How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

[blackbird77]

I'm new to the HERO system, but I've GM'ed d20 systems for years. One of the "crutches" that I had in the d20 system came up with encounter design. In that system, I knew that, if I had a party of 4 3rd-level PC's, that I could put them up against a single CR4 enemy for a balanced encounter that would use up an average of 1/4 of their daily resources, and that I could put them up against a CR6 if I wanted to really challenge them and use up over over half of their daily resources, and a CR8 if I wanted to have a "boss fight" where they had a decent chance of dying but should be able to barely scrape by with a victory as long as they played well.

 

In HERO, I don't know how to plan balanced combats yet. I have two players, and each one has built a character based on 250 points (125 base + 125 dis.) and they are solid balanced characters - effective, but not really super-combat-monsters. So I was not sure what would kind of point totals the enemies should have, to provide an "easy" encounter, a "hard" encounter, and a "boss fight" encounter.

 

I started out with them in a combat against one 125 point leader (100+25) and two 95 point henchmen (75+20) and the combat was extremely one-sided. The PC's stomped the enemy on segment 9 of the first turn while taking only a handful of STUN.

 

In the next combat, I pitted them against a single 160 (125+35) point leader and four 90 point (75+15) henchmen. Again, the PC's stomped the competition so quickly that I don't think this would have qualified as a "standard" encounter, but more like a "too easy" encounter.

 

My new thinking is something like this:

 

standard encounter = one 200 point NPC

hard encounter = one 250 point NPC or two 200 pointer

boss encounter = one 300 point NPC or two 250 pointers or four 200 pointers

 

Does this look right? Any other rules of thumb or recommendations to offer?

[itsalwayssunny]

Re: How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

 

Why not just make their opponents 2 250-pt bad guys? Should be an equal fight then, if that's what you're looking for.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

 

Well, I'd look at the enemy combat stats, and think about them in the context of any other abilities they bring to the combat that could influence it, such as Darkness or Change Environment, for example.

 

Relative CVs, SPD, damage and defenses are far more important than point totals.

[Lucius]

Re: How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

 

A lot depends on how the points are spent, and what kind of encounter it is.

 

Consider this situation in AD&D: assume two high level magic users with the same levels and hit points. One is loaded with spells like Magic Missile and Fireball, and items like a Robe and Ring of Protection, the other with spells like Find Object and Knock and a similar value of items like a Cloak of Invisibility and Wand of Trap Detection.

 

Suppose the scenario is that the players are raiding a wizard's tower. The first spellcaster described would do them a lot of damage; the second would be more likely to escape under cover of invisibility but less likely to defeat or drive off the attacking players.

 

Now assume the players have a stronghold and the encounter is about the magic user trying to take something of theirs. Maybe we equip both magic users with a Bag of Holding and the plan is to steal a fortune in gold, or maybe it's just to swipe a single high value item. Either way, the combat optimized spellcaster may have to waste a spell or two busting down doors (and alerting everyone that he's there) and has to hope the players run out of hit points before he runs out of spells, but the second spellcaster may manage to get in and out before the players realize that they have been in this instance thoroughly and soundly defeated by someone who never even engaged them in combat.

 

 

Just as things like character and monster level aren't always infallible balancing tools in D&D (as anyone who's ever seen a high level party who happen to not have magic weapons on them vs lower level monsters only harmed by magic weapons can tell you,) the point totals in Hero can be misleading in the same way.

 

 

So here are some factors you can look at when you're trying to judge combat matches.

 

OCV vs DCV: Also, don't forget the effect of things like Area Effects which hit multiple targets and seldom completely miss. The way the bell curve works, even a small difference can have a bigger impact than you may expect.

 

Damage vs Defenses: Proably a little more complex, if there are factors like exotic attacks or specialized defenses, but your question here is how much does each side hurt the other if they hit? If, for example, an average roll from an attack will Stun most players, that may be overwhelming unless you balance it with a low OCV so those stunning blows don't fall very often. If the players use Killing Attacks (which is likely) and a monster has low Resistant Defenses, how many sword blows will it take to kill it?

