Patrick Stuart recently posted something on Google+ that caught my interest. The full conversation is here, and there are a lot of good ideas in there. To summarize, Patrick put forth the idea that enemies can be classified as strong or weak based on quantifiable factors, something he called a "Threat Diversity Quotient."
The Threat Diversity Quotient, to me, simplifies down to "what this creature can do to players, and what players can do to that creature." Imagine a scale with "monster" on one end and "PCs" on the other. For every way one side can hurt the other, you add a block. The idea is that you want as many blocks as possible on both sides, so long as they are both still balanced in the end. I'll give you an example.
Say you've got something like a classic D&D Troll. No, not like rpgnet. A fantasy troll. It's big, strong, dumb, can see in the dark, and regenerates health. Ultimately, a fairly formidable foe, assuming the party attacks it head on with no regard to tactics. We'll give it 3 blocks: Strong (based on damage and size), Tough (based on AC, HD, and the regeneration ability) and versatile (infravision). We want this to be an interesting encounter, so lets give the troll another block by placing him in a pitch-black room where his infravision will work wonders.
Now lets look at the players side of things. So far, it doesn't look good. In a fair fight, this Troll's got them beat. So lets add a few blocks to the players side. Note: done well, the players will never know this was done at all.*
Well, the troll is bog-standard stupid, so that's one block. Clever players should be able to come up with a way to trick it, regardless of the encounter. But we need 3 more. The regeneration ability can be countered by fire or acid, so maybe the Troll is found roasting its dinner over a campfire, or maybe you throw an acid potion into the dungeon's random treasure table. Most likely the party will have torches, but it's always good to have a backup plan. That's two, but we need two more blocks.
Here's where we get creative. The question is: what can we do to weaken this enemy in a way that doesn't take away player agency? Pick two of the following: give the Troll an injury from a previous battle, a burned-out eye socket that interferes with his ability to see on the left side. Make a note that the troll's club is more of a rotten log, and might shatter if struck. Put pillars in the room so the party can pretend to be the Fellowship, avoiding the Giant in the Mines of Moria. Put some crumbling masonry high up a wall -- with trickles of sunlight shining through it -- that can be opened up to blind the creature. None of these changes force the characters to act a certain way: they simply reward clever plots and thinking beyond the character sheet, all excellent qualities to foster in an adventuring party.
So there we go: one perfectly balanced encounter that maintains player agency while still fostering a sense of danger. The scales are balanced. In spending just a few moments customizing this encounter, we've shifted the focus from character-skill to player-skill. Heroes exist to overcome great challenges, go and give them some!
*This assumes the encounter is meant to be balanced. Not every encounter should be; without dragons and giants stalking the land, the heroes become invincible and get bored. Without goblins and gricks, the heroes cease to feel like heroes. Diversity is key.
No comments:
Post a Comment