NEWS

Combat Challenge

  • 6 Replies
  • 2322 Views

Decade Rider

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 163
« on: <09-29-12/1914:15> »
Hey wassup id like to ask you more experienced shadowrun GM...how do you balance or make up an encounter for your players?..im always scared of making it too weak or way to strong wich made me try every bit of the spectrum to try and find how to challenge my players without slaughtering them everytime

foolofsound

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 348
« Reply #1 on: <09-29-12/2020:22> »
My advice? Cheat. Make an encounter that isn't obviously too low or too high powered, then adjust tactics (positive or negative), give them new equipment (new sensors, grenades), bring in backup, make them do stupid (or devious) things, whatever it takes to keep your players feeling threatened.

JustADude

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3043
  • Madness? This! Is! A FORUM!
« Reply #2 on: <09-29-12/2023:00> »
My advice? Cheat. Make an encounter that isn't obviously too low or too high powered, then adjust tactics (positive or negative), give them new equipment (new sensors, grenades), bring in backup, make them do stupid (or devious) things, whatever it takes to keep your players feeling threatened.

I wouldn't call that "cheating" so much as "adjusting undisclosed variables."

By my personal definition of "cheating," as far GMing goes, It's not "cheating" until you actually fudge the dice rolls.
“What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.”
― Albert Einstein

"Being average just means that half of everyone you meet is better than you."
― Me

lurkeroutthere

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
« Reply #3 on: <09-29-12/2042:11> »
Make the opposition as strong as it should be for what their doing/guarding.

If the opposition is "too strong" it behooves the players to not come at them head on.

Balancing things so it will be "just right" leads to some folks being weaker then they should be and some folks being unrealistically stronger then they should be.
"And if the options are "talk to him like a grown up" versus "LOLOLOL murder him in his face until he doesn't come back," I know which suggestion I'm making." - Critias

No team I'm on has ever had a problem with group think.

GiraffeShaman

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
  • Devourer of Salads
« Reply #4 on: <09-30-12/1735:33> »
It's pretty common for a majority of enemies to be pretty weak compared to the party.

1. Remember, the players are often not trying to go slay some character in their lair like some other game systems. (Although that does happen sometimes) Their goal is to beat a security system usually, and in many cases killing can actually hinder them. (The more bodies dropped, the more chance they are found and alarms go off, similar to killing IC in the Matrix and more alarms going off) A complicated architecture for a site and a bunch of weak guards can actually be worse than a single room with highly elite guards....because alarms may go off and elite response forces and police will come.

2. This is also a game where if you try to perfectlly balance encounters like you do in some other game systems you run a high chance of killing players. It's a lethal system.

3. There is absolutely no risk in making enemies too weak. All that happens is they die and the game goes on to the next scenario. The risk of making them too powerful is much higher, especially if the game has been around a while and PCs are attached to their characters. (And the GM is attached to his scenarios/story playing out) If you weren't happy about how weak your enemies were last session, you can increase em a bit next session.

4, It of course depends on what is being guarded. Elite cyber zombies are not going to be guarding the local Nukit burger manager's office. They very well might be guarding the Weapons World Exec the players are trying to assassinate, along with a clutch of powerful fire elementals.

Personally, I like a high percentage of weak enemies these days. Then it's a real shock when the players do run into equal forces, say when they run into an opposing Shadowrunner team or an elite military strike team. I was an old AD&D DM and I got into alot of trouble with trying to run Shadowrun like that as far as making challenging encounters where the PCs are just on the borderline of losing.

Of course if the players do stupid stuff like hang around target sites too long then they definitely should run into forces their equal and greater. They're asking for it, bit off moe than they could chew, or they made grevious mistakes at that point.




Orvich

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 210
« Reply #5 on: <09-30-12/2122:16> »
Hmm. Yeah, it generally feels like players should be competing not against equal opposition, but a superior system. It's not so much them against the guards, but them against the entire scenario/situation. The entire encounter should definitely be balanced reasonably against the player's level, but each actual opponent (outside of a boss encounter-type fight) should probably be significantly weaker.

Glyph

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1661
« Reply #6 on: <09-30-12/2154:10> »
In Shadowrun, numbers have a telling effect.  Large numbers of mooks that don't stay out in the open and clustered together can be a threat.  But that's also why "end of level boss"-type fights usually don't work well.  An enemy the PC's can't affect at all will simply massacre them, but one they can affect at all will typically go down in a round due to the concentrated firepower.  Single enemies should either be hunting down the PC's one at a time, or be working through minions.  And the big bads tend to be suits more than Dr. Doom-style supervillains.  Think of Marv in Sin City.  When he got to the big bad behind it all, it wasn't exactly an epic fight.  It was getting there that was a challenge.