Artificial Difficulty in Tabletops

[ZeroGear]

So, it is more reasonable to give people a very hard monster to fight, one they 'could' potentially muscle through with a lot of determination and luck, and then add in environmental extras, like dropping chandeliers, bottles of oil, obstacles, spiked walls, and poisoned darts to reward clever planning instead of saying something like "you must use the ballistas to defeat the dragon!", correct?

[goto124]

Yes!

Especially since the players are not restricted to any one way of fighting.

[ZeroGear]

Can anyone think of more examples for this style of game? Possible scenarios that involve special tactics or setups a DM could uses as a basis?

[NichG]

Time limits help, especially combined with objectives that are different than 'everyone on the opposing side is dead'.

For example: There are cultists performing a ritual mass sacrifice to summon the power of a defeated god to the world and imbue it into the person who is holding the sword which used to belong to that fallen god. It will conclude in 3 rounds. The leader of the cultists is quite powerful, and currently has the regalia. There are many support casters whose job is to keep the cultists safe and keep the ritual going.

So immediately there's at least four major obvious things that could be done:
- Defeat the leader of the cultists via focus fire
- Disarm the leader of the cultists/steal the sword, so a PC gets godhood instead
- Disrupt the ritual directly by attacking the cultists
- Kill/abscond with the sacrifices so that the ritual can't proceed

Add to that a dozen things based on whatever screwy abilities/interactions the PCs happen to have stocked up.

[goto124]

I think that's under 'Set up a situation, not a plot that depends on the PCs doing an exact set of actions that may or may not happen.'

[dream]

Sun Tsu's Art of War

Hagakure (Way of the Samurai)

Try what I call the "Hollywood Trio" (three levels of interaction);

1. There's the opponent (attacking)
2. There's the environment (a burning room, a rain-swept rooftop, a trash-filled alleyway, a crowded market, ect.)
3. There's other NPCs involved (attacking, hostage/endangered, getting in the way, trying to help, ect.)

It can be overwhelming for players, so the GM has to be very clear, descriptive, & pace the action round-by-round. Done well, it gives everyone in the party something to do that has real impact on the scene. It can also turn FUBAR real fast --- no, it will turn FUBAR real fast

Just make sure you have strong notes on things (e.g., how fast will the fire spread? What will the endangered NPC do/say? How will obstacles like furniture/trash/crowds impede movement? How will rain/smoke/high winds affect accuracy & vision?)

One more thing: combat shouldn't be just for the sake of combat. It needs a purpose. IMO, players tend to get lethargic in combat because the fight has no purpose. The monsters/NPCs just appear & attack! Writing/literature is a part of game design, and a key tool of creating great characters is giving them wants. So, in short, the monsters/NPCs attack because the PCs (1) have something they want, or (2) stand in the way of what they want. I establish what that is using dialogue before the fight begins. This way, players have a chance to maybe give the foe what they want before combat begins.

The devil's in the details

[Darth Ultron]

I ask this because it seems that D20 games, among other dice engines, have been ground down to what amounts to "hit it with a stick until it's dead" or "when in doubt, fireball!". Is it possible to create a scenario where fighting the enemy is more complicated than rushing in and hacking away without the players making a big stink and calling it BS? And, for that matter, would anyone want to play a game where everything literally IS out to kill you?
Add to that the question of how players should go about fighting in a wold like this, and you have yourself a real conundrum.

D20 games, and even more so D&D, are built around the ''Attack! Attack!'' gaming style. After all D&D is 99% hard core combat rules. So most players play D20/D&D with the idea of being crazy murdebobos, as to them ''that IS the game.'' It's a lot like a typical Comic Book or Cartoon plot: all the characters will act like five year olds and just fight.

And few d20 games, even more so D&D, place any value on tactics. As far as the rules go, a character just moves over to a foe and attacks. There are tons of pages on attacks and combat, and like three paragraphs on tactics. Sure a character could do something of great tactical value, but the game has no real rules to support that, other then magic. There is no ''tactical'' bonus to hit or damage.

And on the other side, few DM's use tactics as that would simply kill all the characters. Even the most simple tactics can kill a group of characters in a couple minutes. And even more so if the DM does not use Hollywood Tactics.

So most players play D20/D&D to play a crazy combat game. And some DM's are like that too. The disconnect comes when the DM is not playing the crazy combat game.