 

Relative SPD & numbers: The higher the SPD, the more actions in combat. The more indviduals on a side, the more actions that side gets. Also, the lower the average SPD is, the more each point makes a difference. If you let your players take SPD 4 and their opposition is only at 2 or 3, I'd bet on the players. My own rule is, SPD 3 is standard for heroic level characters; SPD 4 is for martial artists or the like; higher than that is for creatures meant to take on a party of adventurers by themselves, like dragons.

 

I'm sure others will have lots of detailed advice as well. Balancing encounters is something we've all had to deal with.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary claims to be inherently balanced

[Christopher]

Re: How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

 

Yes, unfortunatley the point total is at best a starting point. They can become more relevant, when you are good at using all the NPC's resources (like having Stealth and Conversation Skills), not only the raw battle power.

 

Depending on the Shtick of the enemy and the party even in superheroics such stuff tends hard to calculate (400 pt Mentalist vs 400 Point Ironclad - my bet's are on the mentalist. take a 400 point green dragon instead - hard to tell).

D&D had somethign similar in 3.0: Magic users make fighting masses easier (Area of Effect attacks), lacking a Cleric makes fightign undead harder. I think thre was even a relative chalange rating described as "medium chalange, unless the heroes find the trick. Then it is easy" (the trick being: detecting the invsibile cleric healing the enemies. Destroy that artifact that boosts the kobolds. Overcomming the enemies tactical advantage).

[Doc Democracy]

Re: How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

 

Focussing on points and effectiveness can be misleading. One of my friends, years ago, was worried that the characters in our group were too powerful and he could not make effective challenges without going overboard.

 

I promised to demonstrate, in the next scenario, that this was not true. The characters were all about 325 points, well customised mostly and effective. The scenario began with a series of robberies. Each hero lost a focus. Each hero was face with two opponents, neither of which were built on more than 125 points. However, each opponent was customised to the hero in question - tough against the hero's main attacks and attacking the hero's weakest defences. In only one of the five encounters did I have to use the second opponent.

 

So balance is an ideal that does not always count in combat.

 

My method is to look at the base combat values with skill levels deployed somewhere. Look at the main attack and the main defences.

 

I write this down for each side. I presume rolls of 11 to hit and standard damage.

 

I run through a turn of combat and write the damage inflicted. You will quickly see if one side or the other has a major advantage.

 

You will see whether the bad guys are failing to hit, failing to inflict damage or simply taking too much damage per hit. You can then alter those things to get the kind of encounter you want. You could up the CV to the point where the good guys find it hard to hit but when they do, one hit will take out the bad guy. Or change the defences such that the bad guys can walk through the good guys almost ignoring their attacks so that the heroes have to explore alternative ways to defeat them. Or bump up CON and STUN such that it is a matter of wearing the bad guys down...

 

Obviously any mock will not demonstrate a real fight as the players will use options and leverage environment etc. But this should give you a decent measure of where the base level of the combat lies.

 

 

Doc

[lemming]

Re: How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

 

As mentioned balance is pretty variable.

Then when you have dice and the sheer randomness of players, it's much more difficult.

 

Many of a time have I setup a combat that I thought would of been balanced, but something winds up making it a cakewalk for one side or the other. Usually a lucky combination of rolls or a player doing something brilliant/stupid. It pays to be flexible with the outcomes.

[bluesguy]

Re: How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

 

For me it is all about the story I am trying to tell. For instance the next adventure pits the 3 PCs, + some caravan guards + one really good fighter against +20 bandits. I put +20 bandits and three leaders (for the PCs to have to deal with directly) because I want to be able to add more if the encounter goes to easily.

 

If the players lose then they will find themselves waking up in the morning without their equipment, money, horses, etc. about one day from the nearest settlement. Better figure out how to get home. More role playing options for them. Plus now they will really want to get those bandits - once they get re-equipped .

