monsters that are very smart will strike and evade, gather reinforcements, hit the most vulnerable party members, and generally try to kill the party. Unintelligent monsters will just attack the closest targets, often attacking whomever dealt the most damage to them recently, and run when injured/losing.
Even with a dead soldier it requires some metagaming to know a 1st level character can't beat an ogre (at least with his friends). If you are knew to d&d you could think it is entirely possible to beat an ogre at level one.
Downside to level one is there isn't a good buffer for PCs to figure out a monster is too powerful.
Even with a dead soldier it requires some metagaming to know a 1st level character can't beat an ogre (at least with his friends). If you are knew to d&d you could think it is entirely possible to beat an ogre at level one.
Downside to level one is there isn't a good buffer for PCs to figure out a monster is too powerful.
That's why I think having new players get roughed up by goblins at level 1 is an important message. I have a table where the DMs were pretty soft with them and man they whine about giants being hard to fight.
Even with a dead soldier it requires some metagaming to know a 1st level character can't beat an ogre (at least with his friends). If you are knew to d&d you could think it is entirely possible to beat an ogre at level one.
Downside to level one is there isn't a good buffer for PCs to figure out a monster is too powerful.
That's why I think having new players get roughed up by goblins at level 1 is an important message. I have a table where the DMs were pretty soft with them and man they whine about giants being hard to fight.
It's really tough to convey that you as a Dm might create an encounter that can't be won by characters of their level.
How do the players know an ogre is too strong without looking in the monster manual? Even then how do you know that he has low hit points and just hits hard.
Another topic really on how to convey that some fights are above their abilities without actually killing them.
Even with a dead soldier it requires some metagaming to know a 1st level character can't beat an ogre (at least with his friends). If you are knew to d&d you could think it is entirely possible to beat an ogre at level one.
Downside to level one is there isn't a good buffer for PCs to figure out a monster is too powerful.
Most times when people say something "metagaming", in my experience, they are actually doing more metagaming trying to avoid what they thought of as metagaming (or they are saying "metagaming" when they actually mean "cheating" which is different, and is definitely not the case here).
For example, you've just said that it requires metagaming to know a 1st level character can't beat an ogre. That's not actually true. The character can believe the ogre is too much for them, especially in the scenario I've mentioned, because of information that is readily available to the character. Let's letter and list a few of the pieces of evidence that would support that belief:
A) It's massive. Way bigger than most characters. Bigger even than most players' nearest self-experienced real-world comparison, and if a regular person can look at a guy that is 6' 5" tall and 260 pounds and think "that's a big scary dude, I'd better not try to fight him." then it is no leap of logic for a character to look at an 9'-something tall, probably at least 600 pound ogre and think the same.
B) When first seen, this creature is picking through corpses of well armed men, blood staining the crude club it carries... and it doesn't look hurt or worn out. If a regular person sees somebody with a bloody weapon in hand near a corpse, what's a likely first thought? The person holding the weapon just killed the person that is now a corpse. There is no logical reason for a character seeing an ogre among ten corpses, bloody weapon in hand, to not be just as likely to believe the ogre just killed those people.
C) Where metagaming does come in is here: You thought of what level the character is and what CR the monster is, which are things that are outside what the character could believe or be thinking about. Without these pieces of information, the character is only acting on what the character can actually believe or be thinking - which I've demostrated can easily, and reasonbly be, "That monstrously large humanoid thing with a bloody tree stump in hand just killed a bunch of guys without even breaking a sweat, so I probably shouldn't try to take it on by myself, at least not directly."
As to the "buffer" for PCs to figure out a monster is too powerful; I think that there is plenty of that buffer to be found in the DM describing monsters to the players in useful ways (adjectives that suggest how dangerous it appears to be, rather than a just-the-facts description), and the players being made aware that the descriptions being given are relaying useful information for them. And my experience supports that case, because my players are currently in a campaign setting that none of them have experience with prior to this campaign, and have appropriately responded to all of the monsters they've never even heard of before that their characters have been facing (including that they decided to evade a creature that would have likely been too dangerous for them).
