Failing Forward, Being Subdued

[bigbluepaw]

Wanted to initiate this topic with a few other DMs. In the past few weeks, I have been thinking about the challenge ratings of combat encounters. I wanted to pose some ideas and get feedback.

As a DM, I think that every single encounter should present a credible chance of failure. If there isn't a chance of failure, as a DM, I can narrate success to the players instead of wasting all of our time. I think posing these kinds of encounters is satisfying for the 'gamer' in us. Encounters that are essentially auto-successes aren't.

When it comes to combat encounters, however, there can be ways to 'fail forward.' But this isn't always the case.

When the combat opponent's motivation is to make a meal out of adventurers (wolves, zombies, other non-intelligent or intelligent creatures), there can be some degrees of failure. Maybe they take on a major injury, like losing a limb? That's where something like this homebrew Unearthed Arcana system could be used: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/61dl1w/gruesome_injury_homebrew/. This would allow for a party-level failure without it being a TPK.

However, for combat encounters with intelligent creatures who don't see adventurers as a meal, I would think subduing the group would be more logical. The characters would then be stripped of their posessions and taken as prisoners. Evil cultists might plan to sacrifice them. Others might interrogate them (setting up an interesting encounter BTW). Others could turn them over to slavers. In all of these cases, you could have an 'escape from prison' type of mini-adventure.

On this last point, I guess I was wondering if anyone had stock prison situations (mods) that could be used in this way. You would need a couple battlemaps. You might do it for a city prison, a goblinoid's stronghold or a cultists sewer headquarters. But the progression could be very similar in terms of checks and opportunities to escape, such as getting out of the cell, getting off that level, getting out of the the building.

If we had this kind of prepackaged capture scenarios, I think we could make our encounters more difficult while having a way to 'fail forward.'

Thoughts?

[LordEntrails]

Wanted to initiate this topic with a few other DMs. In the past few weeks, I have been thinking about the challenge ratings of combat encounters. I wanted to pose some ideas and get feedback.

As a DM, I think that every single encounter should present a credible chance of failure. If there isn't a chance of failure, as a DM, I can narrate success to the players instead of wasting all of our time. I think posing these kinds of encounters is satisfying for the 'gamer' in us. Encounters that are essentially auto-successes aren't.
I agree completely. To me, if their is no reasonable chance of failure, then winning doesn't mean much.

When it comes to combat encounters, however, there can be ways to 'fail forward.' But this isn't always the case.

When the combat opponent's motivation is to make a meal out of adventurers (wolves, zombies, other non-intelligent or intelligent creatures), there can be some degrees of failure. Maybe they take on a major injury, like losing a limb? That's where something like this homebrew Unearthed Arcana system could be used: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/61dl1w/gruesome_injury_homebrew/. This would allow for a party-level failure without it being a TPK.

Sometimes. Their isn't always a realistic way to prevent a TPK if the party fails and doesn't manage to escape. Sometime due to the terrain/situation the party can't get away. Sometimes the party can't out-run the wolves (though maybe the wolves wouldn't pursue if they had one or two corpses to eat).

However, for combat encounters with intelligent creatures who don't see adventurers as a meal, I would think subduing the group would be more logical. The characters would then be stripped of their posessions and taken as prisoners. Evil cultists might plan to sacrifice them. Others might interrogate them (setting up an interesting encounter BTW). Others could turn them over to slavers. In all of these cases, you could have an 'escape from prison' type of mini-adventure.

On this last point, I guess I was wondering if anyone had stock prison situations (mods) that could be used in this way. You would need a couple battlemaps. You might do it for a city prison, a goblinoid's stronghold or a cultists sewer headquarters. But the progression could be very similar in terms of checks and opportunities to escape, such as getting out of the cell, getting off that level, getting out of the the building.

If we had this kind of prepackaged capture scenarios, I think we could make our encounters more difficult while having a way to 'fail forward.'

Thoughts?
I don't have any stock mods, but I like this idea. It would be nice to have such a pool to draw upon. Maybe putting together something like a one-page dungeon competition? (Though I don't know what the FG equivalent to one-page would be!)

[bigbluepaw]

Good points.

I think something like Velynvelve from Out of the Abyss could be a good template for the slave / prisoner situation. It is a nice sandbox where there is lots of freedom for players. Having a few NPCs in there made for lots of potential interesting interactions.

Hmmm.

[Topdecker]

I disagree.

Combats can be arranged to be more of an overall endurance test which leads to a final challenge. Making every combat overly challenging leads to players camping and recovering all the time which makes the situation very mundane indeed.

