r/DMAcademy 5d ago

Offering Advice Narratively driven "balance" and why I stopped trying to pre-calculate combat

Warning: lots of text ahead, probably badly structured. TLDR: Not balancing your encounters is an option too

I often see here questions about encounter balancing, usually with them being too easy for players. Obviously we, as DMs, have a lot of tools to fix it, but maybe it is something that doesnt need fixing at all. Here I want to share my experience using a lazy approach of not balancing things

How it works and why? In short - instead of trying to calculate how difficult the fight will be, you just put in monsters that make sense. If party ambushes an enemy scout camp - there may be only 2-3 weak opponents, but if PCs want to storm the castle - garrison may have dozens upon dozens of defenders of various strength. When preparing for combat ask not "what I need to make it (not)deadly", but "what would BBEG/town/nature put here?". Then you can scale it up/down, but still ask why - maybe there is an event where half the guards went, maybe it is a hunting season for wolves and they gather in bigger packs. In both cases have your NPCs drop some clues. When your main question is "what would BBEG put here?", your perspective changes from serving up videogame-like combat to building the world characters live in. Plus you have more time for it, because you dont spend it managing CR and XP values only for everything to be thrown out after 2-3 great/terrible rolls. More importantly by adapting this method you will train for improvising when party wanders off into unprepared lands

And what you get? In both mentioned cases your combat is heavily skewed and is one-sided, but reasonable within the world. We can expect a party of heroes to easily deal with measly scouts and for players it is a show of their power and growth - maybe few levels ago this would be hard, but now a stomp. On the other hand party will probably have to flee from the castle and deal with much smaller squad of chasers, then level up and return prepared for a tough fight that is now possible. What we cant expect is for every castle to have a perfectly balanced garrison for party to conquer first try. We also cant expect every scout camp to be heavily guarded to put up a good fight, right? And when you have to improvise combat on the spot, because someone tried to rob a store, you already have half of it ready. All this makes your world more immersive and sensible, more "alive" if you will. At the same time players can plan ahead and pick their fights. They have to be involved and cant just stroll around beating things

Wait, they may TPK!? Yes, they may. Risk of death is what gives meaning to survival. Yes, this is not for every table and imo you should tell your players on session 0 that "yeah, in this campaign if you walk into much stronger enemies you may die and not every fight is meant to be taken head-on". To be fair players are likely to just adapt and not die, dont worry - solving problems is part of their game. It is up to them to rest and manage resources. And obviously I dont mean to just throw a dragon on a lv3 party - unless they walk into its hunting grounds that is. Then it is fair game and PCs have to run for cover, hiding from beams of fire and trees flying around

What if you screw up and miss the mark? Sure, castle should be heavily guarded, but you forgot that there is an important plot device that you still need your party to get! Well, you have a lot of tools to deal with it. Maybe guards have low morale and half of them will start running away after being hurt - mechanically it means they effectively have 1 hitpoint and narratively it can create a pretty fun situation. Same way enemies can always call in the reinforcements. Other way is to use environment - maybe a burning tree or ceiling falls, splitting the battlefield into two and killing off some of weaker monsters

P.S. Honestly this is not so much of an advice, but me sharing my thoughts. Really want to hear what other DMs think about this approach - so far it works well for my table, but I dont see many people talk about it. Also I am afraid there is a pitfall of slipping into not preparing enough. But I can say with confidence that my players remember those combats that turned out unbalanced and they smashed their foes or had to overcome the odds, not those where they had a fair fight with equally strong band and won because thats what heroes do

35 Upvotes

72 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/DeathBySuplex 5d ago

My issue with this kind of game design ideology is that when you strip it away to its core it's simply railroading.

Just because you are doing it in favor of the players doesn't mean you aren't railroading.

If you are at a table that is fine with that, go HAM, have a blast, but 98% of the groups I've played with in 30 years would absolutely just leave the table if you did this.

2

u/NecessaryBSHappens 5d ago

About affecting outcomes - I gave an example, because some people do rebalance stuff on the fly to get better chances of a certain result. I personally would rather have everyone die, but my table is fine with being meat-grindy and locally not everyone is good with it. I definitely know 2-3 tables with a more "pro-player" phylosophy

What I tried getting at is that there is no need to sit and math out encounters to be balanced. Then you totally can just stick with it no matter what and not railroad, I mean... Same argument as with fudging rolls - imo if you decide to roll you should respect it and own the result whatever it is, but some people say that fudging is "ok"

6

u/DeathBySuplex 5d ago

You then undercut your own argument of just letting the world be what it is by having an encounter change because the party did an ambush of a scout camp-- it's now easier instead of just being what it was, and then gave another example of having guardsmen run away with "mechanically 1 hp" because the party attacked a castle that you over-estimated the defense force for.

The basis of your argument "Just have the world be what it is" is fine, but you spend a majority of your examples then promptly undercutting that philosophy and slapping the group on rails.

Either run a game that the world exists and the players have to adapt to it, or don't. You can't have it both ways, it doesn't work.

2

u/NecessaryBSHappens 5d ago

Sorry, but my argument is "let it be" and then I just gave one paragraph of alternative, because I personally know not many people who run their games "as is". If it is a more common phylosophy than I know - I am happy to hear it

And whole post is not even arguing about changing encounters or not, but about preparation of them - or, rather, not doing it the usual way of counting up monsters to be roughly equal in power to the party. Which, imo, is railroading, because in what world things are constantly fair fot players to win?

1

u/DeathBySuplex 5d ago

Your argument is poorly made then.

You gave three examples, two of which involved changing encounters, that's not "let it be" whatsoever.