Sometimes being really over-descriptive could be enough to scare the player off, for example: "Guys, a really big ogre is approaching. It is really, really big, his spiked great-club demanding blood. a homicidal anger in his eyes. Earth seems to tremble under your feet as he approaches. What are you going to do???"
Sometimes being really over-descriptive could be enough to scare the player off, for example: "Guys, a really big ogre is approaching. It is really, really big, his spiked great-club demanding blood. a homicidal anger in his eyes. Earth seems to tremble under your feet as he approaches. What are you going to do???"
Makes me think that I myself might not be able to take it, but not necessarily the party. I would still think the party could take it.
Sometimes being really over-descriptive could be enough to scare the player off, for example: "Guys, a really big ogre is approaching. It is really, really big, his spiked great-club demanding blood. a homicidal anger in his eyes. Earth seems to tremble under your feet as he approaches. What are you going to do???"
Makes me think that I myself might not be able to take it, but not necessarily the party. I would still think the party could take it.
What if the DM providing the description had said "I won't be making sure every creature or encounter that you face is 'appropriate' for your character's level, so it will be up to you as players to determine if your characters are in over their heads" to you at some point prior?
The question is should PCs equate the soldiers being killed by an ogre as they themselves would be killed? Yeah the soldiers were armed but they didn't have a mage with them!
Also to note your player actually didn't catch the clue so... And as stated nothing implied the ogre was the one who killed the soldiers. It is easy to think that a much larger more fierced beast was the one who did it.
I'm just saying that if a player isn't familiar with d&d monsters it's a lot harder to successfully convey that you shouldn't attack a monster.
In this case the PC should have known an ogre was too strong even though the player didn't. But without the knowledge of how strong an ogre is, the player made a logical and easy to infer approach.
It's also logical to say there is no way an ogre killed six soldiers so it had to be something else and he is just taking advantage of the situation.
So basically without looking up the CR for an ogre I find both of your guys descritpions lacking to convey the party shouldn't attack the ogre.
Sometimes being really over-descriptive could be enough to scare the player off, for example: "Guys, a really big ogre is approaching. It is really, really big, his spiked great-club demanding blood. a homicidal anger in his eyes. Earth seems to tremble under your feet as he approaches. What are you going to do???"
Makes me think that I myself might not be able to take it, but not necessarily the party. I would still think the party could take it.
What if the DM providing the description had said "I won't be making sure every creature or encounter that you face is 'appropriate' for your character's level, so it will be up to you as players to determine if your characters are in over their heads" to you at some point prior?
That is definitely something I always say before the a game session: Not all the encounters are meant to be fought.
The question is should PCs equate the soldiers being killed by an ogre as they themselves would be killed? Yeah the soldiers were armed but they didn't have a mage with them!
Also to note your player actually didn't catch the clue so... And as stated nothing implied the ogre was the one who killed the soldiers. It is easy to think that a much larger more fierced beast was the one who did it.
I'm just saying that if a player isn't familiar with d&d monsters it's a lot harder to successfully convey that you shouldn't attack a monster.
In this case the PC should have known an ogre was too strong even though the player didn't. But without the knowledge of how strong an ogre is, the player made a logical and easy to infer approach.
It's also logical to say there is no way an ogre killed six soldiers so it had to be something else and he is just taking advantage of the situation.
So basically without looking up the CR for an ogre I find both of your guys descritpions lacking to convey the party shouldn't attack the ogre.
No mage? Says who? Can't possibly tell from this far away, not since casting spells isn't hindered by wearing armor your are proficient with.
As for the player missing the clue; it wasn't that the player heard the clue and misunderstood its meaning, it was that the player wasn't paying attention and didn't hear the clue. He completely missed that I said there was a bloody weapon in the ogre's hand - which is a very different thing from having heard me tell him that and not at least considered that the reason for holding the weapon was because it was the one that used it.
