What happens when you think everything is a level-appropriate encounter

[Erys]

I got to say; this thread reminds me of one of my favorite memes:



Players that think they can just do whatever cause the world is their level deserve the reality check the OP gave. He warned them and the PC was too daft to realize it. Had he been wiser he could have said something to the effect of, 'you're right, we don't have the right joust lances. Can we meet some other day at such and such?'

Reminds me of a player I had long, looooong ago. I had a specific kind of uber-elf called 'witch elves' (totally cribbed form warhammer) that had magic blades that killed on contact. I made this very clear when the group saw one and most steered clear... but no, there had to be the one guy who, instead of hiding and evading the obviously OP bad gal he runs up to her and attacks.

Needless to say it didn't end well for him.

In my humble opinion if you want a world that scales with you: play a video game.

[Ruslan]

Frustration and difficulty are important to creating fun and engaging games. But like you said, they work when they make success feel better. They require iteration, which is hard to do in traditional RPGs. A random knight killing you on the side of the road isn't something you can iterate and that player has no chance to retry the encounter with the knowledge they got from failing.

With all respect, I can't agree.

True, as you astutely noted twice now, this is not a video game, and you don't iterate combats. And thank god for that. We try different combats. We do different things. Sometimes, we succeed, sometimes we fail. Sometimes, things work, and sometimes, a single player has to die and become a humorous story while the other 4 players can go "whew, it's a good thing *I* didn't challenge that knight".

And succeeding on something else isn't going to have the same satisfaction that dispels the frustration.

So, basically, have the PCs never fail, because a single failure is FOREVER. Again, I can't agree.

Just making things frustrating isn't good game design.

Which is why, as luck would have it, I don't just make things frustrating. I have stuff in my game, which the PCs interact with, and sometimes, what can you do, interactions turn out to be frustrating. C'est la vie.

[sleepy hedgehog]

As a DM I really like encounters that are over-leveled, assuming the PC's have been at least warned that it may be impossible. And assuming there exists at least 1 method of escape they have access to. (Even if it's just their 30ft move speed)
The problem is I don't like doing that in DND, since escaping from an opponent once combat started can be near impossible, because often enemies move faster than you.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The problem is I don't like doing that in DND, since escaping from an opponent once combat started can be near impossible, because often enemies move faster than you.

But not everything will give chase forever. My players woke up a hibernating cr 9 yeti at level 2 (by yelling into its cave). It chased them out, they ran. It got tired, and went back to bed. No deaths.

Another group (really one stupid paladin) stood their ground in a very similar circumstance. The paladin died, messily.

[Parvum]

Hi.

DnD assumes that all your encounters will be level appropriate and survivable because that has stood the test of time and proven to be more fun.

It's in the books. You, as a DM, are told that you can do whatever you want. But if you want the best game possible, as near as the designers of the game have been able to refine it, you should use these guidelines. Those guidelines say to make the entire game survivable. Space your encounters so that players can recover. Never put in a challenge that will completely crush them- only ones that the players can beat with heavy losses, clever planning, or luck. It doesn't always work out that way, but that's what's in the books.

That's what your players have to work with. "Not everything is easy, but you can beat everything." Any other assumptions you have about how the game ought to run are in your head. The players won't know until you tell them, and then they will forget because of course they will and you will need to remind them BEFORE THEY SUFFER CONSEQUENCES- otherwise, you're punishing them for being human and for not remembering how the game works when you run it. You might say that getting punished for fortgetting how the rules work is just life- BUT THIS ISN'T LIFE. IT IS A GAME. And when you decide to be the DM, you have not signed onto the job of simulating a realistic world that punishes people for being people. You have put on the fun hat. Your job (your most important job) is to make the game fun.

Fun requires challenges. Fun can be seeing the cocky player's character destroyed for being... well, played by the cocky player. I think we all have that player. And... yes, I will admit, it is fun to watch our cocky player get taken down a peg. Like, absolutely hilarious. BUT. That cocky player came here to have fun too. And I am willing to bet that your cocky player (like our cocky player) made a brash sword swinging duelist to swing off a chandelier, kick a corrupt wizard into the fire, grab the macguffin and rescue the hostage while spewing snarky one liners.

You know. To play a fantasy game and indulge in their fantasy. Not to hear, "Grow up Flynn Rider this is the REAL WORLD. Actions have CONSEQUENCES and you pay TAXES."

