Judging difficulty correctly as a GM?

[Tinker Dragoon]

While it might seem logical to think that a monster's experience level would quantify how difficult a challenge it should be, it doesn't really work that way. The statement that Baal-rogs are among the "most feared and powerful of all the greater demons" kind of reinforces this.

Unfortunately, Palladium does not have a simple mechanic for judging the power of a monster relative to a player party. The creature's H.P. and S.D.C. are factors, but so are its combat bonuses, the amount of damage it can dish out by weapon or spell, whether it can fight in the air or in water, and so on. This requires a bit of number-crunching on the part of the GM.

For example, let's take a Baal-rog with average stats: P.S. 35, P.P. 17, and 50 S.D.C. This gives bonuses of +4 to strike, parry, and dodge. Against a PC with full plate armor (A.R. 17), the Baal-rog has a 30% chance of successfully striking and damaging the character (not counting dodge and parry attempts) and a 50% chance of damaging his armor, inflicting an average of 45 points of damage with a claw strike, and it can attempt this up to six times per melee. Characters with lower Armor Ratings and low or no parry/dodge bonuses are easy pickings for the demon.

A party armed entirely with battle axes could potentially wipe out the Baal-rog's S.D.C. in as little as three attacks, but that's really improbable. So you see, the GM must carefully weigh the respective capablities of the monster and the party.

On the other hand, if the player characters squandered opportunities to retreat or to gain an advantage over the demon, you shouldn't feel so bad. The GM can only do so much.

[flatline]

If you always give the players a way out of combat, then if you misjudge the difficulty and give them something they can't handle, they can flee/surrender/whatever and save their lives.

--flatline

[Tinker Dragoon]

Along with good old number-crunching, would a test battle conducted to judge the ability of the encounter work for actually playing?

It couldn't hurt. If you don't actually have the time to conduct playtests, you could try introducing the monster on a trial basis, making a quick assault on the party for just one or two melee rounds and then having the creature retreat (perhaps leaving some lesser minions to clean up). Not only does this give you an opportunity to see how the players measure up, it allows the players to establish a personal relationship with the monster (that is to say, a vendetta ).

Because in response to what you added at the end there, half the group honestly acted completely idiotic in this encounter. Our archer tried to melee attack, our wizard refused to do any other spell other than a sleep spell that was useless due to it's magic resist, the sea dog and scholar both melee damaged it as much as they could (which ultimately was the only reason any damage was done to the monster). So I'm not sure who to blame them, I, or both.

One can never really be sure what players are going to do, but it is reasonable to expect them to do what they're good at (e.g. for a longbowman to use his bow, for a wizard to fling some useful spells, etc.).

[scottypotty]

It sounds like they assumed they couldn't lose or were at least safe from death. Maybe killing one of them and retreating as mentioned before would have turned out to be a more exciting result. They can hunt it down for revenge, and know not to underestimate it. I always thought that a whole party dying was the result of something in the game going wrong. I had a GM kill a whole party once because he wanted to play the game. We ended up playing another game because everyone had been playing their characters for a while and were quite fond of them. It also depends on the type of group too. I've always played in games where character developement and interaction is rather important, so character death is a pretty big thing.

As a precaution I guess, never let the players know how many SDC the monster has, or what specific powers it may possess that they don't know about. It they're having a harder time than you think, then assume the creature's SDC is on the lower end. Although you shouldn't go the other way too often. Like, giving it max SDC if they're crushing it. Having every single challenge be very difficult can make them paranoid, or possibly not care as they know it's going to be tough no matter what.

[Shawn Merrow]

I would say you got some very bad advice. I always seen the goal of the GM to help make sure everyone playing the game has fun.

[MADMANMIKE]

Unless you're playing Hackmaster, no, it is not you vs. them. RPG's are like any other game, they are about having fun. Where's the fun in working hard to create a character and develop them just to get them killed?

I'm always loose with the stats and the dice (using a GM shield).. I have no interest in running games where the characters get killed, too much time and effort goes into making them (and I'm not a vengeful god). That said, I don't generally pit my players characters against something epic unless they've reached an epic point/it's a necessary climax to a long adventure.

For the Baal-Rog, I refer you to a little known film about the greatest fantasy adventure team known; Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. In it the party encounters a Baal-Rog, and runs like hell, losing the most powerful member of their party in the process..

But all is not lost; you can bring them back to before the encounter quite easily; just have the whole thing be the result of a powerful illusion that they all failed to save from without knowing it.. Granted, the deceased should wake up in some sort of imprisonment or similar predicament, but yeah, character death doesn't have to be final..

[Nightmask]

I have always been told that as a GM you are against the player and that as a GM your goal is to fairly kill the players. I'm not sure how I feel about that mentality, but I will be sure to include all of those good ideas next time. Each game is a learning experience and I feel like with these ideas in mind I should be able to make sure that my next game is loved by my players. Thanks guy!

