Balancing combat encounters

[soltakss]

On 9/20/2018 at 9:51 PM, OrlanthR said:

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.

Treasure Factors is a useful way of doing this.

However, my rules of thumb are:

• A PC Party can usually defeat an NPC party of similar skill level/numbers
• A PC Party often defeats an NPC Party of similar skill and slightly higher numbers
• A PC Party often defeats an NPC Party of higher skill and similar numbers
• A PC Party sometimes defeats an NPC Party of similar skill and much higher numbers
• A PC Party usually defeats a single NPC of higher skill 

Making the NPCs tougher, by making them trolls, giving them better armour, just increases their effective skill. 

I generally self-balance by making the NPC party not as disciplined/organised as the PC Party, so they use sub-optimal tactics. That really gets pressed home when the PCs meet a well-organised, disciplined NPC Party with good tactics, then the PCs wil probably struggle.

Don't forget that, in RuneQuest, running away is always a good option. PCs don't always have to fight to the last PC, better to run away, lick your wounds and come back again at a later date.

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?

Old supplements, I am afraid.

RQ Glorantha (RQG) doesn't yet have a back catalogue of supplements with examples of such NPCs.

Stangrers in Prax has The Coders, a high level group of Lunars. Dorastor and Lords of Terror have examples of high level Chaos NPCs. RuneMasters has some high level Rune Lords, Rune Priests and Rune Lord Priests. Griffin Island has some high level NPCs, they might also be in the Gloranthan Classics Borderlands supplement. All are fairly compatible with RQG and RuneMasters is still available, I think.

 

 

[soltakss]

16 hours ago, Stephen said:

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.  

Generally, as a RQ GM for over 30 years, I don't really balance combat.

I have found that a seemingly simple combat has been pretty deadly, with criticals and impales, combined with missed parries and fumbles, taking out most of the party, with the party only surviving because of a couple of lucky blows by the remaining standing PCs. I have also found a vastly overwhelming party of NPCs being taken out by a set of lucky blows. So, balancing combat is difficult.

As I have just mentioned, in another post, I like to self-balance by not having all the NPCs fighting at one, having some of them hanging back, some fighting in pairs or alone and so on, which gives the PCs an edge, If the PCs are doing very well, I call in the reserves, if they are doing particularly badly, I get NPCs to tie them up or restrain those who have fallen, just to take the NPCs out of combat. For me, Demoralised NPCs hang around at the back, but Demoralised PCs take part in the combat, even that gioves the PCs an edge. If the NPC Party takes more than 50% csualties, it will probably fall back or just plain run away.

Balance is always interesting, as I have found that a PC Party can kill a Big Bad Boss NPC fairly easily, but someone else warns against using Big Bad Bosses as they can wipe out a party. I suppose different people have different views on what makes a balanced encounter.

Back in my RQ2 days, I used to pride myself on a high level group of PCs finishing a Clearing Out a Chaos Temple scenario by using the last few Magic Points. Balancing a whole scenario is a lot harder than balancing a single encounter.

[soltakss]

14 hours ago, Stephen said:

Much of what you say I agree with.  One of Runequest's strengths is that it discourages attrition combat and encourages thinking and roleplaying.  Similarly, its exciting that combats can swing on one fumble or crit, and makes them dangerous even when you have an advantage. 

Saying that RuneQuest is not a game about combat is false, in my opinion. I know that you aren't saying that, but replying to that kind of view, but I am replying to you in this case ...

Back in my RQ2 days, we regularly had combats that involved a hundred NPCs and 10 high level PCs, including setting up the combat and then cursing and removing the 5 Invisible Until Attacks NPCs. Sometimes a single combat would last for two sessions and we'd have to draw the combat onto a sheet of A4 to put it back again next time. I can tell you that such combats were not balanced.

 

But why do CR ratings have to be a threat to that system?   Why do you feel that having such ratings somehow makes the game into, as you say, a "scenario is designed that the party should be able to fight their way to success against a series of level and class appropriate foes"?  

