What Happened to Set Encounters?

[kiyoti]

Not sure if it was a passing thing or not but I miss seeing set encounters on the servers. Folks planned, teamed up and had a (DM-less) night of RP and adventure.
I'm not a DM so I dont know if these things take to much time? Just curious I guess.

[HEEGZ]

There have been a lot of resets the past month or two, and the encounters get reset fairly often. Also, after you lose a few that go unexplored there is a loss of incentive to make them. Mine generally take 5-10 minutes for a short encounter, to 30 minutes for a more elaborate one.

[Ithildur]

Yeah, that's probably the biggest reason for me, having several resets wipe out stuff I set up in the past few weeks was rather frustrating. The other factor is that as a player I usually find them sub-par experiences compared to DM run sessions (especially when the AI does really dumb things). Lastly they can be completely unpredictable as far as what the CR actually turns out to be (like when a sorcerer decides spamming lesser Dispel is a good option, not to mention the fact we have scores of NPCs with extra/missing feats, missing abilities, bugged AC, some with max HP, some half, vs PCs with max HPs, etc etc.).

I guess I'm letting the ideal be the enemy of the good; I'll plan on starting to place some more set encounters again, starting this week hopefully.


Separate topic, but the other thing I dream about someday (big emphasis, RL getting a bit crazy and the scope of the project plus getting consensus) hoping to contribute to is further standardizing of stock NPCs (including using Zelk's improved AI), ideally after we reach some kind of consensus about the HP issue and various other stuff; currently our mob CR is a bit all over the map, even more so than Monster Manual II.

[Castano]

join the campaign folder project - they've built quite a few standardized monsters that have been vetted and checked and are available across all mods. We can always use more.

[Zelknolf]

I thought we'd settled on max HP on account of that being what PCs get and that being the unconquerable truth of NPCs with levelup histories (like zSpawns -- which are very common).

For the rest, yeah like Cast says: help out on the campaign folder, and get your server to update theirs.

[Ithildur]

I recall people who were working on the campaign mobs saying they would get half HPs at some point. Regardless of what the consensus was (if any), they seem to vary between max HP and half HPs depending on the mob so this is a work in progress.

The other issues are still there as well regardless, though if part of the issue is TSM hasn't updated whatever needs to be updated then that might help.

Either way this isn't going to be a small task to try and better represent/more accurately assess CR in ALFA.

[Zelknolf]

Yeah, started that way and turned. It's over here, with Curm's last word on it here.

The normalization and testing of CR didn't really happen; we tried some weekend fight club type events, but it didn't really produce the data we wanted. But this goes back to the campaign folder needing help. Lots of the content there is just the servers looking at their templates and saying "Yeah this one looks generic enough. Here you go." Which is way better than nothing, but still could use some testing and polishing.

[HEEGZ]

Full monster HP all the way!

[dergon darkhelm]

You motivated me. I actually spent a couple hours and put down a few.

[Ithildur]

Full monster HP all the way!

Problem is both/either (PC and NPC max HPs) throws off game balance more significantly than people realize, especially at ALFA's power curve/wealth/gear standards. People want more PC survivability (max HPs) and at the same time challenging mobs (max HPs), and I've heard folks say they like longer battles... aside from the split personality thing this is relatively ok if everyone is simply swinging swords for 1d8+2 dmg or whatever with x2 crits as the most dangerous/exciting thing that happens... However that's NOT how the game works. Even introducing a single creature with a x3 crit weapon shifts the game balance significantly if that critter now can hang in the fight 2-4 rounds longer than it's supposed to thanks to being able to shrug off hits that should've dropped it in 1 or 2 rounds. Throw in stuff like poison and other special attacks or spells that can kill or seriously disable in one shot, and the danger factor of a creature (whether PC or NPC) suddenly being able to take twice the normal punishment and keep slinging spells or special attacks or massive crits or whatever increases DRASTICLY.

