This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Canned Hunts

Started by Neoplatonist1, March 24, 2022, 06:37:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Neoplatonist1

RPG combat is almost never even odds, to the degree that it is not rare, or else the PCs wouldn't survive. If their odds of surviving one combat is 50%, their odds of surviving two would be 25%, and so forth, ad mortem.

Instead, in every game I've ever played, the PCs usually face what I term "canned hunts" whereby opponents are presented that give the PCs a high chance of success against, sort of like a "hunter" being presented with a captive bear to shoot at leisure.

Danger can be ablated by tweaking the number and quality of opponents, by abstracted "hit points," and by "fate points." In using a more realistic fight simulator, however, absent hit points, I've found it useful to have recourse to fate points ("get out of death free") and magic points ("adjust die rolls") in order to prevent sudden, dramatically useless PC deaths.

Such tactics can represent the gods smiling upon the PCs, heroic "plot armor," or their innate will-to-succeed.

So, how do you can your hunts?

Vic99

Forgive me, I'm not sure exactly what your question asks, , but I'll take a stab at what I think it is.

I find that I have swung part way back to the Old School way of adventuring is dangerous and PCs die thinking.

Violence is the default conflict resolution strategy for a lot of D&D type games.  I have no problem with this - we all know that you can run your game however you want.  Heroic fantasy is really fun sometimes.  However, I like gritty and dangerous more often than not.  Think CoC but less of a chance of a TPK at the end (I know all CoC doesn't have to end that way - just making a point).

Sometimes danger is something to flee from.  The way I run it, combat can be lethal.  Cap hit points, lower bonuses, low magic, magic is dangerous, have a backup/second character ready to go, that kind of thing. 

In many of my games now, I try to reward creativity - It makes for a good story.

Mishihari

The way I think of it is that the PCs have certain exhaustible resources to support their survival:  hit points, spells, potions, charged items, meat shields (henchmen), etc.  As they proceed through the adventure, these get used up.  If they're smart about tactics and which encounters to engage in they get further than they would if they spend them like drunken sailors.  If these resources run out, then things get dangerous, and the PCs will eventually die if they keep going.  The players have to decide whether they think it's worth the risk to see things through or it's time to quit while they're ahead.  I try to plan my "hunts" so that if the players are smart their resources will be low but not exhausted after the final encounter.  If they're dumb or have bad luck they run out early and might die if they keep going.  Their choice.

oggsmash

  Mine are not so much canned.   I think this fellow and his manifesto on the matter sum up how I like to look at adventuring in dungeons and so forth.  https://dungeonfantastic.blogspot.com/2012/02/my-gurps-dungeon-fantasy-manifesto.html

S'mon

I tend to prefer a 'combat as war' approach - let the players work out ways to swing the odds in their favour before engaging, rather than me worry about ensuring the PCs will win. There are some systems like 4e D&D which are not set up to enable that, but it's generally the best/most fun approach IME.
Shadowdark Wilderlands (Fridays 6pm UK/1pm EST)  https://smons.blogspot.com/2024/08/shadowdark.html

Zalman

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 24, 2022, 06:37:38 PM
Instead, in every game I've ever played, the PCs usually face what I term "canned hunts" whereby opponents are presented that give the PCs a high chance of success against, sort of like a "hunter" being presented with a captive bear to shoot at leisure.

I don't do this personally. Some opponents are weaker than the PCs, some stronger.

If "opponents as presented" is the same thing in your game as "combats that occur," then you run a very different game style from me. The reason players survive many combats is because they are careful about which opponents to engage in combat, and which to avoid.

In the game I run, monsters aren't the goal, they are the obstacle.

The idea of "balanced encounters" and "creature ratings" and the like is only something I"ve run across in WoTC D&D, and I wouldn't touch it with a 10'-foot pole.

If the players know they'll survive the first 3 of every 4 battles, then that last battle is the only exciting one.
Old School? Back in my day we just called it "School."

Vidgrip

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 24, 2022, 06:37:38 PM
RPG combat is almost never even odds, to the degree that it is not rare, or else the PCs wouldn't survive. If their odds of surviving one combat is 50%, their odds of surviving two would be 25%, and so forth, ad mortem.

This is only true if the weaker side chooses not to save themselves by hiding, running, or negotiating. That should be a rare situation. I start by not using balanced encounters (unless it happens to be balanced by chance). Players should often confront enemies they can't defeat in a fair fight. It is up to them to recognize when they are in such a situation and adapt accordingly. This often means running.

I do the same with the enemies in the encounter. If I think the party is likely to win, the bad guys are not going to stick around to die (unless they are mindless zombies or suchlike). If that feels like leaning on the omniscience of the DM, you can adopt any of the OSR morale rules. They usually have enemies run or surrender if they fail a test. That test happens when they suffer their first loss (or the loss of their leader) and again when they suffer 50% casualties.

My players don't need plot armor or "hero" points. They just need to pick their fights.