These things have a place. I adore horror games, and other sorts of games where you can actually be curb stomped by anything at any time. But before running any of these I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH: make it clear to the players. They need to know what your making and everybody needs to be on board for it. Let them know they can be one shot at any time, even in the first adventure. Remind them when they first meet an enemy. Remind them when they first meet a scary enemy. Remind them when they're setting up camp.

Because if you don't, they will use the default assumption that the books (and every other game ever) have ground into their heads: you can beat it. When you want your gritty game to make your players feel powerless, remember that not only are you fighting against every other game in existence but against the very power fantasy role playing game you have chosen to support your story. It's not enough to say, "The fists of this beast look like they could crush your skull like a grape." Your line of dialogue has too much working against it. DnD's entire levelling system, in fact. And that's bad.

If your player can't keep a character alive for more than a session, that's probably their problem. But the very first time any character dies and the player doesn't feel like it was justified? Felt like it came out of nowhere? Felt cheated? That first time is ALWAYS going to be the DM's fault. Figure out where you failed and do better next time.

[Ruslan]

Hi.

DnD assumes that all your encounters will be level appropriate and survivable because that has stood the test of time and proven to be more fun.

It's in the books.

It most certainly is not. As was correctly noted above, the D&D 3.5 DMG recommends for 5% of all encounters to be Overwhelming (ie. PCs will die unless they run or otherwise avoid the encounter).

As for what is "more fun", that's just your personal perspective talking. I don't like a game where everything is guaranteed to be level-appropriate and survivable, not as a DM, and not as a player.

[Hawkstar]

Hi.

DnD assumes that all your encounters will be level appropriate and survivable because that has stood the test of time and proven to be more fun.

It's in the books.

No, it isn't, at all. The books explicitly state that you should throw in wildly level-inappropriate encounters on a somewhat regular, but not overwhelming, basis.

In D&D 3.5, the game assumes and tells DMs that one in every twenty 'encounters' should be so difficult that the players need to be able to run away. Less than half should be at their CR±1 (With a sizeable number below their CR, and a few well above it but still beatable).

Even 4e assumes players encounter challenges of their CR ±5 (A full Tier range)

Going back - AD&D had almost no concept of "Level Appropriate encounters"

5e is built explicitly to accommodate massively imbalanced encounters, with Bounded Accuracy giving players an ability to make long-shot successes, an illusion of having a chance, or a slightly better chance of escaping alive when they realize their chance of victory is just an illusion.

[Erys]

If your player can't keep a character alive for more than a session, that's probably their problem. But the very first time any character dies and the player doesn't feel like it was justified? Felt like it came out of nowhere? Felt cheated? That first time is ALWAYS going to be the DM's fault. Figure out where you failed and do better next time..

This is complete and total BS.

If your character dies to a bad crit against him, odds are they will feel cheated. That the DMs fault?

Nope.

What about when you put a plot device like an ancient red dragon and the party opts to attack it... at level 4? That a bad DM.

Again, nope.

If you want to make a world that is static and similar Roy's afterlife with the 'dungeon of moderately hard encounters' that is on you. I prefer dynamic games, there will be dragons and liches that will destroy you, knights and heroes that are your betters (at least for most the game); and on the flip side not every fight has to be difficult. Sometimes the small band of bandits doesn't realize they just attacked a party of adventurers way out of their league. The pendulum does swing both ways after all.

A DM who coddles his players and is too scared to let them die to their own hubris will have players that will always walk all over him and his game will likely be a lot less fun because of it.

[Knaight]

Hi.

DnD assumes that all your encounters will be level appropriate and survivable because that has stood the test of time and proven to be more fun.

It's in the books. You, as a DM, are told that you can do whatever you want. But if you want the best game possible, as near as the designers of the game have been able to refine it, you should use these guidelines. Those guidelines say to make the entire game survivable. Space your encounters so that players can recover. Never put in a challenge that will completely crush them- only ones that the players can beat with heavy losses, clever planning, or luck. It doesn't always work out that way, but that's what's in the books.

This isn't just a D&D thread, and even among the D&D community the DMing advice is considered suspect, full of infamously bad ideas. The 3.5 DMG 2 hails the benefits of episodic games as including making it easier for the DM to run their story without players getting to change it; I'm not going to read that line and take up railroading just because the designers are apparently on board with it.