By the way, what are CR Ratings? Are they like the Treasure Factors mentioned in the OP?

I generally like the idea that a scenario says that it is for low-level, mid-level or hi8gh-level PCs, as that makes it easier for me to judge how many changes I need to make to the NPCs.

But, in RuneQuest, the addition of even 1 PC makes the party a lot stronger. A party of 6 PCs is a lot, lot stringer than a party of 3 PCs and encounters should be judged accordingly.

You said "if your plucky but outnumbered band of rebels decide to take on that patrol of professional soldiers who are nearly as competent as them..."  Your words clearly shows you have the ability to gauge competency vs. numbers at least to some extent and translate it into comparative balance, and it further suggests that your players need that skill set as well if they hope to survive.  I believe that both you and the game designers (not sure if you are one of them, pardon that) can look over a character sheet, monster stats, or an NPC write-up and get a rather good idea of comparative challenge.  Why not share such guidelines and translate it into some kind of numbers, whether it be CR or something else?  Why not make the game more accessible for those that don't have your experience?  

Yes, an NPC party with roughly the same skill levels will be comparable. However, RQG uses skills that have a lot of variability, so you just cannot use straight combat skill to work out how good an NPC is. A highly skilled Elf warrior with a 0 Damage Bonus would not be as dangerous as a low-skilled Giant with a 4D6 Damage Bonus, for example. 

RQ2 Had Treasure Factors, which actually did this in a reasonable and simple way. I have used them to guage the strength of NPC Parties for years. Of course, as I am a tinkerer, I have changed how my TFs work, mainly to cope with high level PCs.

Much has also been said about the difficulty of translating RQ stats and other factors into CR ratings.  I would suggest that perhaps the reason is more based on bias toward eschewing "balance" than it is on the actual difficulty of providing some sort of CRs. 

Don't know what CRs are, so cannot comment.

 

In the end I wonder if perhaps many of you have been involved with Runequest so long that you have lost perspective on how incredibly difficult it is for a new DM and players to create adventures or make reasonable decisions in Runequest without CRs or something similar. 

Perhaps that is true. I haven't been a beginning GM for a very long time.

 

Or how difficult it is for new players/GMs to look at some stats and get any reasonable idea of what they translate to in a fight.  And providing such numbers doesn't have to change what the game is about or threaten it's core principles - it merely would make the game more accessible.

Here's a radical opinion - It doesn't matter how strong the NPCs are.

Seriously.

If the NPCs are too strong, you realise and run away.

If the NPCs are too weak, you steamroll over them.

If the NPCs are very strong, you might be able to just about defeat them, which is a great feeling for players.

 

I have had examples, in my recently finished RQ campaign and in a previous RQ campaign, where I have joked that I am happy that a high level NPC lasted more than a round in combat with the PCs. No matter how hard I made them, no matter what abilities they had, the PCs would chew through them. I am talking about monsters with 100 APs and 50 HPs in the head, for example, so how balanced is that?

[soltakss]

13 hours ago, Crel said:

Challenge Rating. I know it from D&D 3.5E and later Pathfinder. Ideally, a creature of CR X (or multiple creatures, adding up by some arcane bullshit to an Encounter Level of X) is a good average-difficulty encounter for four characters of level X.

Thanks.

Treasure factors in RQ2 work in a similar way, I suppose.

[soltakss]

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

I never sat down to do the math, but here's something to think about:

Thanks Joerg, that saves me a long post!

Generally, creatures with big Damage Bonuses, lots of armour or multiple attacks are more dangerous than normal oppnents. Skill isn't that important, unless it is vastly higher than 100%, an opponent at 60% is not much worse than one at 80%, in my opinion. Having magic makes an opponent much stronger, depending on the magic. Having an NPC:PC ratio of more than 2:1 makes the NPC Party dangerous, but anything less than that isn't really much of a problem.

