Balancing combat encounters

[OrlanthR]

Hi all. Any advice on a way to balance opposition  for PCs in combat? I’ve been using the Treasure Factor calculator from RQ2, but I wasn’t sure if there was anything more nuanced out there.

Also, I want to generate some high level npc opponents, Lunar Sorcerers etc. Any pointers on where to find examples for someone relatively new to Glorantha?

Thanks!

[Joerg]

The opposition is rarely balanced, but that's not a problem if you offer terrain advantages and disadvantages to even numbers out.

A single stealthy peg-legged duck bandit with a few crossbows in ambush positions can make a party of four characters in the 60% range fear for their lives, and justifiably so.

I have had a  player's character who had dealt solo with two on-rushing berserkers in an earlier fight defending his ship go down from the initial rush of a bison defending its herd after gambling too much on a planted spear rather than taking shelter on or behind the stout trees around him.

 

High level Lunars can be found in Strangers in Prax (MOB's Lunar Coders, RQ3, hard to get but worth the effort) and slightly less high level Lunars in Pavis & Big Rubble (RQ2, available as pdf, pure roleplaying gold). The RQ2 Runemasters publication is part of Borderland and Beyond and contain RQ2 rune masters for the cults in Cults of Prax, but follows a quite mechanistic interpretation of the cult descriptions and has cult positions the cults don't offer any more in RQG.

There are no systematic rules to create such characters. Just enjoy a bout of character advancement without pesky limitations, and there you are.

[Austin]

Borderlands & Beyond is great, and still has copies in dead elf, if you're like me and enjoy having a book to riffle through. (Would love a physical Pavis & Big Rubble for under $100...) The easiest solution to this, though, is probably to check out the scenarios at the back of the book in the new Gamemaster Screen Pack, since that's intended for beginning adventurers. I've only read one of the scenarios--the dragon one because c'mon, dragon--but it looked pretty solid.

I forget who said it, but one of the pieces of advice over on the Gamemaster thread made the good point to be careful about big bad boss monsters. A human-sized, higher-skilled opponent is a better match to the party (maybe with better gear & some spirits, too?) than one larger a lot of the time because of how damage modifiers work. That's what makes a lot of animals so nasty (Hellooo, bison charge attacks...).

Another important factor in weighing combats is action economy. It's less significant in RQG because of the new parry rules, but one dude versus the party eventually is just going to run out of parries, dodges, etc and start taking hits. I've been playing a sorcerer-knight in full plate (RQ3, where bronze plate is 8AP, +1 for cloth layering, +armoring enchants) and depending on the gear and numbers you use in your game, it is possible to reach the point that average damage doesn't do a lot. But it's always going to wear someone down. A boss who only can either heal or attack is in a tight spot.

Our game's pretty heavy on dungeon crawls. My experience with it is that keeping encounters frequent but combat encounters sparse is the most fun. The most fun encounters for me are ones with a mix of opponents doing different stuff. A dark troll leader accompanied by four or five trollkin is pretty classic, and a solid fight for beginning adventurers. (Though, might need to beef them up a little since RQG starts at a pretty serious power boost from previous editions, to my perspective. Probably just better gear, not skills.)

As for treasure, I've found that most often there will be a few coins, a few fancy things to loot, and that most often the opponents' gear is the best thing to get. Right of conquest, etc.

[jajagappa]

6 hours ago, Crel said:

I forget who said it, but one of the pieces of advice over on the Gamemaster thread made the good point to be careful about big bad boss monsters.

And also be careful with foes with multiple attacks, or multiple foes for each PC.  Scorpionmen stings, for example, coming after their base attack where the PC has reduced parry chance can be particularly lethal.    

[Stephen]

15 hours ago, OrlanthR said:

Hi all. Any advice on a way to balance opposition  for PCs in combat? I’ve been using the Treasure Factor calculator from RQ2, but I wasn’t sure if there was anything more nuanced out there.

Also, I want to generate some high level npc opponents, Lunar Sorcerers etc. Any pointers on where to find examples for someone relatively new to Glorantha?

Thanks!

No such animal.  The designers of RQG have stubbornly refused to include any balanced encounter guidelines, an omission which I think will drive the final nail into the RQ coffin.  I just don't think the  designers understand (or more likely don't care) how absolutely crucial it is to have such a tool if you want to appeal to today's gamer.  I see RQG as a game about nostalgia, hopes, and dreams, but without the hero needed to save it from final judgement by today's gamers.  But in the meantime, until that final judgement day (which may arrive soon in the form of low sales of the hardback), me and the other grognards here will have some fun at least fiddling with the game (since I can't, much to my dismay, find any gamers under 40 willing to actually play it, and the only ones that will play it are RQ veterans who favor/are nostalgic for/ are stuck in the edition they played back in the day).