[TheCountAlucard]

I think this is one more case of a PC making his own encounter; incidentally, in a game of mine, a PC not too long ago lost his life in an encounter with sharks, but it wasn't the sharks that killed him - it was the dumb decisions he made.

(Going down into a lifeboat wearing full armor was only one way he made things harder for himself. Convincing the crew he was homicidal-crazy didn't help either. Or displaying demonic powers to them. Or threatening their lives. Point is, while he was down there, they fired the ship's ballista into the lifeboat and sank him, and by no means was it a "level-inappropriate encounter.")

[Yukitsu]

A DM who coddles his players and is too scared to let them die to their own hubris will have players that will always walk all over him and his game will likely be a lot less fun because of it.

My group used to have a DM with that attitude and the current result is a group that runs from everything which also isn't fun for me or the party.

[Erys]

My group used to have a DM with that attitude and the current result is a group that runs from everything which also isn't fun for me or the party.

I feel you.

I once had a DM kill half the party with an ancient red dragon on a whim because he felt he had too many players (there were 6 of us, I think the highest level was 5th, give or take a level). That wasn't fun at all. (Probably preaching to the choir here) but there is a big difference between an ancient red just flying over and arbitrarily attacking the party of low level toons and a known ancient red in the nearby mountains that the PC's just insist on trying to slay when they are way to low to try.

In my experience DMs that are always killing the players or forcing them to run isn't playing the game with the right mindset. Games should be cooperative, not DM v Player. If you are experiencing the bulk of your encounters as deadly and beyond, your DM is likely opting to play the latter instead of the former.

DM V Player is rarely fun.

What happened with the OP definitely wasn't DM V Player either, it was just a player (as TheCountAlucard points out) that ignored the warnings and made his own encounter with the wrong dude.

[kyoryu]

Now, to be fair, there are situations where the GM really should only throw "level-appropriate" encounters at the players.

1) When it's the GM and not the players deciding what encounters happen.

and

2) When encounter is synonymous with fight.

If both of these things are true, then yes, you should only throw level appropriate encounters at the players, because it's not fair if they die over something they have no control of.

Of course, if both of those things are true, you're also running the *exact type* of game I'm least interested in, so the idea of "level appropriate" encounters has zero practical value for me.

[prufock]

It comes down to how the danger is presented. I can tell I'm in the minority here, but I don't see how absolute lethality could be determined here. This is not implied to be a joust to the death.

The knight explicitly says "If risk of fatality is to be accepted." This is 2 guys on horseback charging at each other at full speed with sharpened metal poles. And not just any 2 guys - one is the best jouster in the kingdom. Even if the knight is a level-appropriate encounter for the group as most encounters are designed, the PC opts to tackle it one-on-one, which makes the average party level 1/4 of that intended by game design. A CR 8 encounter vs an APL 8 group is fair. A CR 8 encounter vs a single member of an APL 8 group is six levels over.

More to the point, if the player challenges the knight, and you know that the knight is going to kill the player, don't say yes.

This is an option, but we don't know that the player's death was guaranteed. The knight may have had a string of good rolls (initiative, to hit, damage).

And of course the DM could refuse the challenge. What happens when the overzealous player attacks the knight anyway? Should the knight stand there and take it, not fighting back? I'm not saying that this particular player would have done so, but some would. The precedent you seem to want to set is that PCs should be able to run roughshod without fear of consequence.

I don't advocate laughing about it, and as a DM I would have given the player a couple more outs before allowing it to continue, but some players are headstrong and would force the issue.

I'm replying to this separately because I don't feel the situations are at all applicable. I wonder why the path is there if it's supposed to be avoided.

There are a number of metagame reasons why the path might exist. It could be a recurring hook for the players - just because they can't defeat it now doesn't mean they won't in the future with more experience. In a continuous story, there should be things that are meant to recur. The treasure behind the path may be unexceptional at this point, but based on things they learn down the road, it may become important. It could be that the path IS accessible but is linked to a later puzzle, key, or code. It could be to imply a world that is bigger than the PCs - not everything out there is created purely for you to curbstomp. Yes, the PCs are the protagonists of the story, but sometimes, Boromir dies.

Also, if my character is "good at avoiding traps" then I expect that running in and avoiding traps is a good strategy. And if the traps are so powerful that my character who is good at avoiding them has no chance, then it was a bad thing to put in the game.

