Quote from: estar;582204Here is a thought for folks to mull over. Can an adventure be fun and difficult to resolve even the party is capable of killing every NPCs/Monsters without significant challenge?

Conversely can adventures can be resolved and still be fun when the party is incapable of seriously challenging any of the NPCs/Monsters in combat?

Definately.
I would even suggest, that if both are not possible in that campaign, the gm is not doing it right.

Fun need not be linked to 'balance' or 'challenge' in battle.

However, I feel that when combat does occur, it can be quite satisfying to barely survive and steal victory from the jaws of death.

Quote from: MGuy;582194I'm going to assume you're trolling with this comment because it in no way makes any sense.

Which part?  I've read your reply a few times and I'm not clear.

Quote from: MGuy;582194The idea that any system at all ever is immune to metagaming is silly as the GMs that are easiest to play off of are the ones that think they are immune to it.

I'm sorry, but who ever said the bolded part at all?

I'm confident you can understand the difference between (ways) and (ways+1).  You could argue that it is moot, but that's not what you did in your post.  All I read here is your demonstrating that metagaming exists (which I readily concede), and then your strawman about "immunity".

It is horrible that you do not know why I thought your comment about 10ft polls not existing in 3e was trolling however I'm going to skip over the edition debate to respond to other part.

You suggest that the 4 encounters per day thing somehow effects spells, feats, items etc (without giving any examples as to how it does that). I'm saying that you cannot separate meta things from the game at all. Even something as fundamental as having a GM at all is something that can be "meta" and then I gave examples on how you could do it (because I like to back up assertions with supporting statements). The "point" was that you suggested it was a 3rd+ problem when that isn't true.

Quote from: MGuy;582226It is horrible that you do not know why I thought your comment about 10ft polls not existing in 3e was trolling however I'm going to skip over the edition debate to respond to other part.

It isn't 'edition debate' at all.  Somewhere in the evolution of the game, the necessity for a 10ft pole fell by the wayside.  No longer were DM's expected to make traps deadly enough that tripping them via pole was preferable to other methods of resolving them.  Or if not traps, pools of acid.  You get my meaning.  If you know of any 3e or newer adventure materials featuring such 'one mistake and you die' features, please do share, because I do not.

Quote from: MGuy;582226The "point" was that you suggested it was a 3rd+ problem when that isn't true.

That's close to true, but you're being overly sensitive to the edition comment.  Remember, 3rd is my favorite incarnation thus far.  But it can't be denied that the end of wandering monsters at night meant you blow all your spells on the last encounter of the day, or the fifteen minute adventuring day, or whatnot.  You didn't used to know that the fourth fight was going to be your last, but then the nature of the game changed.  You can decide that it changed during the late nineties and early 2000's if you'd like, but I'm going to shorthand that as '3e+'.

I am not claiming that all metagame intrusion is equivalent.  However, I do think we need to compare apples to apples.  

Players are always going to have some metagame expectations about what is going to be in a game.  For example, suppose you join in a D&D campaign that I and some friends are playing - and the game turns out to have zero combat and be completely focused around establishing a new temple in the face of mild social resistance.  This would be very surprising to you as a player, but it's just normal life for your character.  

Most players expect a certain kind of adventure - even though their character should not be surprised by just living an ordinary life.  It seems like some posters are saying that they have zero metagame expectations about the game, but I think they actually do have expectations - and these have to be out on the table to be able to compare.

Quote from: jhkim;582232It seems like some posters are saying that they have zero metagame expectations about the game, but I think they actually do have expectations - and these have to be out on the table to be able to compare.

Put it this way, in my opinion if anyone is going to be using the metagame, it should be the GM.  Any expectation that sets the player up for a perception of 'unfair' isn't one that should be encouraged.  So even in a '4/day' social contract, I'd expect a good GM to toss in more on some days and less on others, and I'd hope this was done in the best possible way for fun-having purposes.

But there are a lot of players who wouldn't like that.

E.g. if you put the 'big bad' in the second fight of the day, certain players will cry 'unfair' that they didn't know they should unload on him.

Quote from: jhkim;582232It seems like some posters are saying that they have zero metagame expectations about the game

Nobody on this thread ever said there's an expectation of having zero metagame whatsoever, or that the reality modelled by the game world should be 100% consistent at all times, which is in fact another spin on the same basic argument nobody here made.  

Stop excluding the middle. Stop arguing against something nobody said.

What HAS been said is summarized in that post. What has been said is that some people here feel that an organic approach with a world in motion, random encounters and the like is more verisimilar, or more believable to them as they immerse in the game world, than the expectation that there'd be around 4 encounters per day.

THIS is what's been said.

Quote from: jhkim;582232Most players expect a certain kind of adventure - even though their character should not be surprised by just living an ordinary life.  It seems like some posters are saying that they have zero metagame expectations about the game, but I think they actually do have expectations - and these have to be out on the table to be able to compare.

