D&D 4E Throwing ideas, seeing what sticks (and what stinks)

[Tony Vargas]

The skill challenge is not bad. My other observation is that there is both tactical and OPERATIONAL levels of surprise. The latter is just as important and 4e can certainly handle THAT. In other words getting the jump on the orcs guarding the entrance is one thing, they're likely to be wary, they're certainly armed, and maybe at best you reduce them to a minor threat by a totally unexpected attack. The ORC LAIR ITSELF is another thing. How many of the orcs are awake? How many have weapons and armor to hand? How many are even present in the lair when you make your assault? How effectively do they rally and how quickly can they muster their forces, identify the axis of the attack, determine its strength and nature, and mount an effective response? If you're FAST ENOUGH and achieved tactical surprise at the entrance, well, they might not really offer a ton of resistance overall. So an attentive DM can manage that aspect of things to provide decision points and incorporate tactical thinking. 4e certainly CAN handle that, though D&D traditionally has shied away from this whole aspect due again to the wide range of challenge level that might result depending on good or bad choices.

I'm not sure I've seen any game mechanics handle that. I remember plenty of old modules going into that kind of detail (if the orc in area A rings the gong, 2d8 orcs from area C arrive in 1d4 rounds, &c....), but it's all arbitrary (and I can't think how a system would approach something like that, it seems to be firmly in the DM's-judgement realm).

Well, its true, PCs have perfect 'presence of mind', at least in most systems such as D&D. You COULD enact a sort of 'fog of war' kind of thing using limited information, but it would be a little weird, more suited to systems like DW that are pretty abstract and lack mechanics covering positioning and whatnot.

That's exactly how I wouldn't want to do it, since it captures how the player reacts to limited information, when it's the character that's supposed to be being modeled.
So if mechanics were to cover some kind of 'fog of war' effect, it should be modeled and resolved based on the character - from simple penalties to more involved conditions.


A related thing that'd be cool is some meaningful 'covered' condition. The old sword to the throat or held at gunpoint, another trope D&D has never done well. Just having to weather an attack is not much of a threat to most D&D characters. But if they can get the drop on you, maybe they can do a /lot/ of damage (like you are reduced to your bloodied value, /then/ take a critical hit), unless you (or something) distracts them or gives you a chance to change the situation. In 4e, that'd be a fair thing to declare when you've reduced an enemy to 0 - you've forced a surrender and have them at swordpoint, or something along those line. But dropping to 0 is not that likely without focus fire.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm not sure I've seen any game mechanics handle that. I remember plenty of old modules going into that kind of detail (if the orc in area A rings the gong, 2d8 orcs from area C arrive in 1d4 rounds, &c....), but it's all arbitrary (and I can't think how a system would approach something like that, it seems to be firmly in the DM's-judgement realm).

Cortex + systemitizes this sort of escalation of present threat and introduction of new threats via its Doom Pool mechanics. Players that roll 1s in their dice pools can be granted plot points in exchange for the GM stepping up their latent pool of threat/escalation dice (Doom Pool). It also accrues dice when the GM decides to step a trait in one of their own character pools to a d4. This GM pool can be deployed for a number of things, including introducing new threats from "sounding the alarm" type of scenarios.

I've probably run 20 or so hours of Cortex + Fantasy Heroic (its D&D hack in Hackers Guide). Its a great feedback loop that works swimmingly for this sort of thing.

But I think 4e can load bear this thing just fine. Couple scenarios:

1) There is a gong somewhere in the room that takes a standard action (vs level Fort) to ring. You have to stop any of the Minions from getting to it (Defender and Controller effectively defend/control that gong). Done some version of that on more than one occasion (protecting a power-up, protecting an innocent, protecting a gate, protecting an alarm).

2) I've used Skill Challenge mechanics for this on more than one occasion. GM run character/monster takes a Standard Action to begin an "evade pursuit and alert reinforcements" SC. One (or more) players makes an action declaration on their next turn to pursue. Depending on the situation, the GM chooses a complexity and a level (probably C1 and PC level 2 +) and those players involved in the SC are gone from combat and now in their own chase scene. Failure means n encounter budget worth of bad guys reinforce (possibly trigger an evasion SC the other way - eg Han).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Cortex + systemitizes this sort of escalation of present threat and introduction of new threats via its Doom Pool mechanics. Players that roll 1s in their dice pools can be granted plot points in exchange for the GM stepping up their latent pool of threat/escalation dice (Doom Pool). It also accrues dice when the GM decides to step a trait in one of their own character pools to a d4. This GM pool can be deployed for a number of things, including introducing new threats from "sounding the alarm" type of scenarios.