[ZeroGear]

D20 games, and even more so D&D, are built around the ''Attack! Attack!'' gaming style. After all D&D is 99% hard core combat rules. So most players play D20/D&D with the idea of being crazy murdebobos, as to them ''that IS the game.'' It's a lot like a typical Comic Book or Cartoon plot: all the characters will act like five year olds and just fight.

And few d20 games, even more so D&D, place any value on tactics. As far as the rules go, a character just moves over to a foe and attacks. There are tons of pages on attacks and combat, and like three paragraphs on tactics. Sure a character could do something of great tactical value, but the game has no real rules to support that, other then magic. There is no ''tactical'' bonus to hit or damage.

And on the other side, few DM's use tactics as that would simply kill all the characters. Even the most simple tactics can kill a group of characters in a couple minutes. And even more so if the DM does not use Hollywood Tactics.

So most players play D20/D&D to play a crazy combat game. And some DM's are like that too. The disconnect comes when the DM is not playing the crazy combat game.

You make a lot of valid points here, and I agree that holds true for about 75% of the game. Now, I only say 75% because tactics don't have a guide like "mundane" combat does. A good number of 3.5 sources I've read do mention alternate ways to attack someone (such as bull-sushing them off a cliff or into lava, or using maneuvers and/or poisons to disable and weaken them), but not nearly as much as one would like. Since the "mundane" form of combat ("attack, attack, attack!") have entire chapters dedicated to them, it is understandable that people use that as the default (I rarely see anyone using grappling or bull-rush rules. If you see this commonly, then you have my admiration).

Counter point though: there are dedicated rules for falling objects, surprise rounds, combat maneuvers, poisons, and falling characters that are often overlooked. I will assign partial blame to DMs as they need to actively incorporate such scenarios (and others like bottles of oil or dirt that can be kicked into enemy eyes), but players do need to think outside the box too. It has been stated that a DM should feel pleased when a character wins an encounter in a way they didn't expect (like pushing a large foe onto a group of smaller foes and killing the lot of them).

[Vitruviansquid]

Wait. Why are systems with an emphasis on combat incompatible with tactics?

Why can't the combat be tactical?

[Knaight]

Wait. Why are systems with an emphasis on combat incompatible with tactics?

Why can't the combat be tactical?

It's not that it can't be tactical, it's that if you spend a hundred pages of rules on a particular range of tactics and range of fighting, that's the sort of thing that's generally going to be used. To use a D&D example, you're going to see plenty of precise motion, positioning, area targeting, etc. You're less likely to see exploitation of the environment or more particular weaknesses (something like salt for a ridiculously over-sized slug), because the rules books are on the heavy side and have a lot of priming for focusing on the positioning, area targeting, etc. end of things.

[Vitruviansquid]

It's not that it can't be tactical, it's that if you spend a hundred pages of rules on a particular range of tactics and range of fighting, that's the sort of thing that's generally going to be used. To use a D&D example, you're going to see plenty of precise motion, positioning, area targeting, etc. You're less likely to see exploitation of the environment or more particular weaknesses (something like salt for a ridiculously over-sized slug), because the rules books are on the heavy side and have a lot of priming for focusing on the positioning, area targeting, etc. end of things.

See, that's what I thought too. You just use whatever kind of tactics your game system is built to account for, whether it's in positioning, targeting, terrain, out-of-combat stuff like social or political interactions, and so on.

I'm asking Darth Ultron to explain what he means by this:

And few d20 games, even more so D&D, place any value on tactics. As far as the rules go, a character just moves over to a foe and attacks. There are tons of pages on attacks and combat, and like three paragraphs on tactics. Sure a character could do something of great tactical value, but the game has no real rules to support that, other then magic. There is no ''tactical'' bonus to hit or damage.

[Darth Ultron]

See, that's what I thought too. You just use whatever kind of tactics your game system is built to account for, whether it's in positioning, targeting, terrain, out-of-combat stuff like social or political interactions, and so on.

I'm asking Darth Ultron to explain what he means by this:

D20/D&D is all about killing foes. There is no other way in the rules to win an encounter. Sure there are three or four paragraphs about how a game does not have to be all about combat, but then there are no rules to back that idea up anywhere.