I am certainly not suggesting this. It is more a matter of not wanting metagame elements to intrude in an obvious way into actual play. Some things are more of an issue than others. It is a matter of degree, appropriateness and quantity. Just because a certain amount of metagaming is inevitable it doesn't mean we have to accept it at every point in the adventure or keep heaping more of it onto the game. For me, x encounters per dag really stands out.

Quote from: mcbobbo;582229But it can't be denied that the end of wandering monsters at night meant you blow all your spells on the last encounter of the day, or the fifteen minute adventuring day, or whatnot.  You didn't used to know that the fourth fight was going to be your last, but then the nature of the game changed.  You can decide that it changed during the late nineties and early 2000's if you'd like, but I'm going to shorthand that as '3e+'.

The 'suggested encounters per day' is not a hard limit.  If the players do stupid things to provoke additional encounters (you know, like sleeping in the middle of the hallway without taking defensive measures) they will be attacked and they could be killed.  And the DM is playing the game the way it is suggested.  3.x players particularly like to believe that their actions matter.

If the DM is 'pulling punches' or not using monsters 'believably', that tends to bother these players.  

The fact that the DM designed the dungeon with guidelines around what the party should be expected to be able to do without getting completely annihilated in the first room or stomping over everything is good for the game.  A good GM does this anyway, regardless of the edition.  They choose 'sensible' monsters from a 'versimilitude' point of view, but they also consider the capabilities of the party.  If you have a choice between goblins and bugbears (ie, either one is equally sensible) you choose the one that poses a more interesting challenge to the party.  That could be 'too powerful' enemies or 'too weak' enemies some of the time (and the guidelines actually cover that), or it could be ones that are challenging but not impossible to overcome.  But if you have potentially an entire kingdom of enemies, you don't have them come at the PCs at once.  You include reasonable and believable reasons why they come in waves or groups - instantly overwhelming the PCs and getting a TPK is trivial for the DM - but not desireable.  

If you're using these guidelines as 'hard limits', you're not using them correctly.  To insist that they're bad when used incorrectly is silly.  If you use them, use them the way they're intended and then see if they work.  

They're a yardstick to help measure challenges before the PCs encounter them or running 'test simulations' in the DMs free time - they're 'back of the envelope' calculations to help the DM (particularly inexperienced DMs) pick good challenges.  Otherwise, you get the DM putting 1st level characters against the Tarrasque because 'that's cool'.  

Quote from: mcbobbo;582234So even in a '4/day' social contract, I'd expect a good GM to toss in more on some days and less on others, and I'd hope this was done in the best possible way for fun-having purposes.

But there are a lot of players who wouldn't like that.

If the players understand the rules, they'll understand that there will be more some days and fewer other days.  The PCs also can seek out 'extra' encounters (ie, push deeper into the dungeon than perhaps is wise) or try to avoid some encounters (withdrawing before clearing the 'first stage').  They will also understand that the DM has suggestions for throwing 'unwinnable' encounters and 'unloseable' fights - but that most of the time, the Players will have the most fun with 'reasonable challenges'.  A reasonable challenge can vary on a number of circumstances (discussed in the guidelines), but having guidelines is not, in itself, bad.  Nor does it 'automagically' require DMs to slavishly follow them (but note - if they did, they would have more encounters on some days and fewer on others), nor does it give PCs an expectation that they'll 'automagically' ditch additional encounters so they should 'blow their wad' on the 4th and 'final' fight - because the guidelines don't 'turn the monsters off' or put the PCs into 'invincible mode'.  The point of the guidelines is to make the DM aware 'in advance' when they might be putting more obstacles in the path of the PCs than they should 'generally' be expected to handle.  

Some DMs will make things tougher as a matter of course; some will make it easier.  But overall, most DMs will want to make things challenging for their group, and that's what the guidelines are there for.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;582238I am certainly not suggesting this. It is more a matter of not wanting metagame elements to intrude in an obvious way into actual play. Some things are more of an issue than others. It is a matter of degree, appropriateness and quantity. Just because a certain amount of metagaming is inevitable it doesn't mean we have to accept it at every point in the adventure or keep heaping more of it onto the game. For me, x encounters per day really stands out.

Can you say some about what your picture of "suggested encounters per day" is, and what makes it stand out?  


Personally, I see "suggested encounters per day" as working in the same way as Challenge Rating (CR) - which is really "suggested encounter strength".  CR is a metagame concept that implies what is a balanced match with the party, but the idea of balance with the party was already a common metagame concern - and CR is just an implementation of that.  

In the same way, I feel like encounters per day is already a metagame concept that is considered by many GMs.  For example, in several discussions regarding the "15 minute workday", old-school proponents said that if the GM was letting the PCs only encounter 1 monster a day, then that GM sucked and was stupid.

Quote from: jhkim;582232I am not claiming that all metagame intrusion is equivalent.  However, I do think we need to compare apples to apples.  

Players are always going to have some metagame expectations about what is going to be in a game.  For example, suppose you join in a D&D campaign that I and some friends are playing - and the game turns out to have zero combat and be completely focused around establishing a new temple in the face of mild social resistance.  This would be very surprising to you as a player, but it's just normal life for your character.