Again, if that's what we want, that's fine, but it can throw off CR significantly, something to keep in mind (as well as the fact NPCs enjoy the advantage of not having to hold back/conserve their nastiest attacks for a bigger fight later on). If something that can do massive dmg, has special attacks/abilities, and/or spells comes into play, this is something that needs to be accounted for (though arguably it does help offset the dumb AI of critters that rely on spells or some kinds of special attacks). A max HP frost giant/wyvern vs max HP PCs is a MUCH more dangerous encounter than average HP frosty/wyvern vs PCs with average HPs... while awarding the same combat xp as the average HP fight (effectively raising the CR significantly without giving the reward of taking on a greater challenge).

[Zelknolf]

Yes, the part of the plan that hasn't effectively happened and we need help with is the testing and normalization of CRs, which folk keen on mucking around the campaign folder could improve.

//edit-- took out a line about DMA assertions, which can't be summarized punchily. There are competing interests for standardization and providing HDMs with flexibility to build and maintain their servers, and a firm nudge at the CR-- that it should be accurate, because many things go wrong and cause problems for everyone if they are.

[Veilan]

Meh, let's not forget that CR isn't a hard science to begin with. Sure, getting an accurate idea against some standard normal is a worthwhile effort, but party composition, gameplay mode and player aptitude are a bigger factor than average or max HPs. Two mobs of the same CR can always pose a drastically different challenge to the same PC(s).

But again, getting some normal that ist at least internally consistent is a great first step, such as the Z-spawn proposal. As a DM, you still, as always, will need experience to know what challenge what mob poses against what characters, but at least there's a start to go off of, and you could better estimate the power relationship between mobs of the same kind with different CRs.

I'm sure the CIPM will give us some pointers how to get CR evaluation certified as a CMC that would stand scrutiny from RMOs

[Ithildur]

Couldn't agree more it's more art than science, but still, there need for some rhyme and reason as a baseline which is what the Challenge Rating is an attempt at... especially important for newer DMs. I've seen at least one specific instance of annoyance (other than myself) when a critter they used turned out to be a complete walk in the park in spite of the listed CR. Didn't help that it was missing it's bread and butter special attack from pnp, which really should lower the CR.

Then of course, there's the other end of things, where someone might decide to use say, greataxe orcs with the same CR listed as the above critter (or maybe slightly beefed up thinking, 'meh, clearly the party needs higher CR or else they'll be bored'), and they proceed to destroy the same party. Equipment is also a huge factor.

Some rules of thumb I've been utilizing: if an AI run mob is missing (or has a significantly nerfed version of) a signature special attack/ability/movement it should get (bears and Improved Grab, flying critters, highly intelligent critters of any sort, etc), or if it's a spellcaster, consider CR lower than listed by at least 1. If it's got average HPs, consider CR lower by another 1 (especially if the PCs consist of lots of D10 or D12 HD folks).

Honestly, anything that doesn't rely primarily on 'walk up to PC and hit them with basic physical melee' probably deserves to be considered lower CR than listed.

i.e. Something like TSM's frost giants otoh, fully deserve their CR; they would merit higher if they got max HPs imo.

Obviously this can be a different story if a DM possesses/runs the mobs and uses none game engine stuff, etc, but since the thread was originally about set encounters...

[Zelknolf]

I think this was the suggestion of testing-- not that we'd get something perfect, but that we'd at least be making some effort to account for the problems in translating pen and paper to NWN2, and a method of accounting for various other realities of our build (namely, people make new stuff all the time, and not all of it has a monster manual entry).

[Veilan]

Great! Seems you two are both agreeing with me then:

getting an accurate idea against some standard normal is a worthwhile effort

again, getting some normal that ist at least internally consistent is a great first step, such as the Z-spawn proposal.

at least there's a start to go off of, and you could better estimate the power relationship between mobs of the same kind with different CRs.

That I've mixed in some expectation management on the side... well, it's free of charge, so - you're welcome .