And I don't think it is any harder at all to convey a monster is probably better avoided to a player with no familiarity with the monster. In fact, I think it's the opposite; the easiest is conveying it to someone that has no familiarity with the monster in question and no familiarity with the game rules, then conveying it to someone with familiarity to monsters but not the game rules, and hardest of all (but still not actually hard) is conveying it to someone that is familiar with the game rules whether they are familiar with the particular monster or not (because it's only this last category in which thoughts like "The DM wouldn't put an encounter we can't possibly beat in front of us, so we can probably take whatever this thing is" can show up).
Without knowledge of how strong an ogre is, there is no logic that supports the player's conclusion because all present evidence that could support "I can fight and kill that creature by myself" that isn't meta-knowledge is equally, or more, supportive of the conclusion "I will likely die if I try to fight that creature by myself."
As for saying it's logical to say there is no way an ogre killed six soldiers - explain to me how, other than your meta-knowledge of what stats are presented for an ogre, you have arrived at that conclusion logically. Because only metagaming supports your conclusion from as far as I can see - no information about the ogre in question, except that it is riffling through the fresh corpses of a number of soldiers with weapon still wet with blood in hand, is actually known. And there is no apparent sign of anything else having killed those soldiers either.
So, basically, without you knowing the CR for an ogre, I don't think you'd be interpreting the descriptions the way you are. Imagine that instead of an ogre which you know about, the same general description applied (at least 9' tall, unharmed, carrying weapon wet with blood, picking through the corpses of numerous freshly killed armed and armored men) but you didn't know what the creature actually is - Do you still think there isn't sufficient reason not to attack? If so, can you say specifically why?
That is definitely something I always say before the a game session: Not all the encounters are meant to be fought.
I make sure it is understood as part of teaching anyone how to play an RPG, and also make sure to point it out to anyone that's already played before but is new to my table.
Because while it is a thing that seemed obvious to me, having come into the playing of RPGs from video game RPGs like Final Fantasy where going west when the NPCs said to go north could mean facing monsters way more powerful than you are ready to handle and from the realms of fantasy novels in which characters pretty regularly come up against overwhelming opposition and need to do something other than fight head-on to make it through, I learned a long time ago that there are players who will arrive at wildly different expectations if it isn't laid out for them. I actually had someone get so mad they stormed off in the middle of a session after shouting at me for being "unfair" by having a dragon actually be in the mine that NPCs told the party was shut down because a dragon moved in and the miners would rather not get eaten, all because the characters weren't equipped to defeat a dragon and I didn't do anything to stop them from trying except have NPCs tell them things along the lines of "Stay away from the mine, there's a friggin' dragon in there!"
Logical - six armored soldiers against one ogre. Literally there is no way one creature could (outside of game rules, dragons and magical beasts excluded) survive against six soldiers.
If you go wow! He must have had a ton of hit points then sure okay.
Also note: I never said attack by yourself, but the entire party. I understand he attacked by himself. Your statement is sufficient to convey he shouldn't attack alone, but not that the party shouldn't.
That is definitely something I always say before the a game session: Not all the encounters are meant to be fought.
I make sure it is understood as part of teaching anyone how to play an RPG, and also make sure to point it out to anyone that's already played before but is new to my table.
Because while it is a thing that seemed obvious to me, having come into the playing of RPGs from video game RPGs like Final Fantasy where going west when the NPCs said to go north could mean facing monsters way more powerful than you are ready to handle and from the realms of fantasy novels in which characters pretty regularly come up against overwhelming opposition and need to do something other than fight head-on to make it through, I learned a long time ago that there are players who will arrive at wildly different expectations if it isn't laid out for them. I actually had someone get so mad they stormed off in the middle of a session after shouting at me for being "unfair" by having a dragon actually be in the mine that NPCs told the party was shut down because a dragon moved in and the miners would rather not get eaten, all because the characters weren't equipped to defeat a dragon and I didn't do anything to stop them from trying except have NPCs tell them things along the lines of "Stay away from the mine, there's a friggin' dragon in there!"
The starter mission doesn't help things there. It encourages PCs to think they can take on anything.