[Austin]

1 hour ago, Stephen said:

find any gamers under 40 willing to actually play it

There's definitely hope . I'm 26 next month, and I'm the oldest player in our group (youngest just turned 18). A friend of mine got me into RQ about five years ago, back in college, since his dad taught him the game and he found it more fun than Pathfinder (our go-to at the time).

That being said, as someone who wants to work on learning to GM having some solid guidelines for designing encounters would be amazing. It makes sense to me that they might not be in the "core book" (since IMO it seems designed more as a plus-size player's guide than a core book), but if there isn't some guidelines on that topic in the Gamemastery Guide I'll be disappointed. I was hoping for something vaguely like CR in the Bestiary, but haven't given up hope yet.

Jajagappa makes a great point about scorpionmen. Poison can be really nasty, really quick. One normal hit can take out a player, depending on the scorpionman's POT.

Spirits are usually interesting, but they really let only certain members of the group shine. But, they're probably a safer encounter for beginning adventurers than full combat, I think.

[7Tigers]

Idem: My recent plays were with less than 25 y.o. people. Eveyone enjoyed it.
And if you want balanced encounters, just avoid combats. RQG is about Role Playing in Glorantha, not mega dungeon crawling anyway.

[Stephen]

10 minutes ago, 7Tigers said:

And if you want balanced encounters, just avoid combats. RQG is about Role Playing in Glorantha, not mega dungeon crawling anyway.

Well, for  a Role playing game it sure does have a lot of rules, stats, and spells used primarily in COMBAT........Look, here is a simple rule of game design:  Don't introduce rules that you don't have fully fleshed out.  An elaborate combat system without a system for balancing encounters = inconsistent and awkward at least, inexplicable at worst.  And I would also suggest that if role-players don't find a way to share the table with gamers, they are going to find their hobby slowly shrinking. Would it really have taken too much time or the designers to work out an encounter balancing mechanism? 

[Austin]

12 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Would it really have taken too much time or the designers to work out an encounter balancing mechanism? 

What are your suggestions then, for how such a system should start? Lend us your experience.

[7Tigers]

16 minutes ago, Stephen said:

 An elaborate combat system without a system for balancing encounters = inconsistent and awkward at least, inexplicable at worst.

Well, it is YOUR opinion. That's fine. But did you play the game before being so sure of it?
As it was said above, magic, missiles and multiple attacks nullify a lot differences between encounter "levels".
A careful attack will lead you more farther and more succesfully than running head down into fights.
At RQG, every combat is dangerous. So players learn very fast to plan for them or find ways to avoid them.
It may not be your favorite kind of play. So perhaps RQG is not for you. Again, that's fine.
But for a lot of people, not having a system for balancing encounters (for now, knowing that the physical Core Rules book has been available only since a few hours) is not an issue.
And Jason has already said that Gamemaster Sourcebook will contain a full chapter about adventure design (campaign/adventure/encouter design, etc.).

Edited September 21, 2018 by 7Tigers
typo correction

[styopa]

47 minutes ago, 7Tigers said:

Idem: My recent plays were with less than 25 y.o. people. Eveyone enjoyed it.
And if you want balanced encounters, just avoid combats. RQG is about Role Playing in Glorantha, not mega dungeon crawling anyway.

Not true.  We've had 10+ years of mostly dungeon crawling because that's what my players enjoy.  Yes, after that long of playing probably 1/month, I do scramble sometimes for stuff to do, but nah...RQ doesn't have to be about any specific sort of campaign.

 

And to the point of encounter balancing: I hate to say it, but I doubt there IS an algorithmically simple way to do this in RQ.  Combat is both more complex and worse (for this purpose) far more potentially lethal (brittle) in resolution than say, D&D.  In D&D, if character A is stabbed with a sword, and has 38 hp, AFAIK there is *zero* chance that character will die.  RQ, pretty much anyone can die at any time, with any blow.

As Joerg correctly mentioned above, a *huge* amount rests in the setting of the encounter.  A prepared, intelligently set-up one legged duck could kick the crap out of a moderately-powerful group.  OTOH, a stupidly-played (and in most cases, they are pretty stupid) giant could be taken down by a relatively weak but tactically intelligent party.