I've probably run 20 or so hours of Cortex + Fantasy Heroic (its D&D hack in Hackers Guide). Its a great feedback loop that works swimmingly for this sort of thing.

But I think 4e can load bear this thing just fine. Couple scenarios:

1) There is a gong somewhere in the room that takes a standard action (vs level Fort) to ring. You have to stop any of the Minions from getting to it (Defender and Controller effectively defend/control that gong). Done some version of that on more than one occasion (protecting a power-up, protecting an innocent, protecting a gate, protecting an alarm).

2) I've used Skill Challenge mechanics for this on more than one occasion. GM run character/monster takes a Standard Action to begin an "evade pursuit and alert reinforcements" SC. One (or more) players makes an action declaration on their next turn to pursue. Depending on the situation, the GM chooses a complexity and a level (probably C1 and PC level 2 +) and those players involved in the SC are gone from combat and now in their own chase scene. Failure means n encounter budget worth of bad guys reinforce (possibly trigger an evasion SC the other way - eg Han).

Yeah, I'm thinking SC, certainly CAN cover it. You might need to get creative in some circumstances perhaps. One option would be an overarching SC in which the progress in the challenge happens as the PCs move through the area. As long as they keep achieving successes they can stay in control of the decision loop. Failures shift the initiative back towards the 'orcs'.

 

[MoutonRustique]

I'll start by noting that I don't entirely concur with [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s view of surprise in 4E to begin with. Several fights with surprise on one side or other find the surprised party dazed (or worse) on their first turn, IME, and that can severely cramp your style from the outset.

Having said that, if you want to make a bigger deal of surprise 4E suggests several possible mechanisms. One that I have had some fun with is "Skill Challenge Minionisation". It works like this:

- Select a complexity of skill challenge at the level of the encounter; this is the task required to gain surprise with a good attacking position. If you want to be avant garde, let the players select the complexity in a given range: higher = harder to succeed but more effect (see next).

- If the PCs succeed at the skill challenge, reduce the difficulty of the encounter by (a) giving the PCs surprise and (b) making some or all of the Standard creatures in the encounter Minions instead. Each level of complexity of SC = 1 Standard creature "minionised", and higher complexities may give additional intelligence (i.e. set up the combat map more completely before having the players select PC starting positions, and give more freedom in starting positions).

The challenge skills should guide/be guided by the benefits; more intel on the monster disposition means some Perception and Lore checks, more freedom in positioning at battle start means stealth checks from those going for "advanced" positions, etc. Some approach routes might call for Athletics or similar checks, and (as usual, at least in our game) Powers and Rituals might help on certain checks, making them easier or even automatic.

This mode of "blending" skill challenges and combat was never really explored in the published 4E stuff, but it has worked pretty well, for us.

Oooouuuuhhh... that's pretty neat!

It works especially well if the SC includes something along the lines of "find weakness in opponent X". An example could be that a History check reveals the sergeant has a bum knee - knowing this, it's easy for players to just "Go for the Ey..knee!" thereby reducing the opponent to "minion-like-status".

I like this, this has legs. I will think on this.

Thank you!

 

[MoutonRustique]

A related thing that'd be cool is some meaningful 'covered' condition. The old sword to the throat or held at gunpoint, another trope D&D has never done well. Just having to weather an attack is not much of a threat to most D&D characters. But if they can get the drop on you, maybe they can do a /lot/ of damage (like you are reduced to your bloodied value, /then/ take a critical hit), unless you (or something) distracts them or gives you a chance to change the situation. In 4e, that'd be a fair thing to declare when you've reduced an enemy to 0 - you've forced a surrender and have them at swordpoint, or something along those line. But dropping to 0 is not that likely without focus fire.

This is probably the main "big hero movie trope" that 4e fails at. (I mean, all editions of D&D fail at it - save for the first, very few, levels; maybe.)

It's a tough one to do... Like you say, the "standard 4e answer" would be that you reduce your foe to 0hp, and then you have it at "knife point", but that seems... lacking in a way.

I don't have any good paths in sight for this one. A though one indeed.

 

[MoutonRustique]

Cortex + systemitizes this sort of escalation of present threat and introduction of new threats via its Doom Pool mechanics. Players that roll 1s in their dice pools can be granted plot points in exchange for the GM stepping up their latent pool of threat/escalation dice (Doom Pool). It also accrues dice when the GM decides to step a trait in one of their own character pools to a d4. This GM pool can be deployed for a number of things, including introducing new threats from "sounding the alarm" type of scenarios.