As already noted you've definitely been given some bad advice. The GM's goal is to provide a challenging game that everyone can enjoy including the GM, it's definitely not to kill the characters that the players worked so hard to create and develop. That's the worst kind of GMing.

[The Dark Elf]

I have always been told that as a GM you are against the player and that as a GM your goal is to fairly kill the players. I'm not sure how I feel about that mentality, but I will be sure to include all of those good ideas next time. Each game is a learning experience and I feel like with these ideas in mind I should be able to make sure that my next game is loved by my players. Thanks guy!

That is Total BS!

You control the reactions and in some case the plot and your role is to ensure EVERYONE (including you) have a good time. that means encounters should be challenging and rewards should be earned. Thats it.

There is only one way to win an RPG - everyone had fun. And only one way to lose - everyone didnt have fun. Thats also it.

[MaxxSterling]

I've had GM's with the "Kill the PCs" mentality... Games like that rarely last long because people quit, or the GM kills them.

[zyanitevp]

I have always been told that as a GM you are against the player and that as a GM your goal is to fairly kill the players. I'm not sure how I feel about that mentality, but I will be sure to include all of those good ideas next time. Each game is a learning experience and I feel like with these ideas in mind I should be able to make sure that my next game is loved by my players. Thanks guy!

That is Total BS!

You control the reactions and in some case the plot and your role is to ensure EVERYONE (including you) have a good time. that means encounters should be challenging and rewards should be earned. Thats it.

There is only one way to win an RPG - everyone had fun. And only one way to lose - everyone didnt have fun. Thats also it.

As usual, Dark Elf for the win...

[UR Leader Hobbes]

Hello guys, I'm a new member of the forums, although I have been stalking for a while ha.
This included a human Sea Dog, a Elf Long bowmen, a human wizard, and a elf scholar. (This group was a five person group, but our human Paladin bailed)

VS

The Balrog.

Anyway, here goes the real question. As a gm, what steps should you take to judge and understand the true power of a creature or situation? Killing a player, in my opinion can spice things up, but an entire party (if not a one shot) is no beuno.

OK lets think about this rationally..

Character stats and numbers aren't the only things that lead to player deaths. So let me ask a few quesitons so I can get a clear idea of the situation..

1) Was this an ambush situtation or did they know they would be going after a Balrog?

If it's an ambush situation then the scholar or mage should have been smart enough to use the ol Demon's and Monster Lore skill to get an idea of what they were up against. And then maybe thought about fleeing.

2) Did the player running the Palladin just not show up for this session or did they bail a while beforehand?

If it was just this session do you have a house rule that if you don't show your character doesn't go? Or was he gone prior? If he was gone prior to this then you might want have taken that into consideration. The group doesn't seem like it has a tank character..

3) Did the players take the right steps in prepping for the fight?

If the knew going in that they were in for a fight and didn't think it out clearly then they are victims of their own lack of planning as much as they are victims of the Balrog.

4) Were they just unlucky?

Sometimes the dice just don't roll the way you hope them to.


As far as judging furture encounters I would give them a chance to learn from this mistake. I say bring back the Balrog and make it a foe for them to strive to defeat in the next game. (Afterall getting a bit of revenge will be satisfying for the players.)

You can even have the armor, weapons, and bodies of the old players hung up in the Balrog's lair like hunting trophies.

[UR Leader Hobbes]

Along with good old number-crunching, would a test battle conducted to judge the ability of the encounter work for actually playing?
Because in response to what you added at the end there, half the group honestly acted completely idiotic in this encounter. Our archer tried to melee attack, our wizard refused to do any other spell other than a sleep spell that was useless due to it's magic resist, the sea dog and scholar both melee damaged it as much as they could (which ultimately was the only reason any damage was done to the monster). So I'm not sure who to blame them, I, or both.

Sorry I didn't read this post before my last post..

Yeah they had it coming then.. The mage shouldn't have kept trying to cast the same spell if it wasn't working. Was the archer out of shots?

[Zamion138]

Gotta say any greater demon should not be ran as a fighter anyhow, bal-rogs and diminsionaly telport, cast spells and usaly summon lesser demons to themselves. the only way the party could beat one is if it was so beserk that it wasnt casting nor not retreating. if a balrog gets to 20% of its SDC it would telport away and heal from its biregenaration and just come back over and over again till the job was done.
I honestly dont see any way for the above mentioned party with out some sweet spells that trap the creature where it is or at least deal massive damedge (like dessicate the supernatrual, not a common spell in palladium fantasy)
your archer could have been shooting like mad and your wizard could have been doing direct damedge but inless the balrog wasnt concentrating on one person then the next and would have fought to the death i dont see the party ever surviving a greater demon attack. its like fighting an adult dragon, they dont loose they bail when they get bored or wounded and come back over and over again. probaly with friends.