Why I Don't Balance Encounters

The Tomb of Horrors, by Gary Gygax

Many DMs consider balancing encounters to be an important part of adventure prep. The idea is that we want to avoid creating encounters that are too difficult for the PCs to handle, or even too many encounters that aren’t challenging enough. Both 3rd and 5th Edition DM Guides provided rules for balancing encounters and calculations for determining the difficulty of an encounter based on party members and their skills and levels, and the number and types of monsters. 5e provides challenge ratings for all monsters. Surprisingly, the Rules Cyclopedia for BECMI provides and optional system for calculating encounter difficulty and adjusting it if needed, though this is explicitly listed as an Optional task.

For the majority of my time as a DM, I did my best to provide balanced encounters, and even used the 5e rules for doing so. However, in the past few years I’ve stopped this altogether. Encounters in my games may be unbalanced and unfair. This article explains why this has been a positive change for our table, and what happens instead.

Consequences of Balanced Encounters

Since 3rd edition, D&D has had a much greater focus on combat skills and rules. Skills, feats and combat options are now primary differentiators between different characters of the same class. Leveling up places a lot of emphasis on becoming better at combat. It has also shifted the focus of gaining XP to defeating enemies in combat, where previously it was obtaining treasure. To put it simply, combat has become more central to D&D gameplay since 3rd edition, which means being victorious in combat encounters is more central as well.

Balanced encounters adds to this. All together, I believe this has the following consequences in gameplay and player focus:

• Defeating monsters in combat is essential for leveling up
• The point of leveling up is getting better at defeating monsters in combat
• Leveling up means you get to fight bigger, more interesting monsters
• Encounters with monsters are for the purposes of combat and getting XP
• Since defeating monsters is how you get XP, they must be fights to the death
• Because they are balanced, Combat encounters should be winnable, even if a little dangerous

Ultimately, I think this leads to players assuming most encounters are for combat, that they should be undertaken as such, and that they are fights to the death for the sake of gaining XP. I think this is part of what leads players to Min/Maxing and focusing on how great their character is in combat.

The Old School Primer

In 2008 Matt Finch, author of Swords and Wizardry and co-author of OSRIC (both retro-clones from the early OSR movement), published the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming, or “Old School Primer”. You can obtain this for free with a quick search. In it, he describes four “Zen Moments” that distinguish the old school style from modern D&D.

The Fourth Zen Moment is “Forget Game Balance”.

“The old-style campaign is a fantasy world, with all its perils, contradictions, and surprises: it’s not a “game setting” which somehow always produces challenges of just the right difficulty for the party’s level of experience. The party has no “right” only to encounter monsters they can defeat, no “right” only to encounter traps they can disarm…”

I bring this up for a few reasons. First, this was the primary motivator for me deciding not to worry about balancing encounters. A few years ago I embraced the old school style, much of which is captured by the Old School Primer.

Second, this makes a good point. The real world doesn’t play fair, so there’s no reason that the fantasy world should either. Not only that, but a fantasy world is perhaps even more dangerous, especially for adventurers. Unfairness permeates our world, and the worlds of literature, fantasy and film. So why shouldn’t that also be the case with TTRPGs? Unfairness actually adds an element of verisimilitude, and as I will argue, provides many more narrative possibilities.

I’m also not saying that I think old school gaming is inherently better, but I think it’s important to know that it does influence my take on this subject. I think it is possible to take this same or similar approach in Pathfinder or 5e if you want, and that it would have the same effects.

The Alternatives to Balance

So if you don’t balance encounters, doesn’t that mean that the party risks death around every corner and a TPK in any given session? Wouldn’t that feel terribly unfair and reduce the enjoyment of the game? What are players supposed to do if they come across an encounter they can’t win? Just fight until they die in frustration? That would suck, right?

Well, maybe. If every encounter is for combat, to the death, for the XP needed to advance. But if we rethink a few of these, things change. What follows is what I do instead of balancing encounters, and it has multiple positive effects.

Ok, So Technically…

… I do balance encounters. To a point.

What I don’t do is calculate party levels, XP levels, challenge ratings, hit dice totals, party size adjustments, monster special abilities or anything that complex. I want nothing to do with any of that.

The only way I do balance encounters is to not place my Level 1 characters against a Tarrasque, or my Level 3 characters against a coven of hags, or level 10 characters against 3 kobolds. In general, I do tend to put a little thought into encounters, because I don’t want to have any truly unwinnable situations.

Although, here me out… imagine a party of level 1 adventurers, right out of the tavern starting off on their first adventure, and the very first thing they encounter is… an Ancient Red Dragon. I feel like in this situation, most players, unless they are completely new and uninformed, would immediately start looking for ways out of this situation. It could actually be quite fun just to see what happens.

