Most published scenarios have taken this into account for quite awhile now, though. I don’t view monsters in other rooms coming to check out sounds of battle in quite the same way as the waves you’re talking about.

Thinking about larger encounters in terms of waves involves meta-consideration of the game in a different way. The more I think about this idea, the more I’m digging it.

I started using waves when the PCs got to higher level and challenging them became harder. Besides the meta-game reasons, I think it makes great sense in-game as well. Why would creatures (especially those trained to work together) not be attracted by combat nearby? In my early D&D playing, I always found it weird to go room to room clearing out monsters.

It’s not the same thing, but I find the similarity interesting.

It makes for interesting fights, where the PCs really have to pay attention to how their resources are going.

I don’t use waves too often in Cold Iron, but that’s a much easier game to scale I’ve found (and it demands a larger party than D&D does, so if you have extra players, you’re not doubling, your more like adding 50%).

Frank

Pedro, I use the same techniques all the time. I refer to the multiple encounters in close proximity as “waves”, since that is the way they usually play out. In most d20 this works ok. In Arcana Evolved, it works super. Sneaking is cheaper, and more characters can do it. If 8 players show, they can just fight if they want. If 4 or 5 players show, it’s usually the ones with more advanced characters. So I don’t even scale the adventure at that point.

I find that waves are nearly always more interesting fights (in any RPG). You can throw more at the party without risking a TPK. Movement matters more, and it’s easier to remember to make terrain important when reinforcements are nearby. Even when you don’t use waves, the fear that you might be keeps the party honest.

When tag teaming one often “GMs” and runs an NPC or two while the other “roves” and role plays one or more of the other NPCs. Gives the GMs a chance to play too.

In combat one GM concentrates on running the combat and book keeping while the other concentrates on being the opposition side. Makes for some very cunning enemy.

CJ: I can’t believe I left out “let the PCs play monsters” — I’ve even mentioned it before here on TT! Thanks for bringing that one up.

That’s an awesome way to deal with split parties, and with incapacitated PCs in battle. Some players might look at you funny, but most seem to be pretty gung-ho about it — and will play the monsters fairly, and with gusto.

And I’ve never tried the 2/1 encounter thing with D&D 3.x — I’ll have to give that a shot, as it sounds very useful.

Pedro: Thank you — and thanks for the link. Your expansion on my tips looks solid.

Then, these encounters happen either in quick succession, the end of the first overlaps the start of the second, or the 3rd and 4th start at the same time. You can vary creatures or use the same ones. And, it makes sense that things within a close range would react to noise in adjacent areas, especially for smart creatures or trained humanoids. It also helped with pacing, too much time between encounters let the party re-buff to maximum, while a succession of encounters forces them to be more mindful of their resources. I used this technique when the characters got to higher level. This would probably be too deadly for low-level characters.

And, as you said, you can scale these depending on the number of players. Perhaps only two of the encounters happen, or they’re separated by a round of to recooperate, etc. You just have to be careful not to make any single encounter too difficult if they’re being run as a group. And, you can’t use this strategy all of time. You need to keep the players on their toes.

Why? First, it’s just plain easier. You probably have some disparity in character level with a big group, and varying numbers of PCs per session. Take your four highest-level characters, design a normal encounter for them. Easy. Now take the remainder, and design an encounter for their average level. Usually pretty easy, as you can afford some mistakes here. (This is a weaker encounter than the first one, by definition.)

Second, you’ll force yourself to avoid a lot of the inherent problems when designing D&D encounters for large groups. You’ll have at least 2 creatures, but neither one will be an absolute killer. OTOH, you didn’t simply keep piling creatures on, making the battle that much more unwieldy. For best results, make the second encounter different creatures than the first.

Finally, it’s easy to handle the situation if some players do not show up or the party gets clever with tactics. Two guys don’t show at the last minute? Simple, drop the second encounter in most battles. (Maybe keep it in a few of the weaker ones, if you still have more than 4 players.) Party tricks the monsters into a “split”? You already know what the split might be.