Making balanced combat encounters

So as a new ST, I find I'm having some trouble with this.

In certain cases, I want there to be a realistic threat of character death, while still giving the PCs a fighting chance. This means an enemy/enemies that are a pretty even match for the PC's.
In D&D, there was the Challenge Rating system, which gave a DM at least an estimate of how a monster will hold up against the party. Here, it seems it's not so easy. So what do you guys do? How do you gauge what will be an even match in combat?
Is adding up total XP the only real power level scale?

Doom-Bots

I always do my honest best to create an antagonist that fits the role I want it to fill, I have copies of the character sheets for the players, I know what capabilities the characters have, I know the players well enough to have a pretty decent grasp of what they tend to do if threatened... So I run numbers that I strongly suspect will provide the level of chellenge I am aiming for (someplace between pushover and invincible).

Can't always determine the outcome perfectly though. The dice can provide results that fall outside of the predicted range, the players can get rather creative in ways that throw the encounter into a completely new arena of play... plans and predicted results rarely survive contact with the players.

So I use Doom-Bots. In Marvel Comics, if Doctor Doom ever appeared to lose against the heroes, smoke would start pouring out of his eyes, a spring would ricochet around the room and it'd turn out that it wasn't really Doom at all, just a robotic replica. Or a clone. Or a small child in a Doom-Suit. If the players destroy my ultimate bad-ass too easily for the purposes of the story- then it somehow wasn't really what they thought it was at all. It wasn't really the badguy they thought it was... it wasn't even really a fight... the badguy was itself just a puppet for some bigger, badder enemy... after they beat the first one, a door bursts open and eight more that appear perfectly identical to the first come rushing in...

Only if whatever victory they had was too easy though. If they earn it after as much effort as I had thought it would take, then they earned it and any Doom-Botting is a result of planning rather than a spur of the moment addition to keep things rolling along at the proper level of suspense and drama.

And if an antagonist wins too easily, Doom-Bot is still the appropriate solution. Their destruction would be too simple a victory. They must be made to suffer some debasement and understand just how insignificant they are next to the perfection represented by their new master/overlord/ruler/deity. Antagonists can reject wins as being too easy, leave them knowing they were beaten and promise to come back and destroy them again some other time when they might provide a worthier challenge. Make some demand of them in exchange for their life, shoving them into a new direction as they interact with the setting. Or just imprison them as trophies, giving them a later opportunity to break free and attack their enemy from inside it's own stronghold (where, after they defeat that enemy, it'll probably turn out to be a dooombot).

The descriptions above probably seem a bit cheesy. They are, right until you dress them up to fit the moods and themes of your game, rather than the moods and themes of a comic book that was published in the sixties. Put the right spin on the whole thing, shine the bullshit you've started slinging up with some nice descriptions and some insinuations of deeper meaning or plot twists (that may not have existed when you started the session, but hey) and it can keep a game rolling when things turned wildly away from what you had planned.

I use the stratagy of "wing it" when it comes to balencing combat encounters on the fly. Meaning, I only have stats written up for big baddies who are smart enough to stay away from the PCs. Anytime my antaganists (in combat, or any other action really) aren't pulling their weight, I boost their dice pool by a few. If they're murdering the PC too quickly, I'll reduce the dice pool and play off that round as a lucky shot or tactical advantage. Instead of stats, each generic opponent gets an average dice pool.

For instance, a security officer in my games would have about strength 3 and dex 2-3. He's got firearms training, so probably 1-4 here. Finally, he's using a +2 handgun. Figure out what the dice pool adds up to be, 5-9 here. Then take some number between them to use as his base attack pool, let's say 7. Now let's say this guy is getting beat up by some PCs a bit too easilly. I'll just move his dice pool to 7 or 10 (my players are used to me using "limit-break" style dice boosts, but it can be explained any number of ways). The easiest way to pull this off is to not give your players any information on the actual numbers their antagonists have. Describe them as agile or frail, but don't say he has 2 dex or 4 stamina.