Yes, your character is good at avoiding traps. So were all those others whose corpses now litter the floor of the hallway.

It was a bad thing for your character right now. You seem to have a concept of the game world where things spring into existence only when you are likely to defeat it. I don't find this concept satisfying. If Darth Vader exists, it should be possible for me to try and seek him out to fight at level 1. His stormtroopers may kill me, his personal guards may kill me, or he may kill me, but he shouldn't simply phase in and out of existence based on what level I am. Nor should his level be reduced to match mine. If he's rumoured to be a powerful force-user, the leader of an army, and one of the greatest swordsmen in the galaxy, a 1-on-1 fight should have no other result than my death.

Another objection I have to this concept of "the world conforms to your level" is that it is darn near impossible to create, especially at low levels. A PC can always create an encounter of his own accord, and if you follow the rules, it can be fatal. If you attempt to remove anything that could possibly kill him, you get a very flat world. If you de-level things that could kill him, you get a logically inconsistent world.

A PC, fresh off his first adventure, could use his 400 gp to buy a heavy warhorse, pen it in, and attempt to fight it barehanded (he has Improved Unarmed Strike, after all) "for practice." A heavy warhorse has a good chance of defeating a level 1 character one-on-one (CR 2 vs APL 1/4). So does the horse not fight back? Are horses more expensive than printed in the PHB, such that he can't afford one (and then, what if he steals one)? Do warhorses simply not exist until you hit a level high enough to fight one?

A level one character can also die from falling 50 feet. Do trees not grow that high? Are there no 50-foot high buildings? Are there no canyons of that height? Does the earth soften to absorb the fall? What about water? Being underwater for, say, 3 minutes will kill a character. Are there no oceans? Or if a player says "I'm going to swim across the ocean!" they just automatically succeed? "Ah, the ocean isn't that big anyway."

You said earlier that a character should be able to storm a castle at level 1 if they want. So either the castle has very few guards OR has incompetent guards. So why haven't the commoners overthrown the king? Where's the logical consistency? Should everything fall beneath the feet of a PC who decides to tackle it?

Heck, let's be completely reductionist here. If a PC says "I'm going to bend this blade by pushing it into my abdomen," does the blade bend? Yes, this is ridiculous, but I'm wondering how far you would extend this concept of protecting the PCs.

Is there any action foolhardy and suicidal enough that justifies no longer protecting the PC?

Should anything exist in the world that could potentially kill a foolhardy PC?

[Yukitsu]

Is there any action foolhardy and suicidal enough that justifies no longer protecting the PC?

Should anything exist in the world that could potentially kill a foolhardy PC?

In general, I view it as most interesting when every encounter I make theoretically can be won using any number of means, including combat. That doesn't mean I don't think the players should die if they act foolishly, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't get to interact with the world in the way they think is most fun.

For example, I've had players in my games win fighting against encounters 6 or more levels above them because they played to their strengths and managed to get the rolls they needed. By contrast, I've had a player die in a fight against a combat 2 CR below his level where I expected it to be pretty easy because they failed to understand their opponents strengths and weaknesses. In other words, I don't bend the game to make the players certainly live, but I certainly don't put things into the game that they flat out can't fight.

[Parvum]

It most certainly is not. As was correctly noted above, the D&D 3.5 DMG recommends for 5% of all encounters to be Overwhelming (ie. PCs will die unless they run or otherwise avoid the encounter).

You are in fact totally right! There is a line in that book I had completely forgotten about. You could justify the occasional player killing with that line. But I still think that would be incredibly sloppy. As Hawkster pointed out, each successive edition has been moving closer to tuning encounters based on the players and what they are able to overcome. But that doesn't matter in the end, because:

This isn't just a D&D thread

That line isn't just working against D&D. You are working against almost every game that's out there, that your players have likely played, D&D among them. They're power fantasies, designed to make the people playing them feel strong and unstoppable. They get levels, get stronger, get itemized lists of impossible abilities that literally change the world around them. There are exceptions to this rule, and I love them. But I love those incredibly vulnerable games because they are exceptions, and they shake up the normal power fantasy formula that most games embrace.