I've probably run 20 or so hours of Cortex + Fantasy Heroic (its D&D hack in Hackers Guide). Its a great feedback loop that works swimmingly for this sort of thing.

But I think 4e can load bear this thing just fine. Couple scenarios:

1) There is a gong somewhere in the room that takes a standard action (vs level Fort) to ring. You have to stop any of the Minions from getting to it (Defender and Controller effectively defend/control that gong). Done some version of that on more than one occasion (protecting a power-up, protecting an innocent, protecting a gate, protecting an alarm).

2) I've used Skill Challenge mechanics for this on more than one occasion. GM run character/monster takes a Standard Action to begin an "evade pursuit and alert reinforcements" SC. One (or more) players makes an action declaration on their next turn to pursue. Depending on the situation, the GM chooses a complexity and a level (probably C1 and PC level 2 +) and those players involved in the SC are gone from combat and now in their own chase scene. Failure means n encounter budget worth of bad guys reinforce (possibly trigger an evasion SC the other way - eg Han).

Have you guys read Blood Money (Dungeon 200)? It uses "DM plot points" to create something akin to this system that could be leveraged more if it were standardized to all encounters.

By the way, while we're on it (not really, but you know): I've been reading the Dungeon adventures (with the goal of making myself a commented "database" of them) and I've been having a weird thought - 4e adventures are often less 4e adventures than many non 4e adventures. This really hit home when I read the "4e-kinda" adventure about the Slave Lords by Schwalb.

I'll try to explain:
- 4e is magical (IMO) with regards to DM prep time and encounter construction
- 4e adventures have a very large amount of page "count" dedicated to detailing the encounters in ways that are, very often, completely unnecessary (stat blocks*, tactics**, etc)
- non 4e requires a good deal more system mastery to build and run encounters (spellcasters are the major culprits here)
- old (by this I mean 2e and "down") adventures offer a very succinct description of foes and of often simply possible encounters

The only thing missing here are call outs to use SCs to manage exploration in a more "not I poke every 3rd feet of stone with the metal end of the 11 foot pole and I'm standing diagonally from Tim so if an arrow comes from..." - you know, the pixel click thing.

Creating the encounters is the easy part. A paragraph of general tactics, a list of foes, the map and you're all set.

*of course, you need them, but in an appendix at the end, sorted by encounter would probably be an even better presentation format - especially since there's no such thing as "page count restriction" when dealing with electronic only formats.
**only when the situation calls for specific tactics that wouldn't be self evident from the foes' motivations and personalities.

Then again, it's a random thought - and those often wind up being completely opposite to what I end up figuring out after a few days more of pondering. But it was weird enough to merit being thrown out there.

 

[Balesir]

I would love to see an actual example of how this might work in play. Are you the DM for your group that you might provide an example from your notes?

I am the GM, but I don't have much in the way of notes for these (old ones have been thrown out, recent ones I don't need notes for any more).

The basic mechanisms I list above. Encounters I have used it for include the approach to the temple entrance in the Demon Queen's Enclave adventure (P2) and the approach to a building (avoiding spoilers, but if you have played it you'll probably remember it) in Death's Reach (E1).

A complexity 1 challenge will get the combat map laid out prior to the combat beginning, the PCs get surprise from a base start point far enough away to be out of sight and one opponent is minionised (pick the one most susceptible to surprise from the characters' angle of attack). Each extra complexity level gets another minionised opponent and, depending on the skill used (which depends on the players' plan) one or two of the following:

- Expand the PCs "start area" for stealth, climb etc. rolls. Any or all PCs may try the roll, but all must succeed that try to count a "success" and any who succeed may take advantage of the expanded start position. This can be done more than once - opening up new approach options, extending the "set up" area closer to and/or flanking the monsters, etc.

- Place more opponents, traps, terrain features, etc. before the PCs set up for Perception and stealth tasks; allow monster knowledge checks for those that are revealed in sight (and maybe reveal positions of those out of sight, but only as "unknown creature here").

- Allow the players to ask for a monster to be moved at least X squares from its current position before initiative is rolled for a success with stealth/scouting/communication. This represents waiting for a good opportunity and timing the attack for (e.g.) when the guard with the gong moves away from his post...

It's hard to give solid guidelines because it relies very much on the combat map you are using, the monsters' purpose and identity and the players' plan. All I can really say is you will know what to offer when you see the encounter map and hear the plan...