I agree! We should compare apples to apples.

And what you just described is the setting's 'premise'. It should be made manifest before the game is engaged. That's the GM's job; to inform the 'audience' of what to envision.

We could roleplay your character's time as an infant breast feeding. Or that one time he or she almost died from suffering explosive diarrhea. But a premise's point is to give you the viewer an idea of what to expect cognitively, and thus create verisimilitude of context all in your imagination.

(Edit: To explain further with the above example. The player is assuming the AD&D premise is X. The GM's setting's premise is Y (and may not even share the assumption that AD&D's premise is X!), but poorly communicated that his or her game is Y. Thus the player is left assuming their own AD&D premise being X and instead receiving Y. However, AD&D never stated their premise is only X; they said to listen to your GM to learn about your GM's setting's premise. *today I feel like 'apostrophes' *)

At this point I'd refer to Benoist's very timely and helpful explanation with Monet's "Impression, Soleil Levant." The title serves to provide premise to the viewer. The viewer then uses assumed premise's contexts (i.e. form, tropes, etc.) to suspend their disbelief and see an image out of 'mere blots of pigment'.

Encounters Per Day doesn't have a premise context embedded into setting. It can have a premise context embedded into game. But then that has the disconnect of game context interfering, and superseding, setting context... also known as metagaming. Thus leading to some players who play the game alone -- and not play in the setting through the game -- to go "LOL, Lore..." as setting doesn't take precedence, it merely is a disposable background like on a green screen.

Quote from: jhkim;582303Personally, I see "suggested encounters per day" as working in the same way as Challenge Rating (CR) - which is really "suggested encounter strength".  CR is a metagame concept that implies what is a balanced match with the party, but the idea of balance with the party was already a common metagame concern - and CR is just an implementation of that.  

To me encounters per day is more problematic (though CR has its own issues) because it sets the expectation of having roughly four encounters per day. To me this should be entirely dependant on where the players are and what they are doing. Not some rule of thumb that they should expect four encounters per day. It is very similar in my mind to how they started encouraging Gms to structure adventures around encounters with a certainnnumber equalling the party, some below them and some above. When it becomes apparent to me as a player that the Gm is doing this sort of stuff (and the later is very obvious) it pulls me out. As a Gm I just always hated this sort of advice.

Quote from: jhkim;582303In the same way, I feel like encounters per day is already a metagame concept that is considered by many GMs.  For example, in several discussions regarding the "15 minute workday", old-school proponents said that if the GM was letting the PCs only encounter 1 monster a day, then that GM sucked and was stupid.

it is true this has come up in that discussion, but peope in those instances are normally talking about the difficulty of avoiding multipleencunters mid adventure. For example storming the evil wizard's tower, then fleeing to a cave to rest after you run out of big spells. People are really just saying that in a believable setting with believable npcs that isharder to do because the wizard sendshis minions after you, he regroups and builds up his defenses, etc. Things dont come to a halt just because the pcs decided to rest. So i see this really more as trying to connect enciunters to what pcs are doing.

Bear in mind, i am not knocking your style if it includes stuff like cr and encounters per day, i simpy find it doesn't work for me. I just fund I was on a very different page from the folksat wotc and paizo when i started noticing thissort of stuff. As i mentioned the notion of building an adventure around encounters was the real thing that brought this problem into focus for me (and that really seemed to be the working assumption of so much 3E and d20 stuff). Even the third party Ravenloft for d20 advised structuring adventures around encounters (and demonstrated how to do so using different levels of cr and pacing for "maximum horror". To me that isnt how i want to run ravenloft or any game of D&D.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;582146That's what the disagreement always comes down to in these types of situations.

"What do you mean you don't like fighters being able to leap 100' across the battlefield, stunning all opponents in line of sight with a single attack.  You don't have a problem with magic users casting spells, and that's not real, so your verisimilitude is already gone."

Hell, if we go by that logic, then those players shouldn't have problems with machine gun toting giant rabbits in their D&D games.  We all make cut offs as to what we want in realism vs fantasy, so that above statement is fundamentally flawed.  Not that it will stop people from saying it.

It really depends upon setting expectations.  In Exalted the fighters are expected to jump across the battlefield and stun everyone in range with a single attack, whereas spells are wider-scale but not "combat cast".  That's a deliberate attempt to simulate the wild-ass combat heroics of Eastern and Celtic myth, whereas D&D is "just like the medieval period, but with magic"- so Fighters aren't expected to defy reality, but Magic-Users and Clerics are.

Which says nothing about the giant rabbits with machine guns, but if those are plausible in a game, what isn't?

JG

I have not ever used challenge ratings or encounters per day.

So I am biased against them, and do not see the need.





When I first started dming basic dnd 30+ years ago, I did place level 2 monsters on the 2nd level of a dungeon. That's kinda like using CR.

But I stopped doing that early on.


Once you have experience running games I don't think CR/encounters per day have any use.