If you aren't clear that you intend to avoid this, players will enter your game expecting it. Heck, they might do it even if you are clear because that's what they've been conditioned to expect. But you took the fun hat. It's your job to make the game fun. So if you intend to run a lethal, disempowering game, you need to make that clear. If everyone agrees to it, you have to make it rewarding. You need to make sure the players are actually aware of the mortality of their characters- bearing in mind that they would probably forget they could turn doorknobs with their hands if you gave them a wand of knock. Their immersion is your responsibility. It's up to you to make sure that they are actually fearing death, and surprised to make it out of deadly encounters alive, to expend resources avoiding deadly situations rather than facing them head on. Because:

That the DMs fault?

The first time you've made a player feel that they were killed by an obstacle they should have easily overcome, that is your fault.

The first time a player feels it was unfair to die to a single unlucky roll, that is your fault.

Again, if the player makes a habit it's safe to say that's on them. But the first time you, the person who promised to make a fun game for everyone, deliver an experience to your player that frustrates or otherwise drains the fun out of the game for them, it's on you. Don't justify it. Just make the game better.

[Erys]

The first time you've made a player feel that they were killed by an obstacle they should have easily overcome, that is your fault.

The first time a player feels it was unfair to die to a single unlucky roll, that is your fault.

Again, if the player makes a habit it's safe to say that's on them. But the first time you, the person who promised to make a fun game for everyone, deliver an experience to your player that frustrates or otherwise drains the fun out of the game for them, it's on you. Don't justify it. Just make the game better.

Yeah, it's totally the DMs fault the dice killed a PC.

/roll

Is this special-snowflake-gaming now where we have account for everyone's feelings and make sure the scary dice don't ruin the game. Where we fudge rolls and lower the bar on all obstacles because the PC's "feel" they should be able to kill a lich at 3rd level?

No offense, but that is completely ridiculous.

If you want to run your games that way, so be it. But that sounds like something that would get remarkable boring after about 15 minutes of play.

[goatmeal]

Hi.

DnD assumes that all your encounters will be level appropriate and survivable because that has stood the test of time and proven to be more fun.

It's in the books. You, as a DM, are told that you can do whatever you want. But if you want the best game possible, as near as the designers of the game have been able to refine it, you should use these guidelines. Those guidelines say to make the entire game survivable. Space your encounters so that players can recover. Never put in a challenge that will completely crush them- only ones that the players can beat with heavy losses, clever planning, or luck. It doesn't always work out that way, but that's what's in the books.

That's what your players have to work with. "Not everything is easy, but you can beat everything." Any other assumptions you have about how the game ought to run are in your head. The players won't know until you tell them, and then they will forget because of course they will and you will need to remind them BEFORE THEY SUFFER CONSEQUENCES- otherwise, you're punishing them for being human and for not remembering how the game works when you run it. You might say that getting punished for fortgetting how the rules work is just life- BUT THIS ISN'T LIFE. IT IS A GAME. And when you decide to be the DM, you have not signed onto the job of simulating a realistic world that punishes people for being people. You have put on the fun hat. Your job (your most important job) is to make the game fun.

Fun requires challenges. Fun can be seeing the cocky player's character destroyed for being... well, played by the cocky player. I think we all have that player. And... yes, I will admit, it is fun to watch our cocky player get taken down a peg. Like, absolutely hilarious. BUT. That cocky player came here to have fun too. And I am willing to bet that your cocky player (like our cocky player) made a brash sword swinging duelist to swing off a chandelier, kick a corrupt wizard into the fire, grab the macguffin and rescue the hostage while spewing snarky one liners.

You know. To play a fantasy game and indulge in their fantasy. Not to hear, "Grow up Flynn Rider this is the REAL WORLD. Actions have CONSEQUENCES and you pay TAXES."

These things have a place. I adore horror games, and other sorts of games where you can actually be curb stomped by anything at any time. But before running any of these I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH: make it clear to the players. They need to know what your making and everybody needs to be on board for it. Let them know they can be one shot at any time, even in the first adventure. Remind them when they first meet an enemy. Remind them when they first meet a scary enemy. Remind them when they're setting up camp.

Because if you don't, they will use the default assumption that the books (and every other game ever) have ground into their heads: you can beat it. When you want your gritty game to make your players feel powerless, remember that not only are you fighting against every other game in existence but against the very power fantasy role playing game you have chosen to support your story. It's not enough to say, "The fists of this beast look like they could crush your skull like a grape." Your line of dialogue has too much working against it. DnD's entire levelling system, in fact. And that's bad.