And worse, the rule do specify an encounter must be a challenge. If a player does use really good tactics, then that takes away from the challenge of the encounter. Just take time for example. Say a PC wants to kill an evil warlord cleric. A great tactic would be to sneak over and attack them at 4 AM, so the cleric would be alone, unarmored and have no protective spells on their person. But doing this makes the encounter too easy, as even a high level/CR foe can't do much in such a situation. So the 'weak' cleric is not exactly a CR 12 encounter. The same is true with something like poison. It's a great tactic to sneak over and poison a high level character, but is that challenge really worth the CR?

And then the DM can't really use such tactics back at the characters. It is just too easy to attack and kill sleeping characters, for example.

[Hawkstar]

D20/D&D is all about killing foes. There is no other way in the rules to win an encounter. Sure there are three or four paragraphs about how a game does not have to be all about combat, but then there are no rules to back that idea up anywhere.

Sure there is. "Roll a d20, add skill, attribute, and miscellaneous modifiers, and compare to a target DC". If you have issues with campaign design, that's on you.

And worse, the rule do specify an encounter must be a challenge. If a player does use really good tactics, then that takes away from the challenge of the encounter. Just take time for example. Say a PC wants to kill an evil warlord cleric. A great tactic would be to sneak over and attack them at 4 AM, so the cleric would be alone, unarmored and have no protective spells on their person. But doing this makes the encounter too easy, as even a high level/CR foe can't do much in such a situation. So the 'weak' cleric is not exactly a CR 12 encounter. The same is true with something like poison. It's a great tactic to sneak over and poison a high level character, but is that challenge really worth the CR?

First off "Stab the dude when he's sleeping" is Strategy at most, not Tactics (Unless he's sleeping because the wizard cast Sleep on him last round). Even then - a level 12 Warlord Cleric would have, even at 4 AM, a perimeter of bodyguards, magical wards and alarms, and other defenses that alone would make getting to him to assassinate at 4 AM a challenge. He'd also have a number of protective spells still up from the previous day (Persisted spells last 24 hours.) A CR 12 encounter is always a CR 12 encounter, unless the DM does something weird like "Hey, look at all these free high-explosive barrels these CR 12 monsters are hanging out by!"

And then the DM can't really use such tactics back at the characters. It is just too easy to attack and kill sleeping characters, for example.

... there are parties that don't have two people awake and alert keeping an eye on the others at all times?

And few d20 games, even more so D&D, place any value on tactics. As far as the rules go, a character just moves over to a foe and attacks. There are tons of pages on attacks and combat, and like three paragraphs on tactics. Sure a character could do something of great tactical value, but the game has no real rules to support that, other then magic. There is no ''tactical'' bonus to hit or damage.

Sorry... but D&D is make-or-break on the tactics. You have to know who is doing what, with incredible value on positioning, target prioritization, resource management, spell selection, etc. Rough terrain can make it difficult to reach an enemy to deliver melee damage. It's a pain in the ass to shoot a ranged weapon from out of melee. Getting hit hurts. Getting hit twice (Such as from an OA) hurts twice as much. The latest edition of D&D doesn't have quite as much battlefield tactical emphasis, but every class has resources and actions they need to manage and time.

[Cluedrew]

Strategy at most, not Tactics

Isn't strategy the overarching plan, while tactics is how you do it on a smaller scale?

[The Fury]

D20/D&D is all about killing foes. There is no other way in the rules to win an encounter. Sure there are three or four paragraphs about how a game does not have to be all about combat, but then there are no rules to back that idea up anywhere.

And worse, the rule do specify an encounter must be a challenge. If a player does use really good tactics, then that takes away from the challenge of the encounter. Just take time for example. Say a PC wants to kill an evil warlord cleric. A great tactic would be to sneak over and attack them at 4 AM, so the cleric would be alone, unarmored and have no protective spells on their person. But doing this makes the encounter too easy, as even a high level/CR foe can't do much in such a situation. So the 'weak' cleric is not exactly a CR 12 encounter. The same is true with something like poison. It's a great tactic to sneak over and poison a high level character, but is that challenge really worth the CR?

And then the DM can't really use such tactics back at the characters. It is just too easy to attack and kill sleeping characters, for example.

Sure, the PCs can absolutely use the tactics you've mentioned. Heck, I'm sure people in my group have done all of them at some point. Though if you're out to get a warlord cleric, he's more than likely anticipated one of his enemies trying kill him in his sleep or poison him and has probably planned countermeasures. Posting guards outside his tent as he sleeps, having someone taste his food to make sure it's not poisoned, or "Detect Poison."

