[GM/Rules] Slaughter Margin >> How Useful Is This As a Metric?

ynnen wrote:However, I have a personal aversion to simply dodging design responsibilities by leaving too much up to GM fiat

While this is true for everyone, *too much* can range from 'almost everything' to 'nearly nothing' and it's one of the most important differences between games systems. I would say that D&D needs CR because it is that sort of game, as much as WFRP doesn't need SM, coz it's that sort of game.

monkeylite wrote:..I would say that D&D needs CR because it is that sort of game, as much as WFRP doesn't need SM, coz it's that sort of game.

I agree with the spirit of this statement, that's for sure...

The thing is, even in D&D, Encounter design is an Art not a Science.

You would be better of with a nice chapter trying to teach beginning, (Or not so beginning,) GMs how to balance and encounter and make it fun, than trying to codify the uncodifyable. (This may not be a an actual English word.)

To move forward to 4th Ed, what they seem to be doing there is moving away from the old idea of "this Big monster can fight a party of 4" to "This monster is good at leading troops, put him in charge of ten mooks".

Perhaps that is a better way of dealing with Slaughter Margin, like in Tome of Corruption put in four or five lines about how and when the monster should be used.

jadrax wrote:trying to codify the uncodifyable. (This may not be a an actual English word.)

Make it "uncodifiable" and I'll pass it through!

jadrax wrote:You would be better of with a nice chapter trying to teach beginning, (Or not so beginning,) GMs how to balance and encounter and make it fun, than trying to codify the uncodifyable.

This leads to one of my other aspirations for the game -- to better equip the GM to run the game by offering more details, more descriptions, more examples of using the rules in actual play... And this doesn't have to clutter or complicate things... just create a more consistent way to present information for optimum utility.

I think the current core rulebook's greatest weakness is lack of GM support for applying the rules -- the skill system is a prime example, with few if any examples of skills in play, no details on extended skill resolution, failure to include any sort of details for applying Degrees of Success to arbitrating results, etc.

ynnen wrote:I think the current core rulebook's greatest weakness is lack of GM support for applying the rules -- the skill system is a prime example, with few if any examples of skills in play, no details on extended skill resolution, failure to include any sort of details for applying Degrees of Success to arbitrating results, etc.

Agreed (no big surprise there). When v2 was written, it would've been difficult to add this stuff because the new system was still finding its legs. But with 3 years of play experience under our belts, we're now well-positioned to polish up the rough edges.

monkeylite wrote:
If it is a well balanced encounter with a fair fight, then that's a good thing too. But I don't see how the GM is obliged to supply such a thing every time. In fact, I think the game would lose something if the PCs went into encounters expecting them to be fair fights.

Bingo !
That's why D&D often turns out to be combat centered. The players know the game is designed to give them a fighting chance. So usually, after a few lame attempts at diplomacy, they draw steel.
I'm talking the regular D&D campaign here. Individual GMs can use D&D without all that game balance stuff.
But in effect, badly balanced encounters in D&D either result in a total party kill of are so easy they're boring.

That's not the case in WFRP. Easy encounters are fun to give out once and while, and supposedly easy encounters often turn out ugly in the end... UF tends to mess things up in WFRP. Both ways.
I've played WFRP since v1, have never used a balancing technique (other than GM flair and fiat). It has worked super so far. FPs also help alleviate the disrupting effect of PC deaths. Losing a FP for a player is BIG, but it doesn't screw up the story.

One Horse Town wrote:Slaughter margin was a useful metric for my rather controversial Random treasure tables. As a combat guide, i would say it is only superficially useful. Then again, WFRP was never about the fairness, was it?

Well, its not as 'fair' as certiain other games, but its a lot more fair (balanced) than it was in the ancient past (v1).