 

Remember its about the story.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

 

For me it is all about the story I am trying to tell. For instance the next adventure pits the 3 PCs, + some caravan guards + one really good fighter against +20 bandits. I put +20 bandits and three leaders (for the PCs to have to deal with directly) because I want to be able to add more if the encounter goes to easily.

 

If the players lose then they will find themselves waking up in the morning without their equipment, money, horses, etc. about one day from the nearest settlement. Better figure out how to get home. More role playing options for them. Plus now they will really want to get those bandits - once they get re-equipped .

 

Remember its about the story.

 

This is a real divergence between fantasy type games and superhero ones. My mind rarely worries about the overall balance of a fantasy encounter, it is very much about how the characters approach that encounter. In superheroes there is a very much greater focus on the head to head of the villains and heroes...

 

Doc

[Folded]

Re: How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

 

For me it is all about the story I am trying to tell. For instance the next adventure pits the 3 PCs, + some caravan guards + one really good fighter against +20 bandits. I put +20 bandits and three leaders (for the PCs to have to deal with directly) because I want to be able to add more if the encounter goes to easily.

 

If the players lose then they will find themselves waking up in the morning without their equipment, money, horses, etc. about one day from the nearest settlement. Better figure out how to get home. More role playing options for them. Plus now they will really want to get those bandits - once they get re-equipped .

 

Remember its about the story.

 

This recently happened in a game I was in. Twice. We did not 'really want to get those bandits', we really wanted the GM to rebalance the encounters so that we had some chance at victory. If you want to strip your characters of their stuff and give them motivation, do so, but don't give them the illusion that they have any hope of defeating the bad guys.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

 

This recently happened in a game I was in. Twice. We did not 'really want to get those bandits'' date=' we really wanted the GM to rebalance the encounters so that we had some chance at victory. If you want to strip your characters of their stuff and give them motivation, do so, but don't give them the illusion that they have any hope of defeating the bad guys.[/quote']

 

I have seen it done several ways and it is very much up to the GM. As a GM I want some encounters to be about talking and compromise, about introducing figures and things that I may want to use later. Some players seem to think that they should be immune to the realities of the situation.

 

If I organise an ambush on a caravan then the ambushers are likely to believe that they are going to win or they are so desperate that they don't care. In the former case I would be looking for the players to make some decisions. They could fight it out - an honourable stance but one they might see to be futile. They could try to salvage something - break away with some of the valuables so that they can deliver some measure of success. They could simply save themselves.

 

If I had the right characters with the right skills then they might be able to pre-empt the ambush and do something clever. They might be able to talk the bandit leader out of attacking through some clever bluff or threat.

 

As GM, I need to be prepared for all of those eventualities. I do not think that every fight should be one that the players have a reasonable chance of winning - just a reasonable chance of avoiding substantial detriment.

 

Doc

[Folded]

Re: How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

 

I have seen it done several ways and it is very much up to the GM. As a GM I want some encounters to be about talking and compromise, about introducing figures and things that I may want to use later. Some players seem to think that they should be immune to the realities of the situation.

 

If I organise an ambush on a caravan then the ambushers are likely to believe that they are going to win or they are so desperate that they don't care. In the former case I would be looking for the players to make some decisions. They could fight it out - an honourable stance but one they might see to be futile. They could try to salvage something - break away with some of the valuables so that they can deliver some measure of success. They could simply save themselves.

 

If I had the right characters with the right skills then they might be able to pre-empt the ambush and do something clever. They might be able to talk the bandit leader out of attacking through some clever bluff or threat.

 

As GM, I need to be prepared for all of those eventualities. I do not think that every fight should be one that the players have a reasonable chance of winning - just a reasonable chance of avoiding substantial detriment.

 

Doc

 

I agree, and this is largely my point. But when the bandits announce their intentions by shooting you in the face (which happened the first time), there's not a lot of room for negotiation and cleverness. So, if you are going to present your players with a situation where they are heavily outnumbered and/or outgunned, don't force the combat. Allow them to find some other way to resolve the situation, or fail to, but don't just beat them up and take their stuff with an unlimited number of bad guys. Even then, that can be handled as a piece of description, rather than a drawn out battle that slowly frustrates and angers the players.

