Not to jump the fence or anything, but the advancement coming around to bite you on the butt is one reason why I've shied away from balanced encounters and gone more with rating foes on an absolute scale rather than one relative to the PCs.
While some people on line have accused this this makes things boring, I''ve found that not to be the case with games that give all combat a certain degree of lethality, such as BRP. For instance, in BRP, even a 8 year old with a dagger has a slim chance of taking down a swordmaster. Yes, it slight, probably about 1 in 30,000 or so, but it is there. By contrast in a game where everything is relative, such as D&D, the same 8 year old poses no threat at all to a master swordsman. She would need to hit him multiple times, and avoid being hit herself. The net effect is that anyone holding a dagger presents a certain danger level in BRP.
So you can run an adventure where experienced PCs go up against lower grade, even inept foes and it can be challenging, and maintain the needed element of risk. While four goblins don't seriously threaten a 10th level fighter, four trollkin can seriously threaten a a character with swrod at 100%, or even take down a Rune Lord.
The real key to adventures isn't what down on paper, but what is is the heads of the players. If the GM can see some baddie as the worst thing in creation, the menance will be there.
__________________
Got Puppet?
|