D&D 4E 4e Encounter Design... Why does it or doesn't it work for you?

Neonchameleon · Nov 21, 2012

Quickleaf said:
Tony, I run a great game of 4e, and I totally get what you're saying here. My point was that folks like you, me, @pemerton , and others are pretty awesome DMs - we tend to have experience DMing across editions and have been playing around with 4e quite a bit. It's not that 4e CAN'T do these things (eg. quick trivial combats), on the contrary I think the system is quite versatile...it's that the *presentation* of the game tends to pigeon-hole less experienced/adaptive DMs.

Don't assume that all DMs who run 4e are hyper-experienced. I'm not (my only experience DMing 3.X consisted of a Kobold deathtrap dungeon I'd put together). And at my local groups there's always a problem for 4e that there are too many DMs and most run pretty reasonable games. I've never played at a 4e table where over half the table wasn't either running a campaign, had run one, or was about to start one. If anything I think 4e is easier for new DMs than for people used to previous editions of D&D.

And yes, the breadth ofthe advice needs work.

AbdulAlhazred · Nov 21, 2012

Manbearcat said:
A lack of candid, philosophical explanations in the beginning texts (particularly for those who have not been exposed to alternate rule-sets) + something else. I've said it in a few places. The largest hurdle I've seen for people running Skill Challenges is the predisposition of one of two (or a hybrid of both) mental frameworks/table agendas:

Gamist - "Skill Challenges are nothing more than the practice in dice rolling." They look at the construct from an optimization standpoint (what are my best Skills...yeah, I'll use those) and the GM caters to it by not facilitating otherwise.

Simulationist - "Skill Challenges are just complex Skill Checks." They hold that the result of each check should be a binary pass/fail interpretation that follows rigidly from coupled "cause and effect, PC internal-locus-of-control logic."

The most functional mental framework through which to run dynamic, fulfilling Skill Challenges is a hybrid of High Concept Sim (genre emulation be it Indiana Jones, Die Hard, Star Wars, Comic Books, LotR, what have you) + Narrative/Story Now agenda (Fiction First, Genre Logic interpretation of checks).

It seems that a decent chunk of D&D players have come from a mental framework/table agenda that is something of a hybrid of Gamist/Simulation. It logically follows that from that would emanate dry, boring, sameness, exercise in die rolling, jarring, nonsensical results and accompanying opinions.

I think (having been there in the early days) that gameist and simulationist were the only sort of terms which we KNEW ABOUT back then. Nobody really conceived of a narrative/story telling sort of agenda. It was a game, pure and simple. Sometimes we played "Africa Corps" and sometimes we played D&D. The considerations were conceived of basically to make the game as realistic as was possible within the confines of being playable.

The point is that's D&D's DNA. That's where a lot of people come from. That's what BECMI and 1e AD&D are entirely built around. There was barely starting to be a consciousness about story and tone and things when 1e appeared, and it wasn't until 2e, 12 years later, that it really started to shape the game at all. Even then it was purely a presentation thing. Even 3e is still largely built around those 2 factors.

It is not REALLY a big wonder that the D&D Community has a big issue trying to wrap its head around 4e. Especially the parts of it that do actually dip a toe into foreign waters.

Obryn · Nov 21, 2012

Starfox said:
I get feeling of purism here - "either like all of 4E, or drop dead". That is bad for discussion. Don't get me wrong. I may appear very anti 4E here, but that's because only my anti-4E statements get challenged and need to be defended. In other venues I get talked down because I am not bashing 4E "hard enough".

I think you've just discovered the nature of conversation and people disagreeing with you on some points.

I think you're misinterpreting motivations, though - it's simply that some 4e fans disagree with you on where the game's weak points are, not disagree that there are any weak points at all.

For what it's worth, I agree that 4e doesn't lend itself well at all to quick-hit encounters. It's one of the things I dig 1e out for, here and there.

And I think it's understandable to be baffled by skill challenges or to do them poorly. The DMG1 was absolutely ridiculously bad at explaining the context and procedures, and gave some outright bad advice. Nevertheless, I've been able to rescue the concept and use them very, very productively in my own games. It's true the concept is old - but the framework and mathematical underpinnings are new.

-O

Balesir · Nov 21, 2012

Storminator said:
This is my biggest problem with the system. I haven't found a satisfactory answer yet.

I use inherent bonuses. I also have a house rule that inherent bonuses do 1d6 per plus on a crit. Then I give the PCs each 3 magic items (L-1, L, and L+1) that they can swap out when they level.

I then give out treasure that is more meaningful and interesting (at least to me . . . ).

It's still unsatisfying. But at least the problem is players complaining that there's no interesting magic items for them to choose instead of them complaining that I gave them crappy items.

The approach to this I would suggest, for what it's worth, is to give out money/chosen items as basic treasure and let the players use it as a shared, party design resource. Then use artifacts (as defined in 4E - they are not just "high level magic items" and are worth studying in their own right) as the "interesting plot-related items, McGuffins, cool toys with hidden powers and other such stuff that got mixed into magical items in previous editions. In 4E the two functions of "magical gear" are separated in what I think is an extremely functional way.

LostSoul · Nov 21, 2012

Starfox said:
We tried this. We really did. But it was simply impossible to keep dramatic tension up with so many die rolls and no decisions to make except "what skill to roll next".

I think this relates to my comment about player agency:

Let's say that the PCs are in a dungeon. They want to get to where the loot is hidden without attracting attention. They are first level.

In one case, the DM has a map. He knows that to the east there is a pack of ghasts - a very dangerous encounter. However, they give off a rank odour that the PCs can smell from very far away. To the west lies a bunch of goblins who are not on the alert - a reasonably easy encounter if the PCs handle it right.