Overall, I do put some cursory thought into the monsters that players face that are most likely to be combat encounters. Many players love combat and find battles very rewarding. There should be opportunity for this, so I do tend to make sure there are enough to satisfy. But I don’t spend much time or effort here. Adventuring is dangerous and my players know it. Speaking of which…

Inform the Players

A very important part that should not be neglected is to let players know if your game will run this way. This is perfect material for Session 0, and it is what I now tell any players who are new to my games. I simply tell them that it’s a dangerous world and not all of the encounters are going to be balanced, fair or winnable. I tell them that part of their task is to evaluate situtions and to determine whether or not combat is necessary or winnable.

I also let them know about Reaction rolls and Morale checks (I’ll get to those shortly). This lets players know to be aware that encounters may go a variety of different ways, and not to draw the sword on first sight.

Forecast Danger

I like to do this with a lot of encounters, but I think it is particularly important for dangerous ones. Give the players signs and evidence of the danger ahead and what the monster is capable of. Let them see shriveled corpses, catatonic NPCs, an ogre torn to shreads, an owlbear with a huge bite out of it, walls with holes eaten away by acid, smells, sounds and countless other tells.

Another great way of forecasting danger is to allow the players to witness what the monster can do. Think of the filem Aliens, when (SPOILER ALERT) the Queen easily rips Bishop into pieces with her hands. Ripley knows immediately that the same could be done to her, just as easily. Not only is this a gruesome and memorable way to introduce the enemy, it adds more tension. You don’t have to use a “Fear” mechanic in the game if your players legitimately fear what they are up against.

Reaction Rolls

Not all encounters need to be combat, nor should they be. Just because you run into a band of orcs doesn’t mean it’s always an immediate fight to the death. Not everything you come across is prepared, ready or eager to engage in mortal combat. Old school D&D provides a tidy way to handle this as part of its normal encounter rules: the Reaction Roll. While reaction rolls may not apply to every encounter, you may be surprised at just how useful they are. The DM may decide when and when not use use reaction rolls.

While reaction roll rules differ slightly between BX, BECMI, AD&D and 2e, the overal gist is the same: when players encounter a monster, there may be an opportunity for a Reaction roll that determines how the other party reacts to the players’ presence. The result may be immediate hostility, aggression, confusion or neutral, favorable or avoidance, or even immediate friendship and cooperation. This especially helps with random encounters or wandering monsters.

For example: in one recent adventure I rolled a single orc as a random encounter, and the Reaction roll was favorable. I role played this as the orc hiding, but obviously wanting to be seen. The players then treated this orc differently, and proceeded to try to communicate with him. I wasn’t expecting this, but I played along and allowed the orc to reveal that his companions had recently been slaughtered by the same band of bad guys that the players were pursuing. They proceeded to teach the orc some rudimetary words in Common, and gave him a weapon. They named him and allowed him to accompany the party.

I did not plan this, and it was all totally random, including the Reaction. This orc is now a beloved member of the party, and some of the party members are as protective of him as they are themselves.

Reaction rolls mean that even a potentially lethal encounter may not result in combat. You can get delightfully suprising results that even the DM does not expect.

5e has no rules for Reaction rolls, but it would be really easy to just pick your favorite table from the old school rules and go with it. It shouldn’t impact anything at all in your game.

Morale Checks

Living, breathing beings want to survive, even goblins, orcs and bugbears. At some point, when an intelligent being feels that its life is threatened, it will cease fighting and simply try to flee from danger, rather than keep fighting to a certain death.

The second old school rule that contributes to the resolution of unbalanced encounters is the Morale check. This is one that is part of 5e rules, though an optional one in the back of the DM’s guide. However, Morale is a key element of monster stat blocks (usually labeled “ML”) in old school D&D. The Morale of a monster dictates how likely this creature is to fight to the death. Every creature has a Morale number with a maximum of 12. Morale checks involve rolling 2d6, and if the number is greater than the creature’s Morale number, they will attempt to flee. In other words, the greater the morale number, the more likely the creature is to continue fighting. A ML of 12 means a creature will never flee and will fight to the death. In 5e, it is a DC 10 Wisdom check.

Morale checks are made at particular points in the encounter, or whenever the DM decides. For example, a Morale check can be made when the first enemy is killed, when half the enemies are killed, when the leader is killed, a spectacular spell or fighter attack succeeds (such as a Crit).

This means that players don’t necessarily need to kill monsters to be victorious in the encounter. This adds yet another element of verisimilitude and decreases the chances that players will be destroyed in an unbalanced encounter. Will that Adult Red Dragon really be willing to risk its life if it is reduced to half hit points in just a couple of rounds? Nope. It’s going to breath some flame and get the hell away at all costs.

