D&D 1E 5e encounters vs. 1e encounters

[Jester David]

Sure there were! For example, in 2nd edition, the rules for Troll encounters were contained in the Troll entry of the Monstrous Manual (or equivalent MC):

You use this data to decide where troll encounters are appropriate (pretty much anywhere uncivilized), what strength they come in (1-12 of them), what objectives they probably have (satisfying ravenous hunger), and what's left over after you kill them (probably a bit of cheap treasure and some mostly-eaten humanoid corpses).

But that's not particularly useful in determining if an encounter is balanced or a fair fight. Determining if the players can reasonably beat the trolls or not.

Knowing that trolls appear in groups of 1-12 isn't particularly useful.
The numbers were handy for knowing how many orcs were in a warband and the like, but for monsters... less so.

But the better approach is the old-school approach of just creating the world as it is, and letting the players be the ones who tailor their actions to the situation as appropriate. Having the world tailor itself to the PCs' expected actions is weird and backward.

It's different.
Whether or not it's "better" depends on the type of game you want and personal taste.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But that's not particularly useful in determining if an encounter is balanced or a fair fight. Determining if the players can reasonably beat the trolls or not.

Knowing that trolls appear in groups of 1-12 isn't particularly useful.
The numbers were handy for knowing how many orcs were in a warband and the like, but for monsters... less so.

Those were the rules for building encounters. Not for predicting the outcome of encounters.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure there were!
Terrain: Any land
Frequency: Uncommon
Organization: Group
Activity cycle: Night
Diet: Carnivore
Treasure: Q(D)
Number Appearing: 1-12

You use this data to decide where troll encounters are appropriate (pretty much anywhere uncivilized), what strength they come in (1-12 of them), what objectives they probably have (satisfying ravenous hunger), and what's left over after you kill them (probably a bit of cheap treasure and some mostly-eaten humanoid corpses).

Yeah, not in any way 'encounter-building guidelines,' no. That's snipped from a monster stat block, and that's exactly what it is, stats about a monster, nothing more.

5E does have a different kind of encounter-building rules for using the party's makeup to decide how many trolls there should be, but those rules aren't very good and are ignored by many good DMs including the guy on CriticalRole and apparently even Mike Mearls, the guy who invented them

That is, 5e has actual encounter-building guidelines (not rules), to estimate the challenge a given encounter might pose to the party. They are bad, may even be intentionally so, but they are at least present.

But the better approach is the old-school approach of just creating the world as it is, and letting the players be the ones who tailor their actions to the situation as appropriate.

I disagree that's 'the' old-school approach. It's an approach, certainly, that could be done with any edition and probably has been - often with disastrous results. But I'd think the more typical old-school approach was to create not a world, but a dungeon meant to be barely-beatable by 1st level characters, then, as they beat it & leveled up, add lower dungeon levels to challenge their new abilities. Or, alternately, other dungeons in other parts of the world that you slowly flesh out in the process of getting to those other dungeons until, around name level, you build a stronghold and start interacting with that wider world...

Having the world tailor itself to the PCs' expected actions is weird and backward.

It would be weird & backward in a world-building game, but it's pretty reasonable in an RPG. D&D didn't clue into that - nor even into the fact that it was a roleplaying game - at first.

 

[Warpiglet]

This whole thing makes me scratch my head. I keep hearing how easy the game is...

I am thinking if that is what your group thinks maybe add some traps and monsters! (shrug)

In my first foray as DM I knocked some people down and death was close. It was an accident...but still...

 

[Warpiglet]

1e did not have any encounter building guidelines. You did just "wing it" based on experience and general feel for the game- and, of course, depending on the players to also know their own abilities.

...Of course, it helped that there were a lot, I mean, A LOT of "level appropriate" modules that you could use as guides to help hone your skills.

For example, the random monster encounters in the DMG were not sorted by level appropriateness, but by terrain (or, ahem, "Pleistocene").

The "CR" method in 5e is ... eh. I don't use it. Once you get a bit of a feel, "winging it" works just as well, if not better. Plus, if you have a 1e mentality, it places the burden on the players to determine if they should be fighting, or running, instead of knowing that it is yet another level-appropriate encounter.