The scenario should be tight enough to make bail-out for a sleep session difficult, meanwhile each encounter could highlight the coming end-scenario battle (as to include easier ways to the final foe, insights on how to get the upper-hand). Build some tension, make the party want to find the sly route where they can. If you make every battle a challenge, every battle will be long and your tempo will suffer.

Top

[HoratioDrank]

I feel like mixing up types of adventuring work days (a small number of difficult encounters vs a high number of easier encounters) is one element of several that helps keep the combat part of D&D from getting tedious and repetitive and predictable. In 4th edition, Mike Mearls wrote something about combat encounters that stuck with me. He wrote (something to the effect of) if the best option for the characters during a D&D combat encounter is for them to stand in one spot and swing their weapons and cast their spells, the DM is doing it wrong. In this context, "it" is encounter design. I think you can pan that back another level of abstraction and say if the combat portion of every adventuring day involves approximately the same number of battles of approximately the same relative difficulty, you're doing it wrong.

Also, easier combats, in addition to being an endurance test when strung together, as Topdecker pointed out, also gives the players a chance to see their characters really shine. When easier combats are used in moderation, they can be fun, especially in contrast to a difficult, frustrating encounter. Let that monk take out three dudes with his attack + flurry of blows. Let that wizard drop an enemy with each projectile from his magic missile spell. The day before they almost TPKed on the umberhulk. They earned it.

[Mavrik6666]

One of the things I disliked about 4e was the term - level appropriate encounter - a party should go into each encounter with a little trepidation, it might be hard , it might be easy , it might take resources needed for another encounter, it may need them to have an exit strategy and bail ....

If they are all challenging you get a level of fatigue, that is hard to counteract, and encounters should be viewed in the context of a session or adventure... some easy, some challenging some down right difficult.. as above mixing it up is easy

Some of my players best reminiscences are the dragon they avoided, the monster they perceived to be very hard they took down in one round ... or the single wizard they threw everything at, and they still had to flee

Mav

[HoratioDrank]

One of the things I disliked about 4e was the term - level appropriate encounter - a party should go into each encounter with a little trepidation, it might be hard , it might be easy , it might take resources needed for another encounter, it may need them to have an exit strategy and bail ....

If they are all challenging you get a level of fatigue, that is hard to counteract, and encounters should be viewed in the context of a session or adventure... some easy, some challenging some down right difficult.. as above mixing it up is easy

Some of my players best reminiscences are the dragon they avoided, the monster they perceived to be very hard they took down in one round ... or the single wizard they threw everything at, and they still had to flee

Mav

I suspect the so-called encounter creation guidelines are mostly used by newer, less-experienced DMs who are looking for a frame of reference. Because you're right, having a homogeneous pool to draw from for encounter creation takes away some of the game's mystery and excitement. It is one of the reasons I never cared much for the D&D Encounters organized play program in 4th edition (despite the fact that I was among the minority who really enjoyed 4e as a system). It was too formulaic in its encounter design.

[bigbluepaw]

Great discussion. Here are a couple other thoughts.

I am in the middle of DMing an Out of the Abyss campaign. Some days, they only have one combat encounter (if any). I think in the exploration / traveling / tracking context, the combat encounters should be very difficult. It will likely be the only one that day before a long rest.

Additionally, I tend to have a fairly even mix of encounter types, which include: (1) combat, (2) social (discussion only to achieve a goal), (3) chasing / piloting, (4) physical (scaling, climbing, leaping) and (5) identifying / investigating / activating objects. So even though I might have the party go through 3-6 encounters in a day, only 1-2 of them would be combat. The rest would be these other types of encounters. So I end up having the same situation as exploration / traveling / tracking. The combat encounters can be very hard and they are taxed in other ways the rest of the day.

Ultimately, I don't think there is necessarily a singular right answer. But its good to get everyone's perspective. Let's keep the discussion going!

[Zacchaeus]

Ultimately, I don't think there is necessarily a singular right answer.

Correct. A lot depends on the DM and the players. Some groups will get bored stiff with only one combat encounter or any kind of RP type encounter, or as is the case with OotA a lot of rolling dice to see if the party gets lost or not, or finds food. Personally I'm not a fan of rolling on a table to see what kind of fungus the players find or how many lbs of edible fungus they find; but for some groups this will be mana from heaven.

I am in the Topdecker team here as regards combat encounters; and I don't think my players would like it if they got captured every other day and clamped in a dungeon. There's only so many ways that you can have the PCs escape from such a situation. Perhaps once during a long campaign like OotA (and since they already start in that state that is probably enough).