The basic problem being spotlighted here is the capacity of a randomized system with extremely complex and variable inputs (i.e., the typical diversity of abilities among both PCs and monsters, especially powerful ones) to produce fluke outcomes inconsistent with the intended experience of the conflict -- either a meant-to-be-brief encounter turns unexpectedly difficult, slow or costly, or a meant-to-be-exhaustively-challenging encounter turns unexpectedly easy or quick.

A number of posters have pointed out that as long as these outcomes are flukes they nonetheless still can, and often do, provide memorable and enjoyable experiences -- especially if the unexpectedness of the result derives from clever player choices, rather than simply an outlier-probability series of dice rolls. However, the OP is not wrong either when he points out that too many encounters of either kind will tend to make the game more boring, so a technique to avoid them may be helpful, especially if the game mechanics themselves do not do enough to reduce this outcome (recognizing that "enough" is a subjective term depending on player experience and goals).

Now I agree with the majority of the thread's posters that simply defining an opponent's capacity to take damage in terms of the rounds the players must survive before the foe goes down, rather than the hit points (or analogous mechanism) the foe can withstand, feels like an oversimplified, unsatisfying and railroad-y solution (and would only look even worse once the players found out this was how things were happening).  However, the incredible nitpickiness and detail of juggling all the different kinds of damage against a hit point total that, for some systems and monsters, can number well into the hundreds can be a significant pain in the ass.  So, herewith, a much simpler system, designed to be used behind the scenes:

- All monsters/foes are rated as Minor, Major, Critical, or Legendary.  A Minor foe has 10 HP. A Major foe has 20. A Critical foe has 50. A Legendary foe has 100.

- Whenever a player successfully hits a foe, the GM assesses it on the fly as a Minor, Major, Critical or Legendary hit, based on how much damage the player actually rolls.  Depending on the PC, the weapon and the foe, the GM may decide that a particular PC can do no more than a Major or even a Minor hit no matter how well he rolls.  A Minor hit does 1 HP damage. A Major hit does 5 HP.  A Critical hit does 10 HP.  A Legendary hit does 20 HP.

- If damage is inflicted by a particularly clever tactic on the player's part, or incorporates an additional "set-up" roll that scores particularly well, the GM can apply a Tactical Multiplier, again rated in levels.  A Clever tactic does x2 damage. A Brilliant tactic does x5 damage. A Spectacular tactic does x10 damage.

If a flaming barrel of oil were dropped on Dracula (a Legendary foe), I might call that a Critical hit with a Brilliant tactic, doing 50 HP -- not enough to kill him on its own, but enough to get him halfway there and more than enough to finish him off if he'd already been significantly weakened during the fight.  Bard taking down Smaug with a single Black Arrow, by contrast, is clearly a Legendary hit using a Spectacular tactic (the knowledge of the bare patch in the hollow of the left breast).

Quote from: Razor 007;1072786I don't mind if the PC's make Swiss cheese of some encounters.  That's awesome.  I also think that it's perfectly reasonable for a true big bad to last a few rounds; unless the party manages to pummel the big bad in an exceptional manner, early on.  The big bad goes down when the DM calls it.

OK, good! You can articulate your desires. Sounds like you have stumbled upon the re-invention of the Challenge Rating, though.

And that's OK, too! But now we are getting into: 'What does that serve?', 'How do I truly want it served?', and 'Do the twain ever meet?'

So, the nature of granular combat provides multiple play functions, (in D&D and elsewhere):

• Tactical Challenge - This tests short term Combat Pillar competence, party coordination (formations), character widget building, etc. HP, among other meters, fits here.
• Strategic Challenge - This tests long term Exploration Pillar competence, party cooperation (alliance survival & cohesion), resource management, etc. HP, among other meters, ALSO fits here.
• Opportunity for Content Creation - This allows GM improvisation of details, which may change the cost-benefit analysis of the encounter, such as: # Appearing, Distance Away, Light & Visibility, Social Pillar Reactions, etc. HP, among other player facing meters, usually does not come up here. HOWEVER, their status will factor into player cost-benefit analyses.
• Opportunity for Contextual Flux - This opens access to 'all three game pillars (Combat, Explore, Social)' to matter. Everything from alliances, bribes, pleas for help or mercy, switching sides, hiding, thieving/planting items, beating/killing, kiting, feints, ambushes, etc. is here. HP, among other meters, will factor in cunning play here.