I believe this is what I want to move towards when I am at the helm...

I still find it fair at the outset to tell players there are times that running is the best option...but you have to decide for yourself. Survival is not a guarantee.

I have only walked back or rescued players in one circumstance: a random encounter happened and they neither acted foolishly nor asked for it. It was a miscalculation on my end...now if they pick a fight and die, then rest in peace...or pieces...

 

[Sacrosanct]

Those were the rules for building encounters. Not for predicting the outcome of encounters.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app

I think that's an important point. "Encounter guidelines" =/= only guidelines for mechanical balance to the PC's level. Encounters can be many things, and there there can be guidelines that have nothing to do with mechanical balance and yet are just as valid as encounter guidelines. E.g, guidelines on building encounters that make sense in a living world completely separated from levels of whoever happens to be adventuring.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Also, there were encounter guidelines in the 1e DMG (page 90), and 2e had entire splat books devoted to it. The 1e DMG even made explicit reference to appropriate monster HD to the levels of the party as per the encounter charts in the back. So yeah, they've pretty much always existed.

 

[Jester David]

Those were the rules for building encounters. Not for predicting the outcome of encounters.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app

Random encounter building is fine. I don't think every encounter *needs* to be a fair fight - especially random ones- and some encounters can be stealth based or roleplaying. That's fun.
That's a way of building encounters, but not the only way. And not the best way in every situation.

It's not very useful if you know the difficulty of the fight you want.
If I want a few lookouts guarding a door to a dungeon, I know I want, then rolling 1d12 trolls doesn't help. I know what the tone of the encounter should be (a small incidental fight) and random doesn't help. Neither does being unaware of the challenge posed by monsters or the anticipated difficulty of the encounter.
Similarly, if I want a challenging boss fight, rolling 1d12 trolls for bodyguards isn't very helpful. It's not a fight that can become a roleplaying encounters or you can sneak past...

It's nice to have both options. To have good guidelines for the expected challenge if you need it, and the ability to ignore those guidelines and throw out some random dice...

I don't pay much attention to the DMG guidelines. Those are a ballpark for baseline players, but mine have a little more system mastery and knowledge of gaming, so they can generally take out a "normal" encounter with ease.
I tend to build encounters less on numbers of xp budgets and more based on what minis I have. Or, if I have a lot of minis, the encounter's whatever I can grab with one hand and throw onto the battle map. But I also have years of DMing experience to fall back on for how much PCs can take.

Plus, knowing whether you should charge in or run is a *learned* skill.
If, as a new player, you see five trolls ahead of me, you wouldn't automatically know if a level six party could face them or not. You don't know if that's a deadly fight or barely as challenging as fighting ogres or goblins.
Assuming the DM even identifies them as trolls and not "large shambling humanoids". You can't run from every fight.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This whole thing makes me scratch my head. I keep hearing how easy the game is...

Yep, you'll hear that a lot. The encounter guidelines result in encounters that are easier than it says on the tin ('hard' may be easy, 'deadly' merely tough, etc) when the PCs are at all optimized, have good magic items, etc - or simply have fewer encounters than the 'expected' between rests.

In my first foray as DM I knocked some people down and death was close. It was an accident...but still...

Same here, HotDQ 'Seek the Keep,' some PCs spent more time unconscious than awake. 1st level is comparatively brutal in 5e, especially if you don't have encounter guidelines with the multiplier yet, as we didn't at launch.

 

[Jester David]

Also, there were encounter guidelines in the 1e DMG (page 90),

That really looks more like guidelines for populating dungeons than "encounters".
The guidelines really seem to be "do what's logical".

The 1e DMG even made explicit reference to appropriate monster HD to the levels of the party as per the encounter charts in the back. So yeah, they've pretty much always existed.

HD = challenge is a pretty loose guideline. The power level in the I to X charts in the back really vary wildly.
(It's also not particularly useful, and only working for monsters in the MM and requiring you to flip through table after table to find the challenge of a monster.)

If the modern books tried that, I expect there'd be even more complaints over encounter balance...