Across multiple Twitter posts, Facebook groups, and subreddits there is one phrase used most often in response to questions and criticisms about how many various TTRPG systems handle encounter design.
“Just Homebrew it!”
Now, while this phrase more often than not is said with nothing but good intentions, I feel as though it is a major problem that should be talked about more and tweaked, so to speak. I even had a short Twitter thread discussing encounter design in regards to my own ideas with the Hydra System, head on over and check it out!
So let's begin with a bit of a disclaimer I feel is very needed:
THIS POST IS NOT MEANT AS A “DUNK” OR TO PUT DOWN ANY SYSTEM.
The motivation for making this post is to not only share my own design philosophy, but also to encourage ways to make it easier for newer players to not only jump into the GM seat, but also feel more comfortable personalizing and customizing their own games.
Without any further ado, LETS CHAT ENCOUNTER DESIGN!
Pitfalls of “Homebrew It!”
As I mentioned earlier in my thesis statement so to speak, a common phrase said to newer GMs, and even veterans GMs as well, is that if something in the system doesn’t fit or needs work, they can “homebrew it”. This piece of advice, in my own opinion, is actually kind of detrimental.
The example I gave in my earlier cited Twitter thread was that the only time that advice can really work is when the GM already has previous experience with the system they are homebrewing for; in the thread I used an example of building a home. For many GMs with experience, they’ve built their own homes before, they know how they are built and even what to do when a problem arises to “build around it.”
Now let’s consider a brand new GM for any system under the sun. They walk onto the construction site and see a house already built. They think “Wow! I want to make one like that too!”
Even the best houses need plans
So, instead of showing the plans of how the house is built, they are given an open scrap of land, all the materials, and told to “get building!” So now, you have someone with no experience of building a house, even though they have everything they need, staring at a daunting project that they have no idea where to start. Unfortunately, many people simply walk off the job site and wont return for a long time, if ever.
Applying this example to TTRPGs, I think we all know that GMs for any system are in HIGH demand. Look at any “looking for group” post for any system and the amount of players looking for game vs GM looking for players is heavily skewed in one direction, the player looking for a GM. It is my personal opinion that these barriers to entry for newer GMs is a major reason for this imbalance.
Looking at a game like DnD 5E, the game I personally learned most of my design from, it's easy to see where the “homebrew it” advice falls short.
Challenge Rating and “Hand Waving”
Now I am going to use DnD 5E as a major example of the pitfalls I’ve discussed previously, but as I noted in the disclaimer, it is not to “dunk” on a game. DnD 5E shaped most of my early designs so I am more familiar with it and able to point out criticisms.
Let’s look at Challenge Rating, a value designed to let DMs know how difficult a certain encounter should run. Challenge Ratings can go from as low as ⅛ all the way up to 30 and beyond. The numbers often correspond to the level of the party they are going up against, however, not really much else is known as a concrete fact.
People agree that a party of all level 5 characters should be able to face down a CR 5 monster in battle. The problem is, there are so many other variables that CR actually becomes meaningless.
How are the players rolling? How are YOU rolling? Does the monster have any AoE (area of effect) abilities? What is the party composition? Can the monster fly? Does the monster use tactics? Or stand and fight to the death?
Whether through the use of flying speed or changing nature of die rolls, Manticores could be an easy or deadly fight.
Image Credits: Wizards of the Coast
The answer to every single one of these questions drastically changes the encounter. Allow me to use a better example.
I once ran a game with a Totem Path Barbarian. No matter what was thrown in front of the party, even things 3 CR ratings above their average level were utterly decimated. Fights ended quickly, the danger never amounted to anything. Tactics of the creatures didn't matter because a few well placed hits and a well timed stun from another member of the party and the monster was locked in place and massacred.
However, that same party later went up against a witch I have homebrewed based on something 2 CR rating below them. On the first turn, the witch dominated the Barbarian and hid. That fight almost TPK’d the entire party. Why? It was deemed “Easy” by all the calculators I had used during those times.
That was my biggest wake up call that CR really had little bearing on the encounter itself. There are too many variables and things that can go right or wrong for it to be a hard and fast rule to follow. Monsters with CR below the party can be incredibly difficult and those with CR above can be “cake walks”
So, now that I’ve laid out my critiques, what's the solution?
Design in Hydra
Now, this is the part where I may get a little self-indulgent given I’m using my own system as the “solution”, but I’m willing to have that discussion with those who think they can improve the process of encounter design. (Seriously, talk to me about it, I LOVE these conversations! We talk about this stuff in the WPG Discord all the time!)
My solution is two fold, encounters, specifically combat encounters, are designed by looking at two main variables, the enemy’s Rank and their Role. Within the Hydra System, there are four main Ranks to any potential enemy, there are Minions, Elites, Champions, and Legendarys. Each one of these Ranks has very specific parameters to allow newer and older GMs (Lore Keeper or LKs in the Hydra System) to easily take the bare skeleton design and customize it to their own need and setting.
The second part of this design philosophy is the Role of the combatant. Taking from DnD 4E, my personal favorite edition and I will defend it until I die, the idea of Roles of enemies always stuck with me. Now, you can easily identify what kind of enemy and what “vibe” they are going for.
Let’s go back to my earlier example about the Barbarian and the Witch. I knew the Barbarian was incredibly strong and resilient, but lacked the more “mental” based skills. I knew I needed a Controller. I needed something that could change the battlefield and turn the powerhouse Barbarian against his party.
Spring boarding off that idea, I have come up with eight main Roles that each have corresponding descriptions of *what* they do as well as what kind of stats they would be better with
Final Thoughts
I will not go on to say that I’ve “cracked the code!” or even that this is the end all be all of design, but I think it’s a start. Something I think we should all think of more often is that many systems whether intentional or not can have high barriers to entry. The goal of the Hydra system and this type of encounter design is specifically made to lower that barrier. I want people to pick up the Hydra system and instead of combing through multiple books trying to see if their idea can “fit” the established rules, I want the rules to fit *their* idea.
Hydra at its core is a narrative, story telling game. I want Lore Keepers to be able to take the system to tell the story *they* want. So yes, I’m giving them the plot of land and the building materials, but I want to also hand them a stack of blueprints and ask, “Which type of house do you want to build? They’re all here!”
As always, keep wandering!
-Mike