Maybe your experience is different, but in mine thinking tactically rarely makes a hard encounter breezy.

[ZeroGear]

Sure, the PCs can absolutely use the tactics you've mentioned. Heck, I'm sure people in my group have done all of them at some point. Though if you're out to get a warlord cleric, he's more than likely anticipated one of his enemies trying kill him in his sleep or poison him and has probably planned countermeasures. Posting guards outside his tent as he sleeps, having someone taste his food to make sure it's not poisoned, or "Detect Poison."

Maybe your experience is different, but in mine thinking tactically rarely makes a hard encounter breezy.

It's also worth a mention that for some reason people assume he's taking these countermeasures and don't even try to get him this way.
Groups I've played with have only ever used three kinds of tactics for encounters:
-Frontal assault! Hit him with a stick until he's dead!
-Scry and die
-Create ungodly amounts of simulacrums to the point at which it becomes ridiculous to oppose them.

All of these still boil down to the "hit it with a stick" mentality.

And it's not that hard to think outside the box on some of the ways to beat someone (note that these are all Pathfinder):
-Alchemists can go invisible and poison a person's drink (some familiars can do this too)
-Gunslingers and archer builds can attempt to snipe form far away
-Spells can be used to collapse buildings on enemies
-Pushing people off of cliffs/ledges/other high points works very well
-Political figures can be cornered in diplomatic situations
-Bards can use songs/speeches to spread rumors and cause problems for figures in power
-Teleporting enemies into distant locales can bead for their health
-Tying someone up ad throwing them in the river may work too (and can involve grappling rules). Alternatively, they can be sold or turned in for a bounty.
-Traps can be activated against enemies (Ihave honestly never seen anyone include traps in their home base)

And these are a just a few that are worth mentioning. There are dozens more.

[Cluedrew]

-Traps can be activated against enemies (Ihave honestly never seen anyone include traps in their home base)

Have you ever read the All Guardsmen Party?

Personally, I have seen tactics used a lot. I've seen traps, summons and so on all used. None of them have been really complex and there have been few to no instances of winning the fight without fighting, but there are a lot of things beyond "hit it" that come up on a regular basis.

[GloatingSwine]

I like Algeh’s definition, so lets sum all that up (no pun intended… no actually, pun intended).

Real difficulty: providing challenges and hindering the player/character for logical and sensible reasons

Artificial difficulty: Providing challenges that hinder the player/character for no logical or sensible reason. Or hindering the player/character for no logical or sensible reason.

Part of the problem is that players have different ideas about what is a "logical or sensible" reason for being hindered.

Let's take two examples from this thread:

(In math, this often looks like giving them ugly numbers and then insisting they use a particular method that doesn't work well with those numbers rather than another, equally valid method that is better suited to those sorts of numbers. Examples would be asking them to factor or complete the square with really awkward coefficients rather than using the quadratic formula or asking them to solve a system of equations using substitution rather than elimination when neither variable in either equation can be isolated without fractions. Basically, artificially ruling out perfectly valid methods so they have to go through tedious algebraic or computational steps just to make it more likely they'll make mistakes rather than expanding on the skill you're actually teaching.)

Because maths is based on faithful application of deterministic but complex rules in frequently complex situations (which is why computers are good at it), a set of problems which rely on deliberately making the steps of following the rules difficult tests the discipline of following the rules faithfully and accurately. The test isn't finding the solution, the test is doing the difficult steps accurately (because other more difficuly maths later will have similarly difficult steps which need to be accurately followed).

For example, Zelda bosses that take 3 hits to beat could be made artificially difficult if they took 30 hits to beat. The game can reasonably assume you understand the fight after getting 3 hits on the boss, but if it makes you jump through the hoop 27 more times, it just prolongs the fight unreasonably without allowing you to feel like you figured more stuff out. A lot of RPGs also use stat gating for artificial difficulty. There could be a boss that is easy to figure out how to beat, but you need to grind an inordinately long time to have the raw stats to just survive his first attack.

How many iterations are actually required to test whether the player has successfully mastered the planning and execution required? Trick question, it's inversely proportional to the complexity of the steps. The simpler the steps required to damage a boss, the more times the steps should need to be repeated to win, because the test is doing it consistently not doing it once by accident.