By the way, sorry about the multiple posts. I don't generally check the forum until Saturday and then read through the threads, posting replies.

[PhilHibbs]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

It already did, with treasure factors!

Never used 'em.

[Austin]

Berserk & Fanaticism effects can be interesting, especially on large, single opponents. It makes their attacks way, way scarier but also makes it easier to take them down. (Mayyy be speaking from experience getting clobbered by one recently...) It keeps combat scary, but also can make it easier. It's a cool spell because it also sort-of debuffs PCs.

[David Scott]

20 hours ago, Stephen said:

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

This has been a theme in the industry for a long time. Forty years ago the first few issues of White Dwarf wasted (IMO) many pages on the Monstermark system. The last big game I played that had a section on this was Exalted 2ed which had a "Hazard" Level for encounters, this was dropped in third edition (phew). I don't know anyone who ever used any system designed to do what you ask. I'm interested if anyone ever has.

I have used the TF calculator in RQ2 as you have, and to honest as a basic comparison it works okay. But you still have to do the maths.

Lots of people above have mentioned what they do and here's my take, I've used all of these recently running RQG, they work quickly on the fly:

Hand to hand (includes magical enhancement)

Wargaming can offer us some good generalisations from CRTs ("Monsters:Players"):

 1:4 monsters run, 1:3 pushover (monsters run),1:2 easy 1:1 okay. 2:1 tough, 3:1 deadly, 4:1 dead.

Also I don't use individuals as the measure of an opponent, I use number of attacks. As @jajagappa says an opponent with multiple attacks is much more deadly, each attack moves the monster up the scale. Magic usually balances out so I always ignore it.

Warriors are also more deadly than non combatant types. They generally have more armour and better skills. That moves them up the scale or the adversary down the scale.

Size, bigger opponents have more HP & DB, moves them up the scale.

Proactive chaos features also move monster one step up the scale

Missile combat

Deadly, if one side has none. otherwise as above.

---

In encounters in my recent game I balanced this way when fighting warriors:

Sorcerer of the Shadow Path (Death magic) 2 opponents (although later he could take on three)

Merchant - half an opponent (often dropped)

Warrior1 - one opponent

Centaur warrior (2 attacks, big), 3 opponents

Archer  - one opponent

Warrior2 - one opponent

(3 NPC guards who fought their own single opponent but no dice rolled)

total opponents: 8:6, just over 1:1, gave a combat that didn't last too long and gave them all a good change of succeeding, but getting injured.

There was always scope to bring on reinforcements or have an attacker die prematurely.

In the end it likely comes down to experience in running the game (what ever it is)

 

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Never used 'em.

Not many did. TFs were very artificial, and necessary. They are also something of a trap. Once players know that someone of X ability should have Y amount of treasure they might start turning the place and people upside down looking for the treasure that they "know" is there. If Tabby is a Rhino Rider, and Rhino Riders are TF 4, then where is Tabby's share? Just like in D&D, if you run into a 10th level fighter you expect him to have a magic weapon, unless you just rescued him or something. 

[soltakss]

5 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Never used 'em.

I did, they are really useful, both as an aid to generate Treasure Hoards and as a way of working out how strong an NPC Party is.

[Geoff R Evil]

There is loads of great advice in this thread from experienced GMs, and I agree with a lot of it.

But the original question was from a new GM.

For your first few games I would suggest don’t outnumber the party, and keep skill levels below the characters in your first fights, use it as training for you and the players. Experience the deadliness, it will happen, let PCs discover combat tactics like ganging up. Then as lessons learned by players and GM you can start with new encounters such as the big bad monster with high damage. Get PCs to learn how important understanding lore is, that lore can make the difference between success and failure.

and always allow for the run away or negotiated end….this is not dnd where killing everything is a goal...chaos excepted, which is why they are dangerous. Even then running away and seeking help is accepted, in fact, often assumed.

Also remember, a series of fights over time are very weakening, allow recovery time.