And yet sometimes combat granularity boils down into a penny-ante Encounter that is just "an uninteresting trivial resource tax," (easily beatable, provides no opportunity to learn, nor changes the contextual state,). That is not a Meaningful Encounter. In AD&D 2e it was explicitly called out as such, and recommended to not even give XP for them. It is your job as GM to make interesting encounters, if at the very least to Improvise Content Creation AND open player window so as to Fluctuate game Context.

If you cannot, perhaps say the scale is incomparable (human giant among squishy ants), then many systems suggest to wave these challenges away. Some are explicitly built mechanically with that in mind, such as jhkim's comment about Amber or other such "gods among mortals" games (maybe using play level tiers, whatever). But it is a campaign aesthetic choice, and should be consciously chosen. That is what we are doing now.

So it sounds like you are trying to find a way to RESERVE Big Bad Evil Guys as a meaningful encounter, and focus your playstyle to what you deem aesthetically fun -- I am guessing a preference to big glorious battles?

If that is the case, sometimes it is easier to reassess your current system's conceits to know what baby you are throwing out with your bathwater (my above list) -- and seriously consider whether your desired atmosphere would be better served by another game entirely with a focus more in line to your desires (jhkim's comment about Amber, et alia).

There has been a glut of various 'wheel manufacturing' in the past 40 years since RPGs were created. Know your desired vehicle, figure out the proper wheel-type, get the right tire.

I guess I am advocating for the DM to have total free reign to adjust encounters on the fly, if it isn't just a run of the mill encounter.  If this encounter is substantial within the context of the campaign, let the big bad be whatever he needs to be to challenge the PCs and move the story along.

Quote from: Razor 007;1072855I guess I am advocating for the DM to have total free reign to adjust encounters on the fly, if it isn't just a run of the mill encounter.  If this encounter is substantial within the context of the campaign, let the big bad be whatever he needs to be to challenge the PCs and move the story along.

Not really a challenge if the pcs will always win.

Quote from: Razor 007;1072855I guess I am advocating for the DM to have total free reign to adjust encounters on the fly, if it isn't just a run of the mill encounter.  If this encounter is substantial within the context of the campaign, let the big bad be whatever he needs to be to challenge the PCs and move the story along.

But how do the players get to make meaningful decisions? Pulling out every scroll and potion and every last charge on every staff or wand, and the result is the same as if they poked the boss with daggers. Eventually the players will notice your preference for this kind of thing, and conserve their resources, and they'll be annoyed that they can't change the pace of the battle. (But you might get a more cinematic result; the players hold back for a few rounds, appearing to be losing the fight, and then make a dramatic comeback by using their best attacks right after the boss's immunity interval runs out.)

The tolerable approach is to adjust the forces based on your evaluation of the party; if way more players showed up for a session than you expected, it's not unreasonable that more reinforcements happen to have arrived at the big boss's lair. But once you set up the encounter, don't keep adjusting if the first round goes surprisingly well for the players.

Quote from: Razor 007;1072855I guess I am advocating for the DM to have total free reign to adjust encounters on the fly, if it isn't just a run of the mill encounter.  If this encounter is substantial within the context of the campaign, let the big bad be whatever he needs to be to challenge the PCs and move the story along.

In general if as a GM you're having to "adjust" stuff constantly on the fly then you either need to change how you GM or you need to use different rules so that you have rules that produce the results you want.

I don't actually run games this way, or at least I haven't yet; but I am thinking about it.

Can you please clarify? :confused:

It almost sounds like you are advocating for a Schröedinger's Cat Boss, neither alive nor dead until the GM looks at it. I hope not, victory would seem so hollow. It'd feel like Illusionism -- regardless of choice we get the same result the GM previously decided.

Don't you like it when actions have consequences?

That said, maybe you are talking about improvised content creation at the moment of encounter? Or perhaps you desire altering monster stats beforehand for a better fit for your campaign world? Those both have extremely long histories in RPGs and still respect the meaning of the players' choices.

Quote from: Razor 007;1072895I don't actually run games this way, or at least I haven't yet; but I am thinking about it.

Think about it this way. Would you enjoy playing in a game run this way? And if the answer is "no", or "only if I didn't know it was run this way" then don't do it.
If you would enjoy playing such a game,  go for it!