In both of these cases something is posited as "artificial" difficulty which was actually just difficulty of an unanticipated sort, something which a particular person didn't think was a logical hindrance because their perception of the thing being tested was different.

So really, "Artificial" difficulty doesn't really exist, it's just difficulty that the player doesn't percieve the reason for and so rejects the necessity of.

And few d20 games, even more so D&D, place any value on tactics. As far as the rules go, a character just moves over to a foe and attacks. There are tons of pages on attacks and combat, and like three paragraphs on tactics. Sure a character could do something of great tactical value, but the game has no real rules to support that, other then magic. There is no ''tactical'' bonus to hit or damage.

The rules of chess have no tactics or strategy, only a list of allowed and forbidden moves, a beginning condition, and a set of end conditions.

This is true of 100% of all games. The rules are not supposed to provide tactics, they are supposed to create a set of constraints in which tactics can emerge from the interaction of the players.

[ZeroGear]

This is true of 100% of all games. The rules are not supposed to provide tactics, they are supposed to create a set of constraints in which tactics can emerge from the interaction of the players.

Thank you, I have been trying to make this point. Rules exist for all kinds of tactics, I (personally) have never seen them used. Anyone want to throw in an idea of other interesting things people can do?

Here's one:
Roll a cart full of oil down the hill at a giant enemy, then shoot flaming arrows at it. If nothing else, it'll force the foe to roll around to put itself out.

[TurboGhast]

Thank you, I have been trying to make this point. Rules exist for all kinds of tactics, I (personally) have never seen them used. Anyone want to throw in an idea of other interesting things people can do?

Here's one:
Roll a cart full of oil down the hill at a giant enemy, then shoot flaming arrows at it. If nothing else, it'll force the foe to roll around to put itself out.

Using forced movement to move foes into traps is also another interesting action. Bonus points if you made the trap, rather than it already being there.

[dream]

An old favorite of mine: kicking/throwing dirt or mud into a foe's eyes to daze or stun them. Done right, the target is Flat-Footed & set-up for a quick (finishing) strike. Stole it from 13 Assassins.

[ZeroGear]

On that note (and this still pertains to running tabletop games that feel like Dark Souls), is there any way to utilize a failure system?
What I mean here is that there is something in the world that brings players back to a point after they have failed a articular objective (usually though death) without it being too gimmick-y? I know that there are a large variety of games that have revival mechanics (like dragging the body back to a cleric), but is there a reasonable way to model that in TTRPGs without it being broken and abused?
By this I mean that it has some kind of a penalty for dying that is more manageable than shelling out 50k gold to a high-level cleric/druid/oracle/other divine caster?

I'm only introducing this vein of though because of the ramifications it entails when creating situations that require roundabout strategies to overcome. A system like this allows for failure, and creates a learning curve without resorting to new characters (plus, the boss may also become smarter each time they try, making them think more about their tactics). The only worry is that it may be abused in one way or another.

Thoughts?

[NichG]

Replaying a scenario in a tabletop game is pretty tedious, because a single 'run' could take hours (whereas usually in games where you have to retry until you succeed, either an individual segment is only a couple of minutes, or you're doing a completely new playthrough with a new character/situation as in a Roguelike). I think this is a very hard element to make much use of - best reserved for sort of one-off challenges that aren't along the direct line of the game, so players can try, get fed up, then come back in a few months and try again.

[aspekt]

The more tactical your early npcs and monsters are when engaging your players can greatly impact their use or non-use of tactics and strategy later in the game.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

"Artificial" Difficulty: Adding in elements that may force heavy use of tactics to even stand the chance agains the enemy (ex. Foes have specific, uncommon DR, dragons can only be taken down with plans involving them being lured into gorges and blasted with ballistas, etc). Can include games where clues for upcoming enemies are easily missed, weaknesses are rarely known or unconventional, and enemies pop out at almost paranoia-inducing instances.

For me artificial difficulty is not so much about needing to use tactics, but needing to use very specific tactics, or a very specific path to victory. In a difficult bullet hell computer game you have to constantly dodge, find a path for yourself and react quickly to incoming things. In an artificially difficult bullet hell game there simply is only one good solution. If you choose to dodge left at the beginning you will get shot halfway. It's harder to finish the game, not because it required more skill but because there are less valid solutions. This can be a problem in RPG's, because they're build for letting players find or make up any of a wide range of solutions.