 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

On 9/20/2018 at 9:51 PM, 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!

The upcoming Strangers in Prax companion will have high level lunar npc’s converted from RQ3 to RQG. The adventurers in Strangers in Prax was originally written for RQ3 - I’m guessing the conversion is just for the main NPC’s. Iirc there is at least one lunar sorcerer…

 

 

Edited March 19 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Nick Brooke]

7 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

The upcoming Strangers in Prax companion will have high level lunar npc’s converted from RQ3 to RQG.

I hope it doesn't, because Chaosium hasn't approved that.

[Akhôrahil]

On 9/22/2018 at 10:42 AM, soltakss said:

However, my rules of thumb are:

• A PC Party can usually defeat an NPC party of similar skill level/numbers
• A PC Party often defeats an NPC Party of similar skill and slightly higher numbers
• A PC Party often defeats an NPC Party of higher skill and similar numbers
• A PC Party sometimes defeats an NPC Party of similar skill and much higher numbers
• A PC Party usually defeats a single NPC of higher skill 

Making the NPCs tougher, by making them trolls, giving them better armour, just increases their effective skill.

 

Also: Most monsters are less dangerous than they seem, because they're highly front-loaded. They can dish out damage if they luck out (this is one reason Shield is so good, or for really huge monsters, Earth Shield), but they're usually really bad at defending themselves, so they go down fast.

High armor helps them a lot, though, especially if combined with good POW (or they just go down to spells instead). Zeeth the Chaos whale with his 22 points of armour took a number of turns for my players to grind down (although the crit that sliced his tail off was fancy).

Edited March 20 by Akhôrahil

[Ian A. Thomson]

8 hours ago, Nick Brooke said:

I hope it doesn't, because Chaosium hasn't approved that.

Oh, no! All that work!

Just kidding. Nick et al were very clear on what was OK and what wasn't.

Here's a snippet from the DTRPG blurb that has been prepared:

"You will need a copy of Strangers in order to run those original scenarios, as we do not reproduce any of their main contents here. This Companion instead offers a full range of easy-to-use adaptation notes on how to run those adventures with the new RQ:G Rules. There are no new versions of any main Strangers characters in this Companion - just suggested RQ:G enhancements. With the sorcerers, the new information here outlines ways to run them as mysterious GMCs whose mechanics are consistent and story-appropriate, and occur entirely out of the knowledge of the Players. (We don’t offer any new version of sorcery rules in this book, just simple ideas for how the GM can make the main sorcerers function believably and congruently in game terms.)"

"This Companion additionally contains plenty of stand-alone material, and so can also be used to expand and support any Pavic campaign set between 1610-1621. This extra content includes:
- Full RQ:G Stats for a wide range of supporting characters and enemies;

- THREE new self-contained scenarios (one revolving around an Old Pavic Chaos cult);

- A two-part article on the Old Pavic Jalmari, who were originally created by Michael O’Brien & Tim Leask for Strangers in Prax, but didn’t make the final cut;

- Full Deck-plans & room index for the flagship of the Moon Boat fleet: ‘The Darjinni Enterprise’."

Edited March 20 by Ian A. Thomson

[Ian A. Thomson]

16 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

The upcoming Strangers in Prax companion will have high level lunar npc’s converted from RQ3 to RQG. 

Conversion notes, offering additional information, so that with the original character sheets in hand one can also peruse the new ideas for using them under the RQ:G rules.

There are Chaosium restrictions on how one cannot update pre-existing characters for publication just by adding a few extra bits, and additionally the originals were so great we didn't want to do that anyway.

Instead, we offer additional ideas, and a very few alterations, to consider - not new versions of these iconic characters :)

[Darius West]

On 9/22/2018 at 5:17 PM, Joerg said:

I never sat down to do the math, but here's something to think about:

Look at the number of attacks the opposition can land in a given time, and the number of attacks the party can land in that time.