Morale checks also add to narrative elements. If a party flees, will it retreat to safety and never be seen again? Come back with reinforcements or greater numbers? Inadvertently lead the players through the maze? Remember the players as a worthy adversary and opponent? The players don’t know, and perhaps the DM doesn’t either (initially).

Player Strategy

In addition to Morale checks that may result in the enemies fleeing or retreating, the players may simply opt to do the same thing. If players realize that they are outmatched, then retreat may not only be the best way to survive and “win” the encounter, it may actually be fun.

One of the most memorable moments of the Lord of the Rings is when the Fellowship must flee from the Balrog. They didn’t stay to fight it, nor did it destroy them. The adventure itself was in the tension of getting away from this lethal adversary in perilous circumstances, with crumbling staircases and arrows nearly missing. This type of scene is not even possible if the party does not fear the opponent and try to run.

Players have several other options if they realize they are outmatched, many of which rely on non-combat skills.

• Bargaining and Compromising
• Bribing
• Lying/bluffing
• Stalling
• Sneaking
• Distracting
• Befriending

These are all fantastic roleplaying opportunities that also lend marvelous narrative elements that neither the players nor the DM were planning for, and simply do not happen when it is assumed that combat is always to the death.

Another important player option here is combat strategy. In a combat encounter that is unfair against the players, one of their jobs should be to turn the tide in their favor or at least mitigate the advantage that the opposition has.

The Old School Primer suggests that players:

1. Use the environment to their advantage, including other rooms and areas
2. Sneak past weaker enemies by scouting ahead
3. Don’t assume you can defeat everything you can encounter
4. Keep a good map
5. Ask lots of questions, especially about the environment
6. Protect magic users
7. Pay some hirelings
8. Get information from the grizzled old veteran in the tavern

This adds strategic elements to encounters that exist independent of combat, combat abilities and feats, skills and level. Players can make interesting plans that involve a variety of non-combat skills, and that may result in a variety of interesting and unexpected outcomes.

DM Options

In a similar vein as Morale checks, a DM may be able to guage when a combat encounter is too much for players and alter the plan in a variety of ways. This doesn’t mean that the DM should always change things to avoid player death, but in the circumstances where it makes sense, the DM may opt to role play the adversary. Such options include:

• Take one or more players prisoner (can lead to a great rescue or escape adventure)
• Offering to let the players survive if they perform a task, or give up something valuable
• Teleport away after stating that the players aren’t worth the effort
• Directing weaker underlings to take over while walking away arrogantly
• Subduing the party with a disabling spell that doesn’t kill, then exiting
• Threatening one character with death and asking the party to surrender

There are so many options here, and for the larger, more significant planned encounters, the DM may even be able to plan ahead for these. But even for a tough random encounter, this isn’t terribly difficult to improv.

The Benefits of Unbalanced Encounters

Taking a minimal approach to balancing encounters has a number of benefits.

Less prep for the DM - preparing an adventure is a lot faster when you don’t worry much about encounter balance.

Greater Monster Variety - since not every encounter needs to be a balanced fight to the death, the DM has a much larger pool of monsters to use in an adventure.

Verisimilitude - it’s simply not realistic that encounters just happen to be the right difficulty level commensurate to the power of the party.

Greater Player Freedom - this opens a lot of options for players to take in encounters other than trying to fight to the death. Players are also free to explore areas in whatever order they please, which makes it a lot easier to run sandbox type adventures.

Adds Strategy - combat encounters often result in very similar sequences playing out. Players immediately go to their Old Reliable actions and it’s a matter of depleting hit points. Unbalanced encounters require players to think more strategically, whether it is to try to turn the tide in their favor, sneak past or even how to flee from a particularly dangerous foe.

Greater Narrative Variety - the various ways of handling encounters, whether it be Reaction rolls, Morale checks, and alternatives to fighting mean that encounters can play out in a lot more ways then just whether or not the players killed all the enemies and moved to the next room.

Greater Tension - I want there to be a sense of danger, without there also being a feeling that you could easily die without having much say. Unbalanced encounters add to the tension and sense of danger, but being aware of the variety of ways to avoid or get out of bad situations means that encounters don’t have to be life or death.

The Occasional Curbstomp or Moral Dilemma - let’s be honest, absolutely rolling over an enemy party can be just the sort of catharsis a player needs at the end of a difficult week. So let’s not forget having some unbalanced encounters in the favor of the Players. On the other hand, will you really feel good about fireballing that nest of owlbear cubs?

So next time you prepare an adventure, try this approach and see how it goes. Just don’t forget to let your players know!