Your dragon example is a good one. In a difficult game the players are often not able to defeat a dragon directly, but they can try to raise an army, or set an ambush with siege weapons, or try to collapse a cave on the thing, or research a time travel spell to get a tank from the future, or...

Those solutions are all individually difficult to succeed in, and they can be combined and mashed together in many ways that are also still difficult. But in an artificially difficult game you can spend three sessions preparing to go with the tank plan and fail because the scenario was set up to disallow any other solution that leading the dragon into the gorge with the catapults.

So basically, my view on the matter is that it's a form of railroading where the tracks aren't clear enough to follow, but anything outside of them will still be disallowed for being a stupid idea.

I don't know if it's very common, it might take a very specific (but pretty high) DM skill level to set up a world big enough that you have no idea where to look yet not being able to give the players a way to interact with it.

[/semi-offtopic because not really reacting to the current discussion]

[Vitruviansquid]

On that note (and this still pertains to running tabletop games that feel like Dark Souls), is there any way to utilize a failure system?
What I mean here is that there is something in the world that brings players back to a point after they have failed a articular objective (usually though death) without it being too gimmick-y? I know that there are a large variety of games that have revival mechanics (like dragging the body back to a cleric), but is there a reasonable way to model that in TTRPGs without it being broken and abused?
By this I mean that it has some kind of a penalty for dying that is more manageable than shelling out 50k gold to a high-level cleric/druid/oracle/other divine caster?

I'm only introducing this vein of though because of the ramifications it entails when creating situations that require roundabout strategies to overcome. A system like this allows for failure, and creates a learning curve without resorting to new characters (plus, the boss may also become smarter each time they try, making them think more about their tactics). The only worry is that it may be abused in one way or another.

Thoughts?

I don't see why not. After all, everything's made up in tabletop RPG's anyways.

You could have this difficult, Tomb of Horrors-esque adventure prepared that is not explicitly fair, and the GM could repeatedly run it for the players as they fail each time. It might be fun as a player to be able to iterate multiple times and attempt to solve the dungeon.

[GungHo]

Replaying a scenario in a tabletop game is pretty tedious, because a single 'run' could take hours (whereas usually in games where you have to retry until you succeed, either an individual segment is only a couple of minutes, or you're doing a completely new playthrough with a new character/situation as in a Roguelike). I think this is a very hard element to make much use of - best reserved for sort of one-off challenges that aren't along the direct line of the game, so players can try, get fed up, then come back in a few months and try again.

Yeah, it'd be cute used in a sparing, episodic one shot, where the characters live through a day that keeps repeating itself and ending horribly until one character finally gets the meta-clue and saves the team before Kelsey Grammer emerges through a rift in space time only to never be seen again.

[Hawkstar]

In video games, the biggest form of Artificial Difficulty is 'difficulty' imposed through obtuse mechanics (In order to jump, you have to hold Left Trigger to let the game know you're wanting to make an Acrobatic Maneuver, move the left thumbstick to set the arc, tap and hold A to set the jump force, then tap "B" when you're ready to jump... and then hold left trigger again, move the left thumbstick to align with your landing angle, press and hold B to absorb impact force, and tap A to jump again, or hold it to diffuse the landing force! So precise to give most realistic jumping ability! Now... jump across this very simple series of platforms. - Cue players fumbling and falling to their death repeatedly as they fail to get all the steps done in the right order with the right timing.), or constrained information. I imagine Artificial Difficulty in Tabletop games would be similar to those.

Obtuse mechanics... "Grappling" comes to mind (Though, honestly, it's not so bad to me because of the complexity, but instead its ability to be an absolute lockdown through a single number),

And anyone can give an example of "Difficulty through obtusely obscured information".

[goto124]

The 'obscure information' is less of a problem in vide games, because you can look up a guide online. Even then, it's problemantic enough for people to complain.

Only One Way To Progress is kind of necessary (and a staple) in video games, but goes against the very point of tabletop ones.

[SowZ]

I don't think much harder enemies qualify as artificial difficulty. I ran a campaign where the first real boss fight was at level 2 against a Flesh Golem and then at level 3 they fought its maker, a level 10 Wizard with the Necromancer Bone Skeleton Companion ACF. The whole campaign went like this during climactic encounters, with monsters being undefeatable through typical tactics but not through intelligent and clever plays. They never used exploits, but taking advantage of their environment, resources, and abilities was necessary.