[bluesguy]

Re: How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

 

This recently happened in a game I was in. Twice. We did not 'really want to get those bandits'' date=' we really wanted the GM to rebalance the encounters so that we had some chance at victory. If you want to strip your characters of their stuff and give them motivation, do so, but don't give them the illusion that they have any hope of defeating the bad guys.[/quote']

 

Actually you need to read the description of the scenario again. I actually expect them to win - a tough win - but win none the less. But if they lose then a number of things could happen - wake up in the morning without your stuff might be one scenario - which was the worse case scenario.

 

Another might be rob everyone of their money and any other easy to transport valuables + horses but leave them with weapons (i.e. Magnificent Seven minus the horses) - requires some good role playing & persuasion.

 

Or they maybe one or two 'get away with a few horses' in the confusion (role playing & stealth) and come back and they 'pull' a maneuver like in the movie "The Cowboys".

Its all about the story.

 

Let me give an example from a Champions game. The heroes had to rescue the leaders of the Democratic National Convention who had been captured by Hydra. There were 20 well armed and ready Hydra agents. One of the heroes had telepathy and she asked "Is Jessie Jackson there" and I said yes. So she telepathically contacted him and told him to get everyone in the room to start singing "We Shall Overcome" and holding hands while singing. The team had a teleporter who could take as many people as he wanted as long as they held onto him or someone else who was touching him. The downside is they would all 'walk through hell' while teleporting (see why they are singing "We Shall Overcome"). The team teleports in which surprises Hydra, nice PRE attack stops Hydra from acting. The teleporter on his next phase "PUSHES to his Max" and teleports out with all the delegates - but knocks himself out for the rest of the session (I gave him 10 Hydra agents to run).

 

The players start taking on Hydra agents. At some point all three remaining PCs get blasted out of the 50 story window. Both flyers are knocked out and the only one who can't fly is tumbling down. She grabs one of the flyers who has a parachute pulls the rip cord and survives (along with one of the flyers). The other flyer - think Iron Man light - makes a big hole in the asphalt and is out for about a week.

 

When I rolled the knockback and we all realized they were going out the window and the two flyers were going to be out cold and the one non-flyer (my wife's character) would be out there too - 50 stories up - everyone's jaw dropped.

 

You know what? She got clever and figured out a way to overcome the situation. When I talk to the people who played that session - now almost 20 years later - they remember it like it was yesterday.

 

That is what I mean by "It is all about the story". Make a good story first. Then worry about the opponents.

[bluesguy]

Re: How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

 

I agree' date=' and this is largely my point. But when the bandits announce their intentions by shooting you in the face (which happened the first time), there's not a lot of room for negotiation and cleverness. So, if you are going to present your players with a situation where they are heavily outnumbered and/or outgunned, don't force the combat. Allow them to find some other way to resolve the situation, or fail to, but don't just beat them up and take their stuff with an unlimited number of bad guys. Even then, that can be handled as a piece of description, rather than a drawn out battle that slowly frustrates and angers the players.[/quote']

 

Ok this is an example of bad GMing. What is the point of doing that? How does that move the story along? Did the players PO the bandits at some point in the past?

 

For example one of the characters in the party is a bounty hunter. He just caught two street gang members for a local tavern owner who owed him for breaking up his place. They couldn't pay with coin so he put them into 'boxing' (UFC) matches for a week. The proceeded to get their buts kicked but the tavern owner got his money back. The street gang members aren't mad at him but they are a bit PO at the bounty hunter. If he messes with their gang again, he might get 'mugged' and dragged off to do some 'boxing' (he isn't a boxer and he will have to be rescued by his friends). The difference is that is part of the 'story'. Also the bounty hunter will learn - don't piss where you live. The gang members live in his neighborhood.

[Folded]

Re: How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

 

Actually you need to read the description of the scenario again. I actually expect them to win - a tough win - but win none the less. But if they lose then a number of things could happen - wake up in the morning without your stuff might be one scenario - which was the worse case scenario.