If designing an ambush, that means that the ambushers get free attacks, as spells or missiles, until the party can react with their arsenal.

I wouldn't bother with a detailed damage analysis, but with damage ranges - there are attacks that can only do attrition damage (such as Disrupt, thrown rocks), attacks that can take out a location without destroying it, and killer attacks that will destroy a location and take out a combatant permanently or until a major healing effort has been done. Damage bonus of the attack does a lot to make an attack more dangerous.

 

How likely is an attack to cause damage?

Can it be avoided?

Spells are resisted with POW vs POW rolls, and possibly shielded by Countermagic effects (Countermagic, Shield, Berserk, Warding, sorcerous Neutralize).

Physical attacks (both melee and missile) are reduced by armor. This may vary the three categories (attrition, location damage, location destroyed).

Parries add the armor points of the parrying weapon, often negating the damage or reducing it to mere attrition.

Try and estimate the effect of the initial attacks on the party. Ideally, there should be enough attrition damage to cause tension, and taking out one or two locations requires them to direct some activity to healing, reducing their attacks/situation changer options.

Exposing the party to lots of attrition damage increases the likelihood of damaged locations, aka tactically meaningful damage. That's fine, but may lead to TPK.

 

Estimating the "bling factor" of parried melee attacks is hard. In the 50% parry ability range, damage will result reliably. In the 75% parry ability range, you will see only occasional damage. In the 95% parry range, damage will be the exception.

Multiple parries will quickly lower the parry range, which is why numbers count so much.

Remote attacks that cannot be parried (missiles, element damage, breath attacks) only deal with whatever protection the party has against such attacks.

Additional attacks by spirits may take their own form of attrition, but result in the equivalent of a location destruction damage.

 

It is all about staging the conflict.

With big bad monsters, you might start their side of the combat with location destruction damage on one or several party members. Are you sure that's how you want to start the fight? For each "man" down in the party, another party member will have to do support, reducing the counterattack twice. Depending on the number of sidekicks and auxiliary NPCs, it will also leave the players of affected characters out of the action, or pushed into thankless jobs like rolling for the party mooks rather than furthering one's character's heroics.

Inclusion of such damage should only be on the table if the players decide to accept the combat. Exploring a cave with freshs (dream) dragon prints means that they decided to accept this risk, and there are numerous similar situations where the players have seen the danger signs and choose to press on regardless (possibly because of bad alternatives, but that's another staging issue). Challenging Great Trolls, Cave Trolls or lesser giants means that they accept the risk.

 

If the combat goes into a direction that threatens your scenario: Cheat. Within reason.

Your players may have memorized the creature statistics, but thankfully those offer ranges of values rather than fixed values. Whatever numbers you have written down, you may adjust them slightly. Make use of low levels of Protection rather than indentifiable armor anyway, and adjust those levels upward or downward as your "Pass Fail Cycle" needs require. Give the opposition a supporting magician in hiding/out of attack range to avoid exposing that cheat, possibly an allied spirit.

You find out that your cave troll will TPK the already bruised party? He may have some bruises himself, suffer from poisoning or disease.

The opposition gets overwhelmed like nothing? You're in control of the setting. Have the party encounter another wave, ideally not identical, but drawing from the same resources. Or let reinforcements arrive. Or let one exceptional duck/trollkin (or hidden ally of the duck/trollkin) use that Earthpower rune spell to revive its colleagues. Or have the (undocumented and unplanned) elemental of the opposition arrive belatedly from within its element.

Provide some other form of weakness of the enemy, and drop hints (or outright signposts) to the players to exploit that weakness. In a cthulhuid situation, it is reasonable to have at least some of the opposition suffer from bouts of insanity, and dealing with Lunars or drug-crazed zealots offers the same excuse for opponents being befuddled or demoralized even without conscious player activity. This is a reminder that the opposition aren't mere mechanical monsters but that they will have their own pitiful life stories and weaknesses.