If your player can't keep a character alive for more than a session, that's probably their problem. But the very first time any character dies and the player doesn't feel like it was justified? Felt like it came out of nowhere? Felt cheated? That first time is ALWAYS going to be the DM's fault. Figure out where you failed and do better next time.

We must be reading different books, because every book I've seen says the opposite. Please provide a quote with a source if you feel otherwise.

[John Longarrow]

The first time you've made a player feel that they were killed by an obstacle they should have easily overcome, that is your fault.

The first time a player feels it was unfair to die to a single unlucky roll, that is your fault.

Again, if the player makes a habit it's safe to say that's on them. But the first time you, the person who promised to make a fun game for everyone, deliver an experience to your player that frustrates or otherwise drains the fun out of the game for them, it's on you. Don't justify it. Just make the game better.

Kewl! So running the game not only lets you see the future, it also lets you read players minds so you know their emotional responses!

More seriously, if a player rolls bad, how is that the DMs fault? If the player makes a bad decision, how is it the DMs fault? If the PLAYER can't tell the DM what they expect in the game, how is it the DMs fault?

Or, if this isn't related to your intended message would it be fair to say its all your fault that you didn't explain yourself?

Truth is in any game everyone needs to communicated what they expect and what they enjoy. If the players don't enjoy a DMs game they are free to not play. DMs should listen to players for what the players like, but DMs should never run a game they don't enjoy running. No fault on either side.

[kyoryu]

In general, I view it as most interesting when every encounter I make theoretically can be won using any number of means, including combat. That doesn't mean I don't think the players should die if they act foolishly, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't get to interact with the world in the way they think is most fun.

The interesting dissection here is that you consider an "encounter" to be something that is there to be "won".

Sometimes it's literally just "I encounter this thing".

That's not necessarily a thing for every game, of course. But it's a thing that exists in some types of games.

[Yukitsu]

The interesting dissection here is that you consider an "encounter" to be something that is there to be "won".

Sometimes it's literally just "I encounter this thing".

That's not necessarily a thing for every game, of course. But it's a thing that exists in some types of games.

People go into every encounter with goals in mind and you as the DM generally should reward EXP for encounters. Whether you are thinking of it as "winning" or not, people can definitely come away from an encounter with what they wanted or not and coming away with what I had as a goal even if it's one I came up with as the encounter progressed is winning in my book. Similarly, I believe DMs are supposed to give parties EXP for surviving encounters, so I certainly don't count a chance meeting with something that isn't meant to be any sort of challenge, puzzle, social situation or combat an encounter. That includes that level 50 dragon that flies past the party, to me that isn't an encounter anyway.

[John Longarrow]

People go into every encounter with goals in mind and you as the DM generally should reward EXP for encounters. Whether you are thinking of it as "winning" or not, people can definitely come away from an encounter with what they wanted or not and coming away with what I had as a goal even if it's one I came up with as the encounter progressed is winning in my book. Similarly, I believe DMs are supposed to give parties EXP for surviving encounters, so I certainly don't count a chance meeting with something that isn't meant to be any sort of challenge, puzzle, social situation or combat an encounter. That includes that level 50 dragon that flies past the party, to me that isn't an encounter anyway.

So if the party tries to attack said Dragon when they are not level appropriate, do you just tell them "Sorry, you can't do that" or just have the dragon ignore it? What happens when the players decide "Oh, its a dragon so we MUST be able to kill it" and then try their best to hunt it down?

Or do you just never have the players see it because its not level appropriate and they could try to do something that isn't a good idea?

[Yukitsu]

So if the party tries to attack said Dragon when they are not level appropriate, do you just tell them "Sorry, you can't do that" or just have the dragon ignore it? What happens when the players decide "Oh, its a dragon so we MUST be able to kill it" and then try their best to hunt it down?

Or do you just never have the players see it because its not level appropriate and they could try to do something that isn't a good idea?

I've said already I don't think that I would ever include it in the game at all since it's clearly meant to be non-interactive.

But if I did I'd probably just outright tell them that they can't, yeah.

[Erys]

I've said already I don't think that I would ever include it in the game at all since it's clearly meant to be non-interactive.

But if I did I'd probably just outright tell them that they can't, yeah.

While I can see the point, I fee that's kind of boring.

Not too long ago I had placed a purple worm in the distance of the party, the intent was just to set the mood of the area, the ground was broken and they felt slight tremors then see the worm a little while later (I had a bulette encounter planned). Naturally I assume they are going to let it be, as they are pretty low level at the time but no... someone shoots an arrow at it and even with the penalties hits the dang thing. Next thing they know its charging towards them.

