Time Constraints (beyond random encounters)

[The1True]

Is it not metagaming if the DM tells the players they have a 1-in-6 chance every ten minutes for an encounter?

I absolutely do this in large exploration environments. Like, "Yes, you can engage in this pixel-bitching, 15-minute adventure day bullshit, but I will be over here rolling dice." Neither the players, nor I enjoy slowing the session for randos, especially since I've made it clear they're worth 10% XP. However, sometimes the pixel-bitching or mid-day full rest-stop is deemed worth the risk, and that was their informed decision.

This rule does not apply in more controlled or localized environments where the randos are actually from an active dungeon Roster. But now we're talking about random encounters in general rather than for the specific purpose of adding time pressure.

 

[Malrex]

Hey @Malrex, it's good to hear from you, I assume that means you aren't running for your life. Are you and your family safe? (Am I remembering correctly that you live in California?)

I'm north of San Francisco so far enough away. Feel bad for those people...my town was on fire in 2017. I've had serious wind up where I'm at for the past week though.

 

[Beoric]

I'm reading Shattered Circle to see if it is worth using. I see that there is a 30% chance of a wandering monster checked every 4 hours, and I'm wondering, what exactly is the point of this? It doesn't act as a timer or change behavior in any way, and it doesn't give the impression that the dungeon is a living place. Like, apparently all the monsters are binge-watching Netflix or something.

I suspect the reason is Cordell felt obligated to have random encounters, but doesn't really like them very much. I will have to compare it to some of his other work.

Firestorm Peak: 30% every 3 hours
Sunless Citadel: 30% every 12 hours
Heart of Nightfang Spire: 40% every 4 hours
The Forge of Fury: None that I could see

There's no point in looking at the 4e stuff, nobody had wanderers in those. I am convinced that Cordell hates random encounters.

 

[The1True]

Randos don't work well in late-stage D&D. They fuck with the carefully tuned balance/set-piece pacing. They're basically there as a prod for dithering PC's.

 

[Beoric]

Shattered Circle and Firestorm Peak are 2e, does that count as late stage D&D?

Randos don't work well in late-stage D&D. They fuck with the carefully tuned balance/set-piece pacing. T

I use them in my 4e game, I don't see any problems cropping up. But I also find that the design is a lot more robust than the designers gave it credit for, in that you can mess with a lot of supposedly rigid mechanics and it doesn't really come close to breaking.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Pretty good blog post came across my desk related to this today:

Notebook Kayfabe

This is one of my few pieces of tried & true GM advice, developed during my but very useful for the OSR games I'm running now. I'm sure I'm not the first pe...

idraluna-archives.bearblog.dev

"Kayfabe" is a good term, though I'd probably have called it "DM kayfabe" instead of "notebook kayfabe", as the idea is not to create the illusion that your notebook has all the answers, but rather the DM who does.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I use them in my 4e game, I don't see any problems cropping up. But I also find that the design is a lot more robust than the designers gave it credit for, in that you can mess with a lot of supposedly rigid mechanics and it doesn't really come close to breaking.

4e is it's own beast in this regard, I think, because of all editions it probably gets the most benefit from pre-planned encounters (considering it uses role-based encounters rather than CR; as in you need Controllers and Minions and whatever other roles to play a part). Sure, Random Encounters can sustain that type of structure, but I think it's probably easier on the DM not to leave it to chance.

 

[Beoric]

Pretty good blog post came across my desk related to this today:

Notebook Kayfabe

This is one of my few pieces of tried & true GM advice, developed during my but very useful for the OSR games I'm running now. I'm sure I'm not the first pe...

idraluna-archives.bearblog.dev

"Kayfabe" is a good term, though I'd probably have called it "DM kayfabe" instead of "notebook kayfabe", as the idea is not to create the illusion that your notebook has all the answers, but rather the DM who does.

As I read the article, there is a difference between the wrestling example, where the audience is in on it, and what appears to be his DMing example, where it sounds like the DM is actually deceiving the players.

My view on this is that DM fiat, reasonably applied, is the whole reason you have a DM, or "referee" per the 1e DMG. But if you want to be able to apply fiat, you need the trust of your players. Keeping the trust of the players means not deceiving them.

4e is it's own beast in this regard, I think, because of all editions it probably gets the most benefit from pre-planned encounters (considering it uses role-based encounters rather than CR; as in you need Controllers and Minions and whatever other roles to play a part). Sure, Random Encounters can sustain that type of structure, but I think it's probably easier on the DM not to leave it to chance.