So I'm sorry there's no easy answer.  There's no "CR" to say X of creature Y is equivalent to party strength Z.  It *does* make it tough on new GMs...it's sad to see players stomp through what was supposed to be a meaningless encounter because of a lucky crit.  It's (imo) worse to see the players punished with TPK (or close) because the encounter was badly scaled by the GM.

 

I think it would be a worthy constructive use of this thread to just highlight guidelines that GMs use in balancing encounters?

1) numbers are HUGE in RQ combat.  If the entire party is outnumbered by 2:1 by even trivial opponents, someone's going to die.  I try to keep designed encounters well below that unless the players are overwhelmingly more capable.  This also means that the 'modern adventure trope' of trash-mobs for the adventure and big boss at the end doesn't really work in RQ.  A single boss - even quite capable - will easily be overwhelmed by even a mediocre party of 4-5.

2) more power = more brittle.  Lower "level" combats tend to be about the accumulation of damage - a scratch here, a hit there, etc and people start to go down.  (Note RQG is much more severe than RQ3 was...) Higher "level" combats in RQ tend to be more of nothing...nothing....nothing...oops, you're dead because defenses scale but intrinsic hp generally do not.  So at that point, whatever does manage to leak through that defense is almost certainly lethal to the squishy body inside them.  This also means that players have to bring a relatively higher level of skill to high level combats because they need to anticipate and pre-empt more than react.  

3) poisons: I hate them in RQ.  They are either nearly inconsequential (ie something POT 8 or below) or one-shot target killers (POT 12+).  Plus they work way too fast.  For normal run of the mill blade venoms, etc I encourage GMs to houserule that the poison effects are things like debuffs (dizziness or blurred vision) - not just damage - as well as take some span of time at least 2-3 rounds to come to full effect.  It's both more realistic and not quite so brutal.

4) spirits: it's probably more our houserules than anything, but spirit combat is scary and lethal for those not specifically prepared.  For newer players, I like to try to give them some reasonable setting-cue foreshadowing.

5) at least for former D&D players, I find the best balancing mechanism is to kill them.  Seriously.  When showing what RQ combat is like, use some pre-gen stickpickers and outnumber them with something relatively trivial in D&D like wolves.  Kill them. Let them see how quickly stuff can turn sour, to give them a HEALTHY respect for combat, such that they - as in IRL - do everything they can to avoid it, or if it's unavoidable, get every possible advantage on their side.  Further, this helps them recognize as well that NOT EVERY SITUATION IS MEANT TO BE A FIGHT.  

Edited September 21, 2018 by styopa

[Zozotroll]

PCs are not balanced.  How on earth could you make a system that actually works, when player capabilities are all over the place?  I am quite sure most of the time my Great troll ZZ berzerker can flatten a LM, or Issaries PC.  But man am I happy to have them around when it is their turn to shine.  So how can you crm that into a CR system?

[MOB]

[moderator hat] comment in this thread removed because the poster was advocating piracy. Please don't, even flippantly.

[Stephen]

17 minutes ago, Crel said:

What are your suggestions then, for how such a system should start? Lend us your experience.

It would begin with an understanding that the goal is to get a baseline idea of a creatures challenge rating.  Something that will lower the difficulty of creating balanced encounters, not eliminate it.  As w/all CR systems, differing party compositions, luck, and skill are going to lead to different results.  But it is much easier starting w/a baseline than none at all.

 

D and D's challenge rating system is a decent model to start with.  A chart would assign "difficulty points" to PCs/NPCs/creatures based on a # of factors:  avg.damage dealt, hp, combat skill %s, armor, spells, etc.  Depending on the challenge you want and the number of encounters the PCs face, you might decide to set the enemy group at 20% the difficulty level of the PCs, or 70%, or whatever.

 

Remember, difficulty level is always an elusive and changing target.  But there is a reason why virtually all games use such a system - it decreases the work needed to balance encounters.   And without balanced encounters, all those combat spells, stats, and rules really don't mean much.

[Stephen]

36 minutes ago, 7Tigers said:

Well, it is YOUR opinion. That's fine. But did you play the game before being so sure of it?
As it was said above, magic, missiles and multiple attacks nullify a lot differences between encounter "levels".
A careful attack will lead you more farther and more succesfully than running head down into fights.
At RQG, every combat is dangerous. So players learn very fast to plan for them or find ways to avoid them.
It may not be your favorite kind of play. So perhaps RQG is not for you. Again, that's fine.
But for a lot of people, not having a system for balancing encounters (for now, knowing that the physical Core Rules book has been available only since a few hours) is not an issue.
And Jason has already said that Gamemaster Sourcebook will contain a full chapter about adventure design (campaign/adventure/encouter design, etc.).