It turned into a fun little encounter as they realized very fast they made a mistake and spent the rest of their time trying to figure a way to evade the massive beast. It forced some pretty impressive outside-the-box thinking and turned into a great encounter.

I jokingly gave the worm a level for chasing off the PCs.

[kyoryu]

People go into every encounter with goals in mind and you as the DM generally should reward EXP for encounters. Whether you are thinking of it as "winning" or not, people can definitely come away from an encounter with what they wanted or not and coming away with what I had as a goal even if it's one I came up with as the encounter progressed is winning in my book. Similarly, I believe DMs are supposed to give parties EXP for surviving encounters, so I certainly don't count a chance meeting with something that isn't meant to be any sort of challenge, puzzle, social situation or combat an encounter. That includes that level 50 dragon that flies past the party, to me that isn't an encounter anyway.

Again, the number of assumptions in this post are staggering.

That's a fine way to play, of course. But it's not the only way to play.

And, to be fair, I don't even know *how* to give EXP in Fate, or many other systems.

But snark aside, the big question here is really whether every encounter (meaning, you meet up with something/someone) needs to be an Encounter (a challenge/puzzle/social situation/combat that rewards EXP).

[Yukitsu]

But snark aside, the big question here is really whether every encounter (meaning, you meet up with something/someone) needs to be an Encounter (a challenge/puzzle/social situation/combat that rewards EXP).

It's not, I'm just clarifying that that's how I'm using the term. I don't narrate to my players 99% of the things they meet up with since every day that could be hundreds of NPCs of varying importance, so I mostly only narrate the kind that are an "Encounter".

[John Longarrow]

I've said already I don't think that I would ever include it in the game at all since it's clearly meant to be non-interactive.

But if I did I'd probably just outright tell them that they can't, yeah.

Must make it hell when the players need to get info. Can't find anyone who'd be notably better than what the players can do themselves since they COULD decide to attack the sage. Also means if they go into a bar there can't be many patrons in case the party decides to attack. Would also make for very empty cities since a large number of people would be too high of a challenge for most low level parties.

Course if you really make everything "level appropriate" then that archmage had better not piss off the commoner in the field, else they may have a "level appropriate" encounter with the guy who is shoveling manure.

To me this is a horrible horrible way to present the world since the players can NEVER encounter something outside some arbitrary limit based on the assumption someone may decide to attack it. I'd never play in such a game. I'd never run such a game. To me, such a game should be restricted to table top mini wargames, computer RPGs (which won't let you attack just everything) or dedicated murderhobo games where you have to assume the party attacks anyone and everyone. Course if that's your cup of tea go for it.

[Yukitsu]

Must make it hell when the players need to get info. Can't find anyone who'd be notably better than what the players can do themselves since they COULD decide to attack the sage. Also means if they go into a bar there can't be many patrons in case the party decides to attack. Would also make for very empty cities since a large number of people would be too high of a challenge for most low level parties.

Course if you really make everything "level appropriate" then that archmage had better not piss off the commoner in the field, else they may have a "level appropriate" encounter with the guy who is shoveling manure.

To me this is a horrible horrible way to present the world since the players can NEVER encounter something outside some arbitrary limit based on the assumption someone may decide to attack it. I'd never play in such a game. I'd never run such a game. To me, such a game should be restricted to table top mini wargames, computer RPGs (which won't let you attack just everything) or dedicated murderhobo games where you have to assume the party attacks anyone and everyone. Course if that's your cup of tea go for it.

I already mentioned I'm not saying every random person in the world is an encounter, they're there but largely not something that the players need to talk to. So sure, perhaps there is a lowly low level farmer and if for some incomprehensible reason the wizard decides to fight it... Actually scratch that, I'd just say "OK, you kill the farmer" and move on with it because there isn't much fun for the rest of the table spending the time and effort rolling the combat between the archmage and the level 1 commoner or the other hundreds of level 1 farmers that player may decide they want to attack.

But all my "information brokers" are typically lower level than the party themselves, or a similar level, or a higher level but designed for information gathering rather than combat. There really is no verisimilitude added to the game if the information brokers are all somehow way stronger than the party. Nor would a single large city ever constitute a single encounter, almost everyone in it would, in my view, flee from a powerful adventurer rather than fight them.