The players ask questions and make a decision about which way to go.

In the other case the DM doesn't have a map. He has a list of skills that the PCs might use, the DCs for each, and the results of a successful check - the DMG's skill challenge format, basically.

The players look over their sheets to see which skills have the highest modifier and might result in an easy DC without drawing an automatic failure.

The type of player agency in these two situations is quite different. There are other ways to run skill challenges but that's the style presented in the DMG.

AbdulAlhazred · Nov 21, 2012

pemerton said:
No argument from me on any of this.

I mean, I'm glad WotC got it wrong (if they did) when they designed 4e, because I play it, whereas I have zero interest in playing 3E/PF, and not much more than that in playing classic D&D with its 10' poles and mapping and the like.

I'm just puzzled. WotC seems to have really misjudged their market (or at least a good chunk of it), and I'm curious as to how that happened.

I don't know, but I've felt for a LONG time that WotC has no concept what they have in 4e. They literally seem to have no clue that it is an action adventure game, basically fantasy supers with a bit of a D&D leveling up from mortal to god mixed in. Practically every adventure they've ever made for 4e is totally inappropriate to the game. Many aspects of the internal presentation is off too. I think it has literally never dawned on Mike or whomever shapes how WotC treated the game that he wasn't dealing with some variation of AD&D. Maybe it is the whole crew over there, who knows? They're permanently stuck in 1985. That's great if you want to play 1985 D&D, but it sure made for a lot of hurt with 4e.

Quickleaf · Nov 21, 2012

I don't think they're stuck in 1985, but I do agree that the potential of 4e hasn't been fully realized by the designers (at least in terms of what they've put out for 4e).

While 4e does action adventure well, it can also do gritty dungeon crawl (see Revenge of the Iron Lich), old school hex exploration, political intrigue, and a whole variety of different game styles quite successfully. It does take some out-of-the-box thinking and work to accomplish, but the 4e system can actually work with you to achieve various play styles. You see fans online doing this in blogs and messageboards, and I think these "hardcore" 4e fans have recognized the system's versatility where the designers have not.

Actually, I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said something to this effect a while back? Maybe we could start a thread about "rules modules" in 4e?

Note: this isn't a claim of 4e superiority. Back in the day we did different play styles just fine without any rules (more precisely, the rules didn't get in our way). The difference with 4e is there is more rules structure, and that can work for or against a given DM depending on how they adapt the rules.

AbdulAlhazred · Nov 21, 2012

Quickleaf said:
I don't think they're stuck in 1985, but I do agree that the potential of 4e hasn't been fully realized by the designers (at least in terms of what they've put out for 4e).

While 4e does action adventure well, it can also do gritty dungeon crawl (see Revenge of the Iron Lich), old school hex exploration, political intrigue, and a whole variety of different game styles quite successfully. It does take some out-of-the-box thinking and work to accomplish, but the 4e system can actually work with you to achieve various play styles. You see fans online doing this in blogs and messageboards, and I think these "hardcore" 4e fans have recognized the system's versatility where the designers have not.

Actually, I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said something to this effect a while back? Maybe we could start a thread about "rules modules" in 4e?

Note: this isn't a claim of 4e superiority. Back in the day we did different play styles just fine without any rules (more precisely, the rules didn't get in our way). The difference with 4e is there is more rules structure, and that can work for or against a given DM depending on how they adapt the rules.

Oh, I agree, I've done a pretty wide variety of stuff with 4e and generally it works fine. Like many people I've been frustrated by the negativity about 4e that has now festered to a point where I apparently won't get any more supplements to a perfectly good game I intend to continue to play for some time. WotC's steadfast inability to release appropriate adventures didn't help. I do also find it odd that they utterly eschewed things like rules for hexcrawls, wandering monsters, and other 'classic' elements that you would generally expect to find in D&D. I never understood what they DID think they were doing. It is like they had some sort of totally other vision that was divorced from reality about 4e. They were sort of the Romney Campaign of RPGs....

pemerton · Nov 21, 2012

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], thanks, that's interesting. And the way you talk about the role of each individual participant's conception of the situation in making it "real" for him/her reminds me of some things that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] has posted here over the past few years.

Blackbrrd · Nov 21, 2012

Quickleaf said:
I don't think they're stuck in 1985, but I do agree that the potential of 4e hasn't been fully realized by the designers (at least in terms of what they've put out for 4e).
...
Actually, I think @pemerton said something to this effect a while back? Maybe we could start a thread about "rules modules" in 4e?

I feel that previous editions of DnD had a wider assortment of adventures which introduced different playstyles. 4e modules on the other hand followed, to a large degree, a much stricter pattern when it came to design.

I have mentioned it earlier that adventures are really important. Most of the replies have been that they home brew and aren't interested. I think that part of the thing I didn't say explicitly and both parties didn't get is that the premade adventures is a very natural way of introducing different ways of using the ruleset. From hex exploring, to old style dungeon crawls and games of intrigue and diplomacy.

I have to admit that I really didn't read the DMG for 4e much at all. Instead, I jumped right into reading the modules I was going to DM and checked anything that wasn't clear. As it turns out I probably missed some good advice, especially on skill challenges. I found that out by reading this thread.

D&D 4E 4e Encounter Design... Why does it or doesn't it work for you?

Neonchameleon

Legend

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

Obryn

Hero

Balesir

Adventurer

LostSoul

Adventurer

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

Quickleaf

Legend

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

pemerton

Legend

Blackbrrd

First Post

Similar Threads