Yes, I have spent hundreds of hours playing the game and analyzing/working on it, ever since the PDF was released.  But none of that is really relevant to the OP's post that we need guidelines.  If combats are to be avoided, and are not meant to be balanced, why should a PC invest in combat stats and spells vs.other stuff?  Why the elaborate rules for combat?  If combats are rarely fought and balanced, why does it matter if I have a 75% in spear vs. 60%?  

 

Thank you for the information re the DM source book.  I hope it will fix the problem.

[Jason D]

2 hours ago, Stephen said:

No such animal.  The designers of RQG have stubbornly refused to include any balanced encounter guidelines, an omission which I think will drive the final nail into the RQ coffin.  I just don't think the  designers understand (or more likely don't care) how absolutely crucial it is to have such a tool if you want to appeal to today's gamer.  I see RQG as a game about nostalgia, hopes, and dreams, but without the hero needed to save it from final judgement by today's gamers.  But in the meantime, until that final judgement day (which may arrive soon in the form of low sales of the hardback), me and the other grognards here will have some fun at least fiddling with the game (since I can't, much to my dismay, find any gamers under 40 willing to actually play it, and the only ones that will play it are RQ veterans who favor/are nostalgic for/ are stuck in the edition they played back in the day).

 

The Gamemaster Sourcebook, which is my highest prio right now, has a whole chapter on Encounters, specifically on scaling them to suit the needs of the scene and to provide the right degree of challenge for the adventurers. 

But if you'd like to claim that we're "stubbornly refusing" to provide such info, or that sales are poor, you can be wrong on both counts. 

[Zozotroll]

Virtually all?  Really?  Pathfinder is the only game I play that uses one.  All the other games I play do not, other than everything has a level in level based systems.  Other than that, not a one uses anything like a CR system

[Stephen]

20 minutes ago, Zozotroll said:

24 minutes ago, Zozotroll said:

PCs are not balanced.  How on earth could you make a system that actually works, when player capabilities are all over the place?  I am quite sure most of the time my Great troll ZZ berzerker can flatten a LM, or Issaries PC.  But man am I happy to have them around when it is their turn to shine.  So how can you crm that into a CR system?

The evidence is clear - role-playing games have been successfully using CR systems for decades.  You just need to start w/the understanding that its a BASELINE guideline, not a definitive one.  Its a place for a GM to begin his balancing work from, not end it at.

 

[7Tigers]

12 minutes ago, Stephen said:

If combats are to be avoided, and are not meant to be balanced, why should a PC invest in combat stats and spells vs.other stuff?  Why the elaborate rules for combat?  If combats are rarely fought and balanced, why does it matter if I have a 75% in spear vs. 60%? 

Well, fewer combats mean they are meaningfull, so you'd better be prepared for it. And that NPCs having 75% or 60% in spear is not really important. More important is what is their cult? What runic magic are they likely to use? How many rune points do they have left? What is their combat tactic (scorpion men with multiple arms and poison tactic is quite different from a band of trollkin with slings one)? Do they have allies nearby? Will repercussions happen if PCs kill or ransom them?
So provinding a balancing formula seems a bit difficult with all those parameters.

And small dungeon crawling is always possible. But for big dungeons, attrition will quickly raise its ugly head...

Edited September 21, 2018 by 7Tigers
typo fix

[Stephen]

21 minutes ago, Jason Durall said:

 

The Gamemaster Sourcebook, which is my highest prio right now, has a whole chapter on Encounters, specifically on scaling them to suit the needs of the scene and to provide the right degree of challenge for the adventurers. 

But if you'd like to claim that we're "stubbornly refusing" to provide such info, or that sales are poor, you can be wrong on both counts. 

My apologies - my built up angst re this issue in Runequest over 30 years got the better of me.  Allow me to elaborate:  All previous RQ systems have failed to provide such guidelines.  Then RQG player book is then released, along w/the Bestiary, and still no such guidelines.   Whenever balance and combat is bought up in these forums, it seems that everyone is quick to jump on the "we don't need combat encounter balance" bandwagon.  

 

I sincerely apologize for jumping the gun and over-dramatizing w/the "stubbornly refused" comment   It turns out I should have been thanking you for bringing RQ out of the dark ages of imbalance instead of criticizing you lol (Steve slaps himself repeatedly as penance).  But perhaps you can see why I was concerned.  