I have found a lot of DMs I've played under make only encounters that can be overcome. And they aren't likely to let you just run away. Which can be hard in d&d because everyone moves roughly the same number of squares so attempting to flee can get you killed super fast because of the attack of opportunities and since you are traveling the same speed you are never going to get away.
There should be some good default retreat rules for D&d
This is largely why I am against downscaling monsters. It encourages the idea everything can be beat.
Logical - six armored soldiers against one ogre. Literally there is no way one creature could (outside of game rules, dragons and magical beasts excluded) survive against six soldiers.
If you go wow! He must have had a ton of hit points then sure okay.
Also note: I never said attack by yourself, but the entire party. I understand he attacked by himself. Your statement is sufficient to convey he shouldn't attack alone, but not that the party shouldn't.
There is not "literally" no way for an outnumbered creature to outmatch other creatures while being outnumbered. I mean, don't you think an adult human could beat-down a half dozen kids of about the relative size that the soldiers in the example would be compared to the ogre? Could probably lay more than one of them out with a single swing of a large club if they were grouped closer together enough. It's the game rules that make the ogre the likely loser of the fight, not reasoning out the difference in physical capability based on observable reality (and adjusted for the given that an ogre can actually exist at its size with its body proportions because fantasy overrules the reality that it would be troublesome for a human-shaped-anatomy creature to be that tall and still function).
As for your note, I did note that you moved the goalpost from my description being sufficient in the scenario it was actually given in - a single character seeing an ogre - to a scenario that never happened where I was trying to dissuade an entire party from attacking and failing to do so. I just decided I'd keep on with the discussion that was actually occurring, rather than end it with "Oh yeah, totally. The thing I said doesn't do the thing I never claimed it did, you are right about that." because I thought it was obvious that a description designed to illustrate that an entire party should probably not fight something would be different, likely as a result of the creature(s) encountered also being different (like it being a fire giant instead in the scenario we've been using as an example).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've heard a lot of people ignore cr so I'm curious about your preferred methods.
I follow CR to an extent. I also prefer just making sure the threat is a viable / logical thing to be in the area they're at. Unless I'm using Xorn, they go great with everything!
To be overly mathematical about it I keep track of my party's damage per round. I keep graph paper to keep track of a round of damage from the party keeping track of resistances. I don't track % to hit so much. With bounded accuracy I feel like a DM after a few sessions can know when AC 14 starts feeling low and when AC 18 feels a little high.
After I note the average per round my party does against fairly easy mob-style fights I then set up bigger encounters with that number in mind. My SKT game my group of five level 7 adventurers average between 134 - 190 collective damage. That's a smite heavy paladin, two fighters, a rogue, and a Spirit Guardians loving cleric. So they're due to face a few fire giants soon. Even if it's a party of 5 I'll probably throw 2 melee focused fire giants (cr 9) at them early on to see how they fair. If they chump change them, which they might, I'll have a third rock thrower try to scatter the ranged fighters in the group to keep them from feeling too safe.
I try to make sure the big fights feel dangerous even to my well optimized groups. Keeping in mind that if everyone plans and rolls well the fight could be over in 5 to 6 rounds of combat. I like how 5e finishes things one way or the other in a few turns.
I do think CR is an ok building reminder. Most of my encounters end up about 2 creature ratings higher than intended. But I do like to run at least one difficult encounter every 2 or 3 sessions.
I actually stick to the CR rating, what I do ignore is the difficulty modifier for multiple targets. The DMs that I talk to that ignore CR do so because they don't truly play the monsters to win. In other words, they don't play the monster to the best of its ability. I have found that if you actually try your best as a DM to have the monster "win" the encounter the CR rating holds pretty true. I use the word win in quotes because not all my monsters want to kill the PCs. Sometimes the monster my just want to drive off the PCs. This goes back to playing your monsters as NPCs and knowing what the monster actually wants. And since my group has 5 players, I do have to incorporate the XP system so I can help balance things out a little bit since the CR system is really aimed at 4 PCs and the 5th man has more impact than I believe the game designers gave credit for.
Anyways that is how I do it. Well at least the part where I determine how many foes to use. There is a lot more to encounter design and it would probably take me 5,000 words to explain it well.