First and foremost, know what your player's are working with when it comes to combat and/or situations in general. My storyteller was having a tough time keeping track of our important stats, disciplines, defense, etc so I made a PC Tracking Sheet from one of Mr. Gone's existing sheets (with his permission, of course) to help out. My ST runs a four-person game, so that's what its setup for.

http://feuros.com/WoD/VtR/PC%20Sheet.pdf

When it comes to combat, page 154 of the WoD (black book) is your friend. Not only is it an easy quick reference for combat starting with initiative, it goes on to list just about every possible dice pool modifier you could think of; aiming, called shots, ducking behind cover, grappling, auto-fire, all-out attacks, etc. The only thing it doesn't mention is the -1 defense for each attacker beyond the first, which, if you're running a game with 4-6 players and a single bag guy, can be very, very bad for your NPC. It could just so happen that the group's sword wielding grand master goes last in the combat order and experiences no defense penalty to his Strength + Vigor + Weaponry + Sword Damage... he may need to ask for more dice.

I never even worry about balancing combat encounters in the NWOD to be honest.  But I also am a firm believer of "fighting to the death is stupid," and even have enemies in D&D run if they are being overwhelmed.  Basically if the PCs are being overwhelmed and don't run for it they sort of deserve the smackdown they get.

Amen

I think it's worth noting, that as other have said, combat is a bit different in WoD then in other systems. Remember that a large focus of the game is the Story, not necessarily the combat, and there is a difference there. If you're looking to change that, there are a number of small tweaks and hacks you can implement, but it's definitely a custom interpretation.

I do have some generalized advice:

If you're dead set on the PCs getting into a fight, groups work better. There's alot of reasons for this, but the easiest way to explain it is that lone antagonists tend to have large attack pools (that is large brawl, weaponry, and/or firearms) which lends it's self to fights in which people die or take alot of damage.

How your antagonist(s) fight is important. An antagonist that has a dice pool of 3-5 after defense  and only deals bludgeoning sets a different tone then an antagonist that has 9+ dice and deals aggravated. Both may intend to actually kill the PC's if they knock the player unconscious, but one is capable of literally tearing the PC's reproductive organs off  and showing them to the PC before they meet final death.

Deimos_Masque:

I never even worry about balancing combat encounters in the NWOD to be honest

This.

However, I do have a rough mechanical scale mostly because this question has been asked a few times.

For a two sided fight:

Step 1:
Determine the total attack pool, defense and health of each side.  Don't worry about damage type, fancy moves or single turn powers, but do put in things like Vigor.

Step 2:
(total attack pool-total enemy defense)/3.  Then divide total enemy health by that number.

Step 3:
Compare the results in step 2.  The lower of the two is the one most likely to win.  The closer the two values are, the closer the fight will be and the more banged up the winning side will be.  This number, basically, represents the turning point in the fight where even if the losing side hasn't been soundly beaten, running away is probably a better option than sticking around, because the odds are only going to get worse for them.

Reminder:
This is, basically, an exceedingly rough estimate based on stupid tactics in a white room environment.  The idea is to get a baseline comparison between each side's raw capacity.  A side's use of smart tactics and powers can either create an 'upset' or see them squash what looked like a decent challenge with ease.  That part is hard to quantify.

Nomah:

In D&D, there was the Challenge Rating system, which gave a DM at least an estimate of how a monster will hold up against the party.

I think I remember in the original D&D, or maybe the original AD&D (its been a while), there was a section titled: "Encounter Balance (Optional)."

That's always amused me, but in truth, its sort of the attitude for world of darkness games.  Don't worry, I'll explain.

Nomah:

In certain cases, I want there to be a realistic threat of character death, while still giving the PCs a fighting chance. This means an enemy/enemies that are a pretty even match for the PC's.

This is not really a paradigm well supported by the "standard" game model (though with some "hacks" and advice from the armory books, you can manage a good beat-'em-up game). 

Now, by that, I mean you appear to be creating scenarios in which a fight is inevitable, and the only choice is to kill or die (if this is not the case, well, IGNORE ME).  In D&D, this is perfectly acceptable, even expected, since for many campaigns (though certainly not all), people really just want to play a series of tactical combats strung together by a vague story with cool loot rewards.  I, for one, have learned to not even bat an eye when mercenaries fight to the death, since otherwise, they'd need to have extra HPs set aside for running away with, or they wouldn't be fully living up to their CR/4e Level.

