Rigidity vs Flexibility During Encounters

How much do you bend encounters (combat or conflict) after it has been designed (or read in a published game)?

Specifically I am wondering about a creatures stats or abilities - do you ever reduce HP, alter or reduce skills of your NPCs or any other change that could give players an edge or weakness in an encounter?

I have tried both and feel that sticking completely by the book or adapting it mid-game can cause weird results.

I think it depends on the game you are running. After bending monster stats in D&D to reduce HP and give players an edge in an encounter, or I've made the Harm a creature deals less than it should in Kult, my preference is to set the parameters of an encounter and stick to them. Here's why.

My Thoughts

I've had players feel some fights were too hard or easy based on how I have balanced fights. But for me, I feel uncomfortable adapting fights in the middle of a game. It has sometimes given the impression to players that they aren't in much danger, and overtime it reduces the tension of larger encounters that could have... consequences to a players character.

For example, in D&D, a player going down isn't instantly deadly - they have lots of saving throws to make (probably)! So in this case I am not so worried if I made some mistakes balancing a game. Espcially if I remind players that they can run! 

However, in systems like Call of Cthulhu, players often do not get that opportunity. Combat is much more vicious, and investigators can go down even without their HP reaching zero via a Major Wound. This is where I feel some of Pulp Cthulhu's optional luck rules in are excellent. It can offer extra survivability to players who may have just made a small mistake or had an unfortunate roll - and walked into a room full of flesh sucking monsters. I use this in base Cthulhu to give players that little extra edge, but also let me keep encounters tense and deadly if prolonged.

So what do I do?

Baselines

The baseline for me is once I setup an encounter, I stick to what I have. As GM, I can tweak on the fly, but personally this makes me feel like I could leave myself in a position to bend easily to some of the more aggressive players I've had at the table. I have run enough games now to feel like I have a good grasp on how to balance things for various levels of characters, and various levels of experience a player may offer when they sit at the table.

Once things are all prepared I pencil it in and set it in stone the day of the game. No changes to stats (or anything else) once this is done. If I make a game that's too hard, then I stick to it. If I'm concerned its too hard for players, I'll provide plenty of in-game narrative warnings and even out-of-game warnings.

This doesn't mean that players can't change the fate of a game. While stats and the 'logistics' are locked in, the narrative I leave open ended so it can be flexible to the players, the story, and any of the choices players may make align the way. How players influence themselves, others, and the world they explore can always affect other encounters. While I will design these encounters to be separate entities, I leave the 'flavour' open so that I can inject player backstory into them, tie in story themes, create campaign hooks, and much more.

In short, the 'technical stuff' is locked in, and the narrative, 'flavour', and context has a hazy detail that players unknowingly mould as they make their way through a campaign. 

I have a couple of examples that follow to share which might be more practical.

Smaller scale encounters

For random or lesser encounters, I err on the side of caution and build encounters for my players that I feel they will be able to beat. This doesn't mean it will be easy, but usually a few weaknesses or vurnabilities that players can exploit can provide a challenging encounter that players can beat with a bit of puzzle solving. These encounters will generally be things that I don't feel will have significant story implications, but could be used to influence where things will go in the short term future. Once I have built the encounter and setup the monsters or NPCs I need with their stats - they are locked in while the players and their actions inform the narrative around it.

Larger Encounters

Similarly, larger encounters follow the same steps as above with the exception that they may have more impact onto story. These encounters could be pieces of a main narrative, or one larger one-shots I have designed that would fit well into a campaign (think introductory Death House scenario for Curse of Strahd). In short, they are shorter games within a game.  Larger encounters may have their own short story that players can complete, and as a reward they will receive whatever I want - but most importantly, new insights into the main campaign they wouldn't otherwise get.

These encounters are much harder to balance, as being cautious could make them too easy. However, being more cautious is always better than disregarding it completely as ultimately I want players to have fun. In D&D, the power-fantasy can be enough, but in Cthulhu or Kult, barely surviving may be more rewarding than dying. Depending on the scale on the counter however, at least one deadly force may be dropped in. After all, I want players to have fun BUT also feel thread or dread when they encounter something as strong as (if not stronger than them).

These encounters again will have their own defined set pieces (fights, characters, stat blocks etc), but will also contain their own narrative. The caveat? That they overall themes can be tied directly or suggestively to the players' main objectives in the larger campaign. I started off my GM'ing career building my own one-shots or 2-5 game campaigns. 

As an example, when designing my first long-form campaign, I condensed the story to 12 bullet points which contained the basis for; 10 larger scenarios, one intro, one epilogue. 

The 10 scenarios were designed to make it possible to each of them individually as standalone "module" if I wanted - but when used in the context of the campaign, became flexible enough to progress the narrative and also be influenced by player choices throughout the campaign.

Hopefully that makes sense - I tend to work in "boxes" due to my software development background.

What about you?

Ultimately, I don't stick to every point in the above every time. I mix and match, and sometimes throw in a deadly threat if the players are pushing through everything I have. 

Do you have any thoughts on the above? It would be great to hear how you design your extra encounters and what you do to make them interesting.

Let us know with the comments, and we hope you enjoyed the read.

-JT