 

Another might be rob everyone of their money and any other easy to transport valuables + horses but leave them with weapons (i.e. Magnificent Seven minus the horses) - requires some good role playing & persuasion.

 

Or they maybe one or two 'get away with a few horses' in the confusion (role playing & stealth) and come back and they 'pull' a maneuver like in the movie "The Cowboys".

Its all about the story.

 

Let me give an example from a Champions game. The heroes had to rescue the leaders of the Democratic National Convention who had been captured by Hydra. There were 20 well armed and ready Hydra agents. One of the heroes had telepathy and she asked "Is Jessie Jackson there" and I said yes. So she telepathically contacted him and told him to get everyone in the room to start singing "We Shall Overcome" and holding hands while singing. The team had a teleporter who could take as many people as he wanted as long as they held onto him or someone else who was touching him. The downside is they would all 'walk through hell' while teleporting (see why they are singing "We Shall Overcome"). The team teleports in which surprises Hydra, nice PRE attack stops Hydra from acting. The teleporter on his next phase "PUSHES to his Max" and teleports out with all the delegates - but knocks himself out for the rest of the session (I gave him 10 Hydra agents to run).

 

The players start taking on Hydra agents. At some point all three remaining PCs get blasted out of the 50 story window. Both flyers are knocked out and the only one who can't fly is tumbling down. She grabs one of the flyers who has a parachute pulls the rip cord and survives (along with one of the flyers). The other flyer - think Iron Man light - makes a big hole in the asphalt and is out for about a week.

 

When I rolled the knockback and we all realized they were going out the window and the two flyers were going to be out cold and the one non-flyer (my wife's character) would be out there too - 50 stories up - everyone's jaw dropped.

 

You know what? She got clever and figured out a way to overcome the situation. When I talk to the people who played that session - now almost 20 years later - they remember it like it was yesterday.

 

That is what I mean by "It is all about the story". Make a good story first. Then worry about the opponents.

 

I was actually questioning the 'motivate the PCs' part, rather than the overall idea. You were originally asking about balance, and I was giving a case in which the balance was against us (drastically), and that the result was that we were irritated at the GM, not the NPCs who mugged us. Yes, it was bad GMing, and the guy is still learning so we forgave him. But be aware that your players may not react the way that your story says is best or likeliest.

[Manic Typist]

Re: How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

 

For example one of the characters in the party is a bounty hunter. He just caught two street gang members for a local tavern owner who owed him for breaking up his place. They couldn't pay with coin so he put them into 'boxing' (UFC) matches for a week. The proceeded to get their buts kicked but the tavern owner got his money back. The street gang members aren't mad at him but they are a bit PO at the bounty hunter. If he messes with their gang again, he might get 'mugged' and dragged off to do some 'boxing' (he isn't a boxer and he will have to be rescued by his friends). The difference is that is part of the 'story'. Also the bounty hunter will learn - don't piss where you live. The gang members live in his neighborhood.

 

But this is another example of what Folded is talking about. Different conclusions can be arrived at than the one intended, especially when you intend for it to be a "lesson."

 

As a PC, I might say "Wait, what? This isn't about not learning to spit in the punchbowl. This about that gang learning that this is MY neighborhood. Also, why are the gangers only mad at me and not the tavern owner? Are they the nice, rational sort of people who recognized that the tavern owner had nothing to do with it, or are they, y'know, a GANG who would not be able to tolerate anyone daring to call in a bounty collector on a debt they owed. That damages their image, after all. If they ARE that rational, then how DARE they be mad at me? What do THEY do to people who owe them money? Probably a lot more than I ever did to their guys."

 

I would think most gangs would go after the tavern owner MORE than the bounty hunter, since he is the easier mark and gang members are not known for their bravery. However, if you want to play them like they are enlightened and recognize that there is give AND take in these sort of situations, then I would think they'd recognize that the bounty hunter was doing his job and that their members either need to pay their debts or NOT GET CAUGHT.