Quote from: spon;1072926Think about it this way. Would you enjoy playing in a game run this way? And if the answer is "no", or "only if I didn't know it was run this way" then don't do it.
If you would enjoy playing such a game,  go for it!

Better yet, would your players enjoy it? Explain to them what you're planning and ask what they think.

How much do your players really care about combat? My players like it for the chance to roll dice, but their favorite combats are when non-combat stuff happens. We had three rounds of players and an orc missing each other. The players had killed all but the one orc. They ended up talking and letting the last orc go in exchange for information. So, defeating the "big baddie" in a round or two is fine with them--because it is the adventure leading up to the bad guy, and the role-playing involved with getting to the end, that they care about.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1072916It almost sounds like you are advocating for a Schröedinger's Cat Boss, neither alive nor dead until the GM looks at it.

Now I have to stat up a Schröedinger's Cat Boss.

I sort of did this once, but it was during a test-run of a new game and my players knew I was doing it, so the battle could last longer for the test.

When my players and I first tried DwD Studios' BareBone Fantasy, we were doing a one-page from their magazine. The dungeon ended with a small dragon. I wasn't sure about what the players could handle so I left it as written at first. After the first round of combat, I realized the players were ridiculously over matched. I told them what I was doing (reducing the dragon's HP and attack, etc.) and narrated that the dragon seemed to suddenly, mysteriously become sickly and lose most of its strength and power. LOL It was still a ridiculously tough battle for them. (Normally, I'd have stressed their characters' knowledge of how powerfully mismatched the battle was, to give them the chance to sneak or make alternate plans.)

Quote from: Razor 007;1072855I guess I am advocating for the DM to have total free reign to adjust encounters on the fly, if it isn't just a run of the mill encounter.  If this encounter is substantial within the context of the campaign, let the big bad be whatever he needs to be to challenge the PCs and move the story along.

There's no rule that says you can't do this. If the players like what's happening, then it's justified.

For myself, I'll adjust tactically (as everyone does), but I don't change the stats, or fudge the dice rolls. If the players roll over what I expected would be a tough encounter, good for them. The vicissitudes of the dice ensure that the reverse will occur at some point.

Quote from: Razor 007;1072895I don't actually run games this way, or at least I haven't yet; but I am thinking about it.

Then I've got one piece of advice for later:  If you decide to try it, evaluate immediately, but more important, evaluate again after six months to a year (depending upon how much you play).

There are some possible side effects of running that way that will not emerge until the players have adjusted--especially if they are used to a more traditional style.  Specifically, you may see some players continuing to do what they do now, which will probably be very satisfying, but gradually get conditioned into the new form.  There are a small handful of players that will never change how they play, no matter what you do.  For these, it may work fine.

It's a bad idea, but like a lot of bad ideas, you don't really appreciate why it is bad until you screw it up yourself.  The experience should be educational.  Just don't let it wreck your group by ignoring the problems that are likely.

Player: It's a Troll...
DM: Surprise, he has a Breath Weapon!!!
Player: What?  Trolls don't have breath weapons!!!
DM: He just lit up his Sword!!!  It's a Flame Tongue!!!
Player: What the hell?
DM: Exactly!!!  He's a denizen of Hell!!!  A Fiendish Troll!!!


Bwahaha!!!

Quote from: Razor 007;1072988Player: It's a Troll...
DM: Surprise, he has a Breath Weapon!!!
Player: What?  Trolls don't have breath weapons!!!
DM: He just lit up his Sword!!!  It's a Flame Tongue!!!
Player: What the hell?
DM: Exactly!!!  He's a denizen of Hell!!!  A Fiendish Troll!!!


Bwahaha!!!

:confused: OK, but that was already covered by illusions. Those are present in all setting genres, from mental to physical projections, either from self or by others, designed to ambiguate context. This wheel has already been made.

Why are you trying to 'Phantasmal Force' your players, instead of merely their PCs? :confused:

This is the same pitfall issue when playing in dreamscapes and coherency is never established for any length of time. If anything is possible at all times, then there is no correlation to guess causation, even if only briefly. And doing so things quickly devolve into nothing mattering. There is no way to meaningfully react to stimuli, so its a quick ride into passivity until things settle down.

What is to be gained from this?