[John Longarrow]

Nor would a single large city ever constitute a single encounter, almost everyone in it would, in my view, flee from a powerful adventurer rather than fight them.

So 1st level adventurers are "Powerful" and would scare off the entire population of a city?

I agree, just killing off the commoner should be pretty much hand waived but if your entire argument has been that every encounter needs to be level appropriate and "combat" is part of your definition, then you may want to restate your position. It seems your more of the opinion that "PCs should never meet anything a lot more powerful than themselves". It also means you won't let your PCs interact with high level spell casters who can cast spell the PCs can't (say going to a temple to bring back a dead PC at 5th level) because they party "May attack".

Once more, for me this would be a horrible, horrible environment to play in since I'd never get a chance to deal with anything really powerful until the DM spoon feeds it to the party in a safe way since the DM is concerned the party may get into a fight with it.

My players agree and like that I can put them situations where combat is not a good idea since they can deal with and get help from those more powerful than themselves, even if it is only to get a sword enchanted.

[Yukitsu]

So 1st level adventurers are "Powerful" and would scare off the entire population of a city?

To be fair, I don't think I've ever started a party at first level and if I ever did I'd start them off in a small hamlet rather than a large city. Not just because I feel that yes, sometimes players just attack cities or don't seem to comprehend that what they're doing is attacking the city, and frankly I'd rather not have my campaign derailed to an end that early but also because I tend to find that a really large city should happen after the characters get a feel for the world as a small place which they are not entirely insignificant in. Narratively, that seems to be a common thing and I suspect it's because it gives a stronger incentive to adventure.

Also, I'm the same level IRL as a crazed gunman, I and almost everyone I know in my city would run from him or avoid going near.

I agree, just killing off the commoner should be pretty much hand waived but if your entire argument has been that every encounter needs to be level appropriate and "combat" is part of your definition, then you may want to restate your position. It seems your more of the opinion that "PCs should never meet anything a lot more powerful than themselves". It also means you won't let your PCs interact with high level spell casters who can cast spell the PCs can't (say going to a temple to bring back a dead PC at 5th level) because they party "May attack".

There's an awful lot that I would specify if I thought any of this detracts from my opinion or that I disagree with inherently but other than me creating an encounter, that farmer simply isn't one. That's the party asking "is there a level 1 farmer we can go beat up." to which I'm honestly as likely to say "no, I don't plan on running a campaign where you spend the entire evening attacking level 1 farmers." Same with if there's a level 40 dragon in my world. If the party says "we want to go find a level 40 dragon" I'll be like "OK." but I'm not going to fly a dragon past the party, be all coy about how it's strong and then claim they were stupid when they thought it was appropriate. I'm fully aware that not only is my descriptive text for impossible encounters identical to that of climactic boss battles, I know full well it's the same when other DMs describe them too, so unless I just say "The dragon will kill you, I don't care to run it, if you do you die." the party is probably going to think their chance is as good there as if that were the climactic story boss.

Once more, for me this would be a horrible, horrible environment to play in since I'd never get a chance to deal with anything really powerful until the DM spoon feeds it to the party in a safe way since the DM is concerned the party may get into a fight with it.

To be fair, from experience I've stretched "appropriate CR" in D&D to go further than +4 since realistically, you can easily have a party beat a CR+4 encounter with little danger. I think by level 10 it's fair to stretch it to +6 and expect the party to win with difficulty and since I play every creature as though they were fighting for their lives and at their int score, my players have traditionally been challenged (thought less lethally) by fairly under CR encounters. Then again, my players may just be particularly weak.

And even then, why exactly can't I throw incredibly powerful encounters at my party with my philosophy? I almost always try to include one every few sessions as a climax to things. The difference is you want it to be so far out of the party's reach that it's OK to deride them for even trying to fight it whereas I expect my players to find a way to win. Admittedly they often don't but it's rarely a one sided battle when they do lose.

My players agree and like that I can put them situations where combat is not a good idea since they can deal with and get help from those more powerful than themselves, even if it is only to get a sword enchanted.

As a player, I love it when combat isn't a good idea. I just am not interested when it's an impossible idea. As a player, I welcome fighting things that have a CR 8 or more above my level. While I don't always choose combat, or I don't always pick direct combat, it's definitely fun to be in that kind of challenging encounter.