J
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
Sometimes I play it by ear, most of the times I use the method in the DMG.
There are situations in which the encounter is being too easy and I add NPCS after 1 or 2 rounds.
My method is simple:
Step 1) pick out creatures that seem cool
Step 2) figure out why those creatures are where they are (the creatures' reasons for being there - not my reasons for deciding to have creatures there)
Step 3) leave it up to the players how to react upon encountering those creatures (which enables me to use any CR I want, so long as I appropriately telegraph relative threat to the players - i.e. I make sure to describe monsters of higher CR than the characters' levels as imposing, intimidating, obviously dangerous or what have you; though I have to admit this can fail if the players aren't paying full attention... had a player try to take an ogre 1-on-1 at 1st level because he didn't understand that the fresh corpses of soldiers he encountered the ogre picking through were dead because of the ogre).
Really, the only time I look at CR is as a benchmark for when I need to make sure to describe a higher sense of danger.
I use a rubric to create encounters. I try to hit as many points as possible, with hitting at least 3, and not being afraid to leave one out if it doesn't fit. Every "encounter" should have the following:
Story Element:
- I jot down in this area what story impact this encounter has. Even if there's no combat, the encounter should expand on the story of either the place, the players, the enemies, or world history.
Combat Element:
- I jot down here the enemies that can be fought in this encounter. Even if combat isn't 100% here, it's good to have it at the ready in case you need it.
- If the enemies here are going to fight in a special way, I jot it down here too.
Puzzle:
- I mark down puzzles, traps, and secret areas here. Puzzles don't have to be actual puzzles either, but maybe something that needs to be "solved" in order to fight the monsters effectively.
Treasure:
- This is where I make note of what the players stand to gain in this encounter. It could be gold, magical items, prestige, or important information.
And that's how I'm now designing all my encounters! I don't stick directly to the CR because I try to keep my monsters realistic to the setting; meaning sometimes they'll be more powerful or less powerful. I pay a lot of attention to a monster's intelligence, because that informs me of how "smartly" they'll fight the players. Monsters that are very smart will strike and evade, gather reinforcements, hit the most vulnerable party members, and generally try to kill the party. Unintelligent monsters will just attack the closest targets, often attacking whomever dealt the most damage to them recently, and run when injured/losing.
Even with a dead soldier it requires some metagaming to know a 1st level character can't beat an ogre (at least with his friends). If you are knew to d&d you could think it is entirely possible to beat an ogre at level one.
Downside to level one is there isn't a good buffer for PCs to figure out a monster is too powerful.
Sometimes being really over-descriptive could be enough to scare the player off, for example: "Guys, a really big ogre is approaching. It is really, really big, his spiked great-club demanding blood. a homicidal anger in his eyes. Earth seems to tremble under your feet as he approaches. What are you going to do???"
The question is should PCs equate the soldiers being killed by an ogre as they themselves would be killed? Yeah the soldiers were armed but they didn't have a mage with them!
Also to note your player actually didn't catch the clue so... And as stated nothing implied the ogre was the one who killed the soldiers. It is easy to think that a much larger more fierced beast was the one who did it.
I'm just saying that if a player isn't familiar with d&d monsters it's a lot harder to successfully convey that you shouldn't attack a monster.
In this case the PC should have known an ogre was too strong even though the player didn't. But without the knowledge of how strong an ogre is, the player made a logical and easy to infer approach.
It's also logical to say there is no way an ogre killed six soldiers so it had to be something else and he is just taking advantage of the situation.
So basically without looking up the CR for an ogre I find both of your guys descritpions lacking to convey the party shouldn't attack the ogre.
Logical - six armored soldiers against one ogre. Literally there is no way one creature could (outside of game rules, dragons and magical beasts excluded) survive against six soldiers.
If you go wow! He must have had a ton of hit points then sure okay.
Also note: I never said attack by yourself, but the entire party. I understand he attacked by himself. Your statement is sufficient to convey he shouldn't attack alone, but not that the party shouldn't.