The thing is, as I said above, the system doesn't actually break if you don't use the WotC approved mix of monster roles, or if you deviate from encounter building guidelines. Yes, I have tools that are reasonably accurate in defining combat encounter difficulty, but as with early editions, I can deviate from that as long as I am giving players enough information and freedom to make reasonable decisions and vary their approaches accordingly.

There is a complaint in 4e that combat takes too long to add more by having random encounters. This is also not as true as you might think, because it is the nature of random encounters, properly built, to have fewer monsters than what you are putting in lairs; and to have those encounters in a simplified location i.e. tunnels, which don't have all of the different terrain elements to complicate the combat. Also, using a reaction system, random encounters don't always have to be combat encounters. And random encounters don't have much of an impact on expectations regarding XPs and treasure, if random encounters provide few XPs and little or no treasure.

And the treasure and magic items reward system is also a lot more flexible than is generally supposed. You can give out +1 swords like candy, because at the end of the day, the bonus to weapon attacks is still only +1. And since the cost of weapons scales geometrically, you have to give out a lot of cash and cash-equivalent treasure for PCs to purchase or make items that are not level appropriate.

Really, the biggest threat to "game balance" is character optimization, and even that really isn't a problem if you don't have different levels of optimization in the same party. If everybody is optimized, they can just choose to go to more dangerous places, and get better loot.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

My view on this is that DM fiat, reasonably applied, is the whole reason you have a DM, or "referee" per the 1e DMG. But if you want to be able to apply fiat, you need the trust of your players. Keeping the trust of the players means not deceiving them.

Not necessarily "not deceiving them" so much as "not giving the appearance of deceiving them" - as in, what the players don't know won't hurt them. But I recognize that this approach doesn't work for amateur DMs (who may be incapable of keeping up the "kayfabe" of someone prepped for all occasions), or for purist DMs who insist on 100% untainted outcomes. The rest of us deal in results, and they speak for themselves.

All I know is this: I have fudged stuff, I have made adjustments on the fly, and I have pre-planned things the players believe to be random - and yet my players have nothing but glowing praise for my games. This makes it very hard for me to take statements like "keeping the trust of the players means not deceiving them" at face value, because my experience has demonstrated otherwise. Obviously lying to your players is bad form, particularly if it's done in a way that can be verified; but if it can't be verified, then it tends to be automatically attributed to a well-prepped DM (the "notebook kayfabe" of the article).

Re. the 4e stuff - admittedly I have the least experience with this edition, so I defer to your expertise. If you say random encounters are as effective as deadlines in 4e for keeping the action moving, and that they are easily managed, then I have to believe you. But I do know from the realm of 5e that random encounters have got some flaws as a motivational tool, the most prominent of which is lengthy 5e combat, and that players will inevitably fear getting bogged down for another hour of real-time fighting more than the actual lethality of said fight (which is a sort of verisimilitude-killing metagaming that I don't care to encourage).

 

[Beoric]

I've fudged things before, but I've usually found it counterproductive. The only fudge that I can recall that I'm still ok with was one preventing a TPK (they only lost 40% of the party; I figure that was enough of a lesson about picking fights when you don't need to).

I have no issue with pre-planning the staging of a random encounter; when I put things on the wanderer's table I usually have some idea as to how the wanderers are going to behave when they meet the party. But I don't fudge when or if those encounters are going to take place.

Also, things like "Assassin's Guild you pissed off has tracked you down" aren't always random encounters. I might put it on the random table if they don't know where the party is and are just being opportunistic, but if the PCs have dropped enough information that their opponents know how to find them, that's a planned encounter.

A lot of people would disagree with me about the 4e random encounters stuff, but it works for me out of a combination of making team wandering monster kind of weak (they only need to attrit a few resources to have an impact), making it not always a fight, making sure my VTT tokens are programmed efficiently, and making sure the combat turns on my side of the table go really quickly.

Also, I default to tunnels being 3 squares wide instead of 2. Things go faster if the front line is wider, and it works more like 1e, where squares were 3.3 ft instead of 5 ft. You may notice that in my Abbey Dungeon, the tunnel walls are really thick. That's because the tunnels are notionally 12 ft wide, but it allows me to squeeze 3 squares into a 12 ft hallway. Having 5x5 space makes sense in an open battlefield where attacks cam come from any side, but in a tunnel, you don't need to turn to address attacks on your flanks.

When I'm using a 1e map I didn't draw, I make the whole map 50% bigger; it lets you have three abreast in the tunnels, and it gives more room to maneuver in those tiny 1e rooms.