 

 

Also, nice play by that PC with Jesse Jackson. Very nice.

[bluesguy]

Re: How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

 

But this is another example of what Folded is talking about. Different conclusions can be arrived at than the one intended, especially when you intend for it to be a "lesson."

 

As a PC, I might say "Wait, what? This isn't about not learning to spit in the punchbowl. This about that gang learning that this is MY neighborhood. Also, why are the gangers only mad at me and not the tavern owner? Are they the nice, rational sort of people who recognized that the tavern owner had nothing to do with it, or are they, y'know, a GANG who would not be able to tolerate anyone daring to call in a bounty collector on a debt they owed. That damages their image, after all. If they ARE that rational, then how DARE they be mad at me? What do THEY do to people who owe them money? Probably a lot more than I ever did to their guys."

 

I would think most gangs would go after the tavern owner MORE than the bounty hunter, since he is the easier mark and gang members are not known for their bravery. However, if you want to play them like they are enlightened and recognize that there is give AND take in these sort of situations, then I would think they'd recognize that the bounty hunter was doing his job and that their members either need to pay their debts or NOT GET CAUGHT.

 

Excellent point. I hadn't thought about it in this way. I will have to consider the options more fully before the encounter happens. Maybe a longer story arc where the bounty hunter (and friends) eventually clear out that gang from the neighborhood. Also the bounty hunter wants to develop contacts maybe he can turn the gang into contacts. hmmm

 

Also' date=' nice play by that PC with Jesse Jackson. Very nice.[/quote']

It was fun when she did that.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

 

Counting point costs is the wrong way to go about it. It's all about balancing Combat Value, Dex, Speed, Damage and Defense characteristics. If combat values are equal, it will be an even match. If the PC's have a higher combat value, the fight will be easier...the bigger the difference, the easier the fight. vice versa if the badguys have a higher combat value.

 

Damage and Defense is another area where balance can be gauged. If Defenses are equal to the Damage Class that the characters can dish out, the opponents will be challenging. If defenses are less than the average Damage Class your PC's can do, then the enemies will go down quickly. If Defenses are higher than the average Damage Class that the PC's can do, then opponents will seem very tough.

 

Dex and Speed also play a factor. He who goes first often wins. He who goes more often has a better chance of defeating his opponent.

 

Tactics also play a role. Strategic use of maneuvers, hit-locations (if you use them), powers and abilities can oftentimes give a character the upper hand, or even things out a bit. A good example of this is the Block maneuver. If a character is fighing an opponent that is faster than he is, use of the Block maneuver can even this out a bit. Remember, that a successful block allows the character who blocked to preempt his opponent next phase, even if their opponent has a higher Dex than they do. The slower character can use block to get the drop on their faster opponent in the following phase.

 

If you want your NPC's to be challenging and to perform above board in some cases, take these things into consideration. If you want some NPC villian to be a challenging threat I have two things for you to consider: Martial Arts and Skill Levels. These things make a character incredibly versatile. An NPC villain with +5 Skill Levels with the sword and a weapon-based Martial Art that can dish out 2.5d6K damage regularly and routinely target his opponents chest (only a -3 OCV) is a dangerous adversary. Trust me on this one.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

 

RE: "It's all about the story."

 

Well, OK, yes, maybe... no. I run into this particular conundrum with my group fairly regularly. I'll have some little devious plan to challenge the party or present a different scenario for roleplay - the characters get captured, or surrounded and overwhelmed and disarmed, or whatever, and it rarely goes according to plan. For my group.

 

Every gaming group is different. My group is definitely in the "we don't lose" categories. They frequently balk at various things I do to them or the party or NPC's they have attached to. Sometimes, this "balking" is in the form of some rather creative solutions to thwart my devious intentions, sometimes it is in the form of "logical arguments" about what I am doing should not work, etc.