 

Most importantly, think about the morale of the opposition, and the point where they start to retreat, flee, surrender, and why and how they would do so.

Interrupting a (usually chaotic) combat for negotiations will take a few melee rounds. Train your players in the application of disengagement (in case of doubt, frustrate them with opposition that will disengage whenever they can...) so that this option will be in their repertoire.

Depending on the situation, either side may have no interest in negotiations, or in letting anybody escape.

 

Enter the hostage situation, and the seriousness in putting the threat to action. I once faced quite a shocked reaction when playing a hardened veteran killer who did slice the throat of one of the hostages at a failure to follow through the conditions that had been put out in the room, not so much from the opposition characters as from my fellow players and the GM. (Not clear whether that extended to their characters, some of which were as cold-blooded by concept.) At that point, the escalation had already been at personal feud level, and the opposition (including the hostage) thought to call a bluff when my character wasn't bluffing.

Unfortunately, that was an opportunity for roleplaying spoiled by a debate about roleplaying ethics - which was a good thing to have, but it stopped the flow of the story. Interestingly enough, the morality of players of the type whose characters would initiate needless slaughter by shooting first was offended.

(That scene happened long before Game of Thrones had even been printed...)

 

Spells causing systemic failure like Sleep and Befuddle should be treated like "take out location", Demoralize like attrition.

Warding can be a killer if used to protect positions of snipers, as a Warding 3 will take out locations.

 

You'll be familiar with the tactics of the party if playing with your own group, but in a convention game, even with pre-rolled characters, you'll be in for big surprises. (But then, so will they.)

On the other hand, you are in control of the opposition's initial tactic and of their fall-back tactics.

When preparing the encounter, take a look at the theme of your scenario, and make sure that somehow the kind of opposition you want them to encounter is there. Adjust the number and/or state of health of the opposition. The giant is caught treating a leg wound. If they are outside of the ability of the party, have the party encounter the opposition while fighting off another, independent threat - that pair of tusk riders needs to finish off the wolverine before it can charge your novice party, so make good use of that "ally" to avoid the charge.

 

In other words, if you want broos, use broos. When dealing with Chaos, Chaos Features can increase or decrease the danger levels. Broo parentage can do a lot to adjust the threat.

 

Sometimes the opposition attacks only to expose the party to disease, poison, or some curse, and then disengages.

Joerg wrote this so we  don't have to.  Thanks Joerg.

That being said, I think shields are massively important, and needed to be mentioned in more detail.

A nice big 16 point shield is the difference between life and death in many cases.  Even if you are only wearing cuirboulli, a parry with such a shield will stop 19 points.  A broadsword does 4.5+1 +2.5(DB) on average.  Add another 5.5 for a slash for a total of 13.5 damage, plus perhaps 4 points of bladesharp if you are lucky for 17.5.  On average that shield will stop a special hit from an average weapon.  It really matters.

[Mugen]

On 9/22/2018 at 2:52 PM, David Scott said:

This has been a theme in the industry for a long time. Forty years ago the first few issues of White Dwarf wasted (IMO) many pages on the Monstermark system. The last big game I played that had a section on this was Exalted 2ed which had a "Hazard" Level for encounters, this was dropped in third edition (phew). I don't know anyone who ever used any system designed to do what you ask. I'm interested if anyone ever has.

D&D 4th edition encounter building system worked well in that regard, but the game was built around it, and the stats of a level X monster were very tightly defined.

[Akhôrahil]

It helps a lot against unbalanced encounters if

1) Victory isn't mandatory to solve things, and

2) There are possible consequences well short of TPK.

Of course, this doesn't always work - when the PCs enter Dorastor with two Storm Bull initiates as in my campaign, every fight will be either a victory or end up with 2+ PCs dead (as those two won't retreat, and if berserking, will fight on until they're outright killed). That's their own damn fault, though, and a dead Storm Bull has no grounds to complain! 🙂

Edited March 20 by Akhôrahil