In the world of darkness, rarely would this be the case.  And even if you plan on someone attacking the players, they are generally far, far better equipped to avoid the fight altogether than you'd ever expect.  What with using Celerity to run the hell away (or running to a convenient sniping spot, if you're a jerk), Dominate 1 (Submit!), a Majesty backed plea, Nightmare, or using Protean to meld into the ground/scare them away with the threat of pain-in-the-ass-to-heal aggravated damage/fly away as a bat/turn into mist, you're only going to get an actual fight if the players want to fight.

What that means is that they should only want to fight if they can expect to win.  Thus, there are only two circumstances in which they'll actually fight someone they can't beat.  1) You accidentally manage to make a fight so overpowered that they all torp before they have a chance to assess the situation (trust me, this would be very, very difficult) or 2) They foolishly underestimate the threat posed by their opponent and refuse to avoid the fight (in which case, they deserve it).

What does all this mean?  Fights in a realistic world should be organic and combatants should be exactly as capable as it seems like they realistically would be.  A housewife who never took a self-defense class will probably have 1 die (Str 2 Brawl 0) in a fist fight regardless of how much XP the players have.  A vampire who spent 100 years training himself to be the ultimate martial arist should probably have 5 Brawl and 4 or 5 Strength (not to mention Vigor and a bunch of fighting style merits), again regardless of when in their careers the players choose to (try to) pound on him.

Anyway, I come from the "winging it" school of STing, so I never plan anything, especially not stats for NPCs.  I just use averages.  If someone has a base level of professionalism, I tend to give them 4 dice (2 stat, 2 skill).  Sometimes, I'll vary it up to 5 dice if I think the thug is especially strong or the lab tech especially smart, etc.  Oh, and 2 defense either way.  Average veterans in the field get 6 dice (3 stat, 3 skill), though usually still 2 defense unless I consider their field to be one where Wits and Dex are both applicable.  Elite-types I'll give 8 dice and 3-4 defense.  10 dice I reserve for obsessed masters. When we're talking vampires, I'll give anyone with Vigor as a clan/bloodline discipline an extra 1-4 dice in close combat depending on age/interest.  I tend to assume that most people have 2 Stamina (thus 7 Health), while your average thug has 3 and tough-type elites will get 4.  I consider all ghouls to have one more stamina than I otherwise would give them, since they are the only people who get serious benefit from the stat (it determines how much blood they can carry).

In general, I'd say one enemy per character is a good number.  Some players will be able to handle more than one and some less, so it'll usually balance out.  Despite the sense it makes in tactical combat games, resist the urge to focus fire on players, because that's pretty much not fun at all.  Remember that in wod, pretty heavy favoritism is paid to offense, so nobody lasts long when the willpower/blood/all-out attacks start flying.  Oh, and multiple attackers are even more brutal, so uneven numbers lead to very lopsided fights.  Someone with all 5s vs. five people with all 2s is going lose (but he'll probably take out one or two beforehand if he doesn't run).  Just remember never to force the fight.  All but frenzying vampires, crazed junkies (ghouls included), and those protecting loved ones have some sense of self-preservation, so people who are into wound penalties should probably try and escape or surrender, unless they really truly think they can win in one more swing.

If you lose control of the situation and something bad happens and you don't think the players deserve the whooping they're getting, just start rolling less dice, or calling less successes.  You don't have to answer to anyone, you're the ST.  Just don't call attention to your pulled punches or the victory will feel hollow.  And, again, encourage players to escape or surrender if they're losing.  They're probably better able to do it than they think they are.  Even Resilience helps with foot chases, so there's virtually no way they could spend those 3 initial discipline dots in a way that gives them no escapes (Besides Auspex 3, but they should be able to see the fight coming).

So, in response to your responses, first a disclaimer…

I do realize the place combat has in WoD games. Coming from D&D, I am more used to that game’s typical dynamic, but this is one of the things that I like about WoD – the chance to get away from that and have a game that’s less combat-focused. But even in the WoD, combat is bound to happen sometimes. Having a good way to handle it when it’s appropriate is what I’m looking for.

 

And now commenting on the points that have been made…

 

1 – Winging it (like assuming 2 dots for attributes, 1-2 for skills, and varying it as needed from this baseline).  This is very helpful and I definitely do this for certain cases. For nameless thugs and the like, this is the method I use. There are cases, however, where I want to fully flesh out an NPC, and it’s for this case that I need a good system.