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by Stephen
better wording

[Stephen]

3 minutes ago, 7Tigers said:

Well, fewer combats mean they are meaningfull, so you'd better be prepared for it. And that NPCs having 75% or 60% in spear is not really important. More important is what is their cult? What runic magic are they likely to use? How many rune points do they have left? What is their combat tactic (scorpion men with multiple arms and poison tactic is quite different from a band of trollkin with slings one)? Do they have allies nearby? Will repercussions happen if PCs kill or ransom them?
So provinding a balancing formula seems a bit difficult with all those parameters.

And small dungeon crawling is always possible. But for big dungeons, attrition will quickly raise its ugly head...

To be fair, other roleplaying games also have those issues, and they still managed to provide a workable CR system, right?  In any case, it appears from the post above that there will be a whole chapter dedicated to such balance, so the point has become less of a problem to me.

[Jeff]

Balance guidelines? In the end it comes down to this - there should be always be a way for the players to get around most of an adventure's obstacle by means other than combat. That can be run away, talk to the monster, or find some allies. Jason is working on some more nuanced guidance than that, but at the end of the day, BRP balance is setting based not mechanically balanced - if your plucky but outnumbered band of rebels decide to take on that patrol of professional soldiers who are nearly as competent as them, you have a good chance of having a TPK. Just like common sense would suggest. And also keep in mind, one critical or one fumble can be a complete game changer - and how do you balance for that? 

But balance like D&D or Pathfinder does it? That’s just not how we roll. Not in Call of Cthulhu, not in Pendragon, and not in RuneQuest. A big monster with a descent chance of hitting is going to be really tough. Might wipe out the whole party. Same thing with a Rune Lord more skilled in combat than any member of the party. That’s just how it is with BRP.

If you want nicely balanced attritional adventures where the scenario is designed that the party should be able to fight their way to success against a series of level and class appropriate foes, then maybe Pathfinder or 13th Age is better for you. 

But me - I have always loved the danger of BRP. I've loved it in Call of Cthulhu, in Pendragon, and in RuneQuest. To each their own.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Jeff

[lawrence.whitaker]

Quote

All previous RQ systems have failed to provide such guidelines.

No, that's not true.

RQ6 (pages 425-426, or pages 286-287 of Mythras) deals with grading and balancing combats, along with some extensive guidelines on running combats in general. All the advice in there is applicable to RQG.

[Jeff]

29 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Balance guidelines? In the end it comes down to this - there should be always be a way for the players to get around most of an adventure's obstacle by means other than combat. That can be run away, talk to the monster, or find some allies. Jason is working on some more nuanced guidance than that, but at the end of the day, BRP balance is setting based not mechanically balanced - if your plucky but outnumbered band of rebels decide to take on that patrol of professional soldiers who are nearly as competent as them, you have a good chance of having a TPK. Just like common sense would suggest. And also keep in mind, one critical or one fumble can be a complete game changer - and how do you balance for that? 

But balance like D&D or Pathfinder does it? That’s just not how we roll. Not in Call of Cthulhu, not in Pendragon, and not in RuneQuest. A big monster with a descent chance of hitting is going to be really tough. Might wipe out the whole party. Same thing with a Rune Lord more skilled in combat than any member of the party. That’s just how it is with BRP.

If you want nicely balanced attritional adventures where the scenario is designed that the party should be able to fight their way to success against a series of level and class appropriate foes, then maybe Pathfinder or 13th Age is better for you. 

But me - I have always loved the danger of BRP. I've loved it in Call of Cthulhu, in Pendragon, and in RuneQuest. To each their own.

Or as Robin Laws pointed out, D&D Pathfinder HQ 13A is like Marvel movies. Your characters are the protagonists and they should be able to overcome the foes with a modicum of luck and sense. RQ on the other hand is like Game of Thrones. You might make it all the way through Season Three if only by your teeth, only to die at the Red Wedding and discover you aren't the protagonist of the main story after all. 

[Psullie]

19 hours ago, OrlanthR said:

Hi all. Any advice on a way to balance opposition  for PCs in combat? I’ve been using the Treasure Factor calculator from RQ2, but I wasn’t sure if there was anything more nuanced out there.

Also, I want to generate some high level npc opponents, Lunar Sorcerers etc. Any pointers on where to find examples for someone relatively new to Glorantha?

Thanks!

Lots of solid advice above but I'd like to add that in general 2-3 medium opponents can be more deadly than 1 high powered because with numbers you get more options plus strategy - smart enemies will use terrain often using the threat of violence rather than actually engaging. So plan your encounters with a little more forethought because with RQ your Big Bad Guy could be taken down with a luck hit or that stick wielding trollkin could roll a crit...

For examples of powerful PC's get the Gamemasters Screen - Erannina Chan is particularly terrifying