 

Ultimately, "Role Playing Games" are collaborative fiction between the GM and the Players, and each has a part in determining how the story unfolds. In my eyes, my "job" as a GM is to ensure my players enjoy the game, while still attempting to provide a sense of challenge and accomplishment and trepidation or suspense or drama. But all without angering my players. And it doesn't always go to plan.

 

Not too far back in my current FH campaign, my "Low Justice" character had some NPC red-shirts assigned to him. I had fully intended for them to be bullet sponges, in all seriousness, as I do like to put a little "fear of GM" into them where I can. And they were OK with this, yet somehow, the red shirts did not die. Countless times, they evaded death; whether by sheer luck (deadly giant scorpion missed with stinger), or by heroic actions on the part of a player (the lizardman diving in front of his brother-at-arms to deflect an attack from behind.) So, the player of the Low Justice decides he wants to offer these three brave and seemingly invincible NPC's into his household guard. Wanting to keep the game focused on the group, rather than just this one character, I role-played that these men "served the realm" and "had no intention of joining any of the great houses." I then, in addition, explained that the player basically could only do that once he spent the points on having followers. He was crestfallen; and the rest of the group was kind of on his side about it. The next session, I basically explained my reasoning, then gave the party some 'renown points' they could spend on followers, contacts, favors, and the like after they had completed the story arc and "saved the day." Thus giving the players their followers by rights and by points spent.

 

Sometimes, you have to alter your story to accommodate the tastes and preferences of your players.

 

Other times... Total Party Wipe. Just to clean the smug looks of their faces.

[bluesguy]

Re: How can I judge if an encounter is balanced?

 

RE: "It's all about the story."

 

Well, OK, yes, maybe... no. I run into this particular conundrum with my group fairly regularly. I'll have some little devious plan to challenge the party or present a different scenario for roleplay - the characters get captured, or surrounded and overwhelmed and disarmed, or whatever, and it rarely goes according to plan. For my group.

 

One of the things I learned very early on in my GMing career is that the group mind (PCs) will always out think single GM mind.

 

 

Ultimately' date=' "Role Playing Games" are collaborative fiction between the GM and the Players, and each has a part in determining how the story unfolds. In my eyes, my "job" as a GM is to ensure my players enjoy the game, while still attempting to provide a sense of challenge and accomplishment and trepidation or suspense or drama. But all without angering my players. And it doesn't always go to plan.[/quote']

 

And that is what I mean "It's all about the story". When the sessions are done and people are looking back on the campaign are they still going to tell stories about particular sessions, characters, NPCs and campaign arcs? If they do then the group created a great story. Otherwise ... Not so much

 

 

The next session' date=' I basically explained my reasoning, then gave the party some 'renown points' they could spend on followers, contacts, favors, and the like after they had completed the story arc and "saved the day." Thus giving the players their followers by rights and by points spent.[/quote']

 

I really like this solution. It is an excellent approach to the problem.

 

Sometimes' date=' you have to alter [i']your story[/i] to accommodate the tastes and preferences of your players.

 

Other times... Total Party Wipe. Just to clean the smug looks of their faces.

 

Sometimes (very rarely) is that needed. For instance in the last session the PCs ran into 10 bandits. The pretty much beat them easily - good NPC support and excellent planning on their own part. They also got lucky that the archer was on watch when the bandits showed up. She nailed three of them pretty easily. She did the perch in the tree thing, with the camp's fires between her and where the bandits would have to cross. They made nice targets from behind when they went past her position.

 

Their wizard cast a mind control with the perfect command "Run Away" right after his buddy was shot 'dead' by an arrow from behind. And then the wizard did the same thing to another bandit who saw his buddy running away.

 

The players are thinking "Hey that was easy we are soo bad ass."

 

But on the way home they will be running into 20 bandits (I already planned it this way before they easily dealt with the 10) and they are tougher. It will be a harder fight and end up going more toe-to-toe. Because they know they are being trailed and have a chance to pick their spot, I am sure the PCs will win. But even so it will be a tough fight and they won't be sure until the end.

 

They will go home to lick their wounds, count their coin and tell tales about vanquishing 20 of the Bandit Lord's men.