Topic: Encounter Levels??

[Arioch]

I tend to build a world, then let my PCs roam around in it, where there's no canton for 1st level characters, and no "when you hit 10th you can cross the bridge into super badass land". . .they learn not to mess with nasty things, and to sneak, run away or talk fast when they bite off more than they can chew. . .and to not smacktalk like a professional wrestler until they know for sure a friend has a crossbow pointed at the back of the guy they're mouthing off to.

Yes, that's more or less how I do it... after all not-rm and shadow world modules are renown for their sandbox style, which seems to be one of the elements that draw people into ICE systems.

I think the basic way to proceed is that a number of short articles are written that explain how to make combat encounters in RM can be made interesting with hands on examples of what a certain monster, spell users or circumstance mean in a particular situation. The reason why I think this can be done is that it sounds quite fun to write and read, we can draw from our experience as GMs and does not need to run loads of mock up combats with artificial limitations on what tactics to use.

I agree, one of these articles could focus on the analysis of combatants capabilities and give suggestions on how making quick gauges on their chances of survival, but it wouldn't be complete without other articles explaining RM basic assumptions.
Plus, Pastaav is right: reading an article on how making encounters more fun/interesting is much better than reading one on how making them balanced! 

[Emaughan]

Arioch, my statement was a bit tongue-n-cheek refering to the way I do art; thus the emoticon at the end of the sentence.  My art skills are on par with with my 10 year old's.  Seriously though, good art is a combination of rules and skill (skill being the meat of it).  Making encounters in DnD is mostly rule based, making encounters in RM is mostly skill based.  Hmm... one more skill pick for RM - "Gage Enounter", or better yet a whole new companion "Encounter Law" (by the way, that was back to tongue-n-cheek).

Sorry guys, almost derailed a good thread.

[Arioch]

Arioch, my statement was a bit tongue-n-cheek refering to the way I do art; thus the emoticon at the end of the sentence.  My art skills are on par with with my 10 year old's.

Lol, didn't notice the emoticon, sorry 

[Arioch]

What about using DPs as a way to calculate an encounter difficulty?
In the end, DPs are what the PCs use to buy skills etc, so the total of the DPs spent by a whole party should give a general idea of their "power level" (intended as their ability of overcoming obstacles of all kind, not only combat).

[providence13]

so the total of the DPs spent by a whole party should give a general idea of their "power level"
Now, I think you've hit it.

I have difficult encounters to be the same lvl as the party. Sometimes I need encounters to have specific scaling but there is always the posibility of TPK. Heck, you could almost say, "it's their right as players" to cash out.

Then I ask, 'If they overcome said threat, have I unduly biased the next encounter in the party's favor?' In other words, don't give enemies stuff the party can easily use. Players are sneaky about using this stuff too.
So they enemies snuck up on the group without a sound... that's because they're wearing 'boots of silence'.
Great! the party thinks, now the Dwarf and Humans can stop putting Ranks in Stalking.. Then you descibe the boots as the skinned feet of halfling sherrifs from the last town back...

Anyway... when the enemies are as tough as the party.. the scalable question might be "which group is smarter".

[pastaav]

What about using DPs as a way to calculate an encounter difficulty?
In the end, DPs are what the PCs use to buy skills etc, so the total of the DPs spent by a whole party should give a general idea of their "power level" (intended as their ability of overcoming obstacles of all kind, not only combat).

Wouldn't that be bit of an effort...it is not like the DP spent on skills is kept track on character sheet.

I am also not terribly convinced that a ranger who has bought two ranks in each level in his weapon skill for a high DP cost should be considered more dangerous than a fighter who spent much less to get the same number of ranks.

I think that if we should get more information than just level comparison then the sum of OB and DB skills is probably much more useful. The tricky thing is to value the benefit from spells...how much is it worth to have a spell user who can cast Haste or Bladeturn?

[Arioch]

Argh! Forum ate my post...

The final goal  of this method is giving an idea of which obstacles (not only combats) a party of PCs can overcome, not showing how skilled in combat each single PC is.
It start from some assumptions (PCs will act as a party, they're somewhat "optimized" for their profession, party is made of different professions, GM will have them face diversified obstacles,..) so it won't work for everyone.