 

2 -  the Doom-bots. This is definitely a useful method for if I make a mistake as an ST (if I do end up over/underestimating the players’ power level). What I’m looking for is a way to prevent this from being needed.

 

3 – adjusting stats on the fly (like a feedback control system for combat), adding dice if it’s looking too easy, subtracting dice if it’s looking to hard. This is something I have had to do, again because I didn’t estimate power levels well.

This is effective in making it a good fight, but there is one fundamental problem with this – it relies on the outcome of the fight being pre-determined. I might use this if for the sake of the story, for example, I want the NPC to put up a good fight, and maybe put someone in torpor before finally being taken out. With this method I can guide the battle as it goes to reach this end.

 

I mentioned that one of my goals is to be able to have character death be a realistic threat for the players. Option #3 then presents some problems with that because it relies on the outcome being (mostly) pre-determined. If I were to kill a character, I wouldn’t feel right about it if that outcome was already decided. On the other hand, if the pre-determined outcome is that the players win, the players will get used to me pulling punches if they are outmatched (“we don’t have to worry, I don’t think the ST would kill us right now”). They won’t really see character death as a threat because they’ve gotten used to a ‘safety net’,

 

Ideally I would like to be able to somewhat accurately estimate power levels so that I can create an adversary, then turn him loose and ‘remove the safety net’. That way, if they get themselves in over their heads, they won’t assume the ST will tone it down to save them (and maybe they’ll be more careful in the future).

 

 

All that being said, Zeev, the system you described is the type of thing I’m looking for. An easy way to look at character/NPC stats and roughly estimate relative power levels. I haven’t playtested it yet, but I plan on giving it a try, so I’ll let you know how it goes.

Anyone else who has similar ‘rules of thumb’ I’d like to hear what works for you.

 

And thanks for the help!

Interestingly, I played a game yesterday where the coterie of 4 were getting their asses handed to them by 1 powerful ghoulish vamp (never found out what type, Gangrel I guess). We were all badly wounded with a couple close to torpor & I wisely called out "run away!".
The GM didn't let us get out and proceeded to claw one PC well into Agg torpor, then once he saw the result completely retconned that so the -now mad- ghoulish vamp attacked someone else so the PC wouldn't be too close to death.
Why?
"Because I'm not a killer GM."
Man, that left a bad taste in my mouth. So, no reason to track damage, or replenish blood or anything! Whee! Sit back & watch the trainwreck stay on the rails. Blah.
Oh, the best part? We knew there was an awake vampire in an iron coffin with massive steel chains & locks. Instead of letting us go and get some useful tools (like cutting torches or even lockpicks) he ruled we bashed the coffin in so the vamp out get out.
Hrmmm. Riiiiight. Blah again.
Anyway, sorry to rant. But yeah, 4 newbies vs 1 Gangrel-ish elder with Vigour & Celerity out the wazoo? Not balanced at all.

...

Castille:

well into Agg torpor

...

What is this?

... OK, I could be suffering from OWoD legacy here, but I thought that if a vamp had a health track completely full of Lethal damage & some was Agg(ravated) damage, he was in torpor?
*Goes & digs out book again*

Castille:

... OK, I could be suffering from OWoD legacy here, but I thought that if a vamp had a health track completely full of Lethal damage & some was Agg(ravated) damage, he was in torpor?
*Goes & digs out book again*

Calling it an Agg torpor is very misleading.  He's torpored not because of the aggravated damage, but because of the fact that he's full of (at least) lethal damage.  If he was full of aggravated, he'd be dust.

Also, don't be afraid of Gangrel.  Be afraid of Vigor (which normal Gangrel don't really even have normal access to).

Yeah, sorry, heh.
I tend to shortcut what I am saying, which does get misleading! It was meant to be "in torpor with a lot of Aggravated damage."

Not that the torpor was a problem, hey it's a learning process for all newbies, and getting into a fight is always a gamble in NWoD, which I enjoy. It's just the bad-guy-suddenly-not-fighting-intelligently-because-I-don't-want-PCs-to-die gank that soured it for me.