On failures feel free to move monsters into more awkward positions or out of sight. Three failures means roll initiative NOW...

Edit: I should say that I use my own rules generalisation for SCs per this document:

View attachment D and D Skill Challenge Mechanisms.pdf

 

[Manbearcat]

Yeah, I'm thinking SC, certainly CAN cover it. You might need to get creative in some circumstances perhaps. One option would be an overarching SC in which the progress in the challenge happens as the PCs move through the area. As long as they keep achieving successes they can stay in control of the decision loop. Failures shift the initiative back towards the 'orcs'.

Yup. Or, put another way, shift the initiative back to the GM who can choose to use the orcs (reinforcements/an ominous curses or precarious parleys) as proxy for (a) escalation or for (b) revealing a terrible truth about the present situation/giving the PCs an opportunity with dangerous prospects (both of which lead to tension-filled decision-points).

Have you guys read Blood Money (Dungeon 200)? It uses "DM plot points" to create something akin to this system that could be leveraged more if it were standardized to all encounters.

Just took a quick look at the article, and it certainly does seem Cortex + inspired (which 4e plays very nice with).

By the way, while we're on it (not really, but you know): I've been reading the Dungeon adventures (with the goal of making myself a commented "database" of them) and I've been having a weird thought - 4e adventures are often less 4e adventures than many non 4e adventures. This really hit home when I read the "4e-kinda" adventure about the Slave Lords by Schwalb.

I'll try to explain:
- 4e is magical (IMO) with regards to DM prep time and encounter construction
- 4e adventures have a very large amount of page "count" dedicated to detailing the encounters in ways that are, very often, completely unnecessary (stat blocks*, tactics**, etc)
- non 4e requires a good deal more system mastery to build and run encounters (spellcasters are the major culprits here)
- old (by this I mean 2e and "down") adventures offer a very succinct description of foes and of often simply possible encounters

The only thing missing here are call outs to use SCs to manage exploration in a more "not I poke every 3rd feet of stone with the metal end of the 11 foot pole and I'm standing diagonally from Tim so if an arrow comes from..." - you know, the pixel click thing.

Creating the encounters is the easy part. A paragraph of general tactics, a list of foes, the map and you're all set.

*of course, you need them, but in an appendix at the end, sorted by encounter would probably be an even better presentation format - especially since there's no such thing as "page count restriction" when dealing with electronic only formats.
**only when the situation calls for specific tactics that wouldn't be self evident from the foes' motivations and personalities.

Then again, it's a random thought - and those often wind up being completely opposite to what I end up figuring out after a few days more of pondering. But it was weird enough to merit being thrown out there.

I think you're saying that the "loadout" of 4e adventures was overburdened with crunch (which is the easy part in 4e)? From my recollection and scant read-throughs, I think they improved as Dungeon rolled along and the understanding of the system by its creators and its user-base matured into acuity.

I'm probably not the best person in the world to comment on adventure/module organization, however, as I have only ever used them for dungeon maps in games that feature crawls!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is probably the main "big hero movie trope" that 4e fails at. (I mean, all editions of D&D fail at it - save for the first, very few, levels; maybe.)

It's a tough one to do... Like you say, the "standard 4e answer" would be that you reduce your foe to 0hp, and then you have it at "knife point", but that seems... lacking in a way.

I don't have any good paths in sight for this one. A though one indeed.

I think part of the problem is that players are especially loathe to admit that under most conditions their characters wouldn't be especially ready for action (IE you wouldn't be walking around clad in armor in most cases, or with your weapon right to hand, its just not feasible). DMs are loathe to place their NPCs in similar situations, and clearly allowing for such has many game implications that aren't easy to deal with. 4e in particular, with its completely gamist handling of armor and weapons, presents a host of issues.

In 'classic' D&D it was less of an issue. There are various points at which it is at least implied that combat mechanics are inappropriate for non-combat situations. You could easily justify things like demanding an NPC that gets shivved in the back while eating dinner make a save vs death (and the assassin class mechanics provide a similar capability). Admittedly, there isn't really an internally consistent way to handle it either, but 4e's assumptions make it considerably worse.

You do have the 'helpless' condition, which allows for bad things to happen when you're unable to act at all, but there's no clear way to invoke it mechanically, aside from a few power effects. Presumably someone that is asleep might be rendered helpless, but there's no really defined process for it.

As for the notion of 'reduced to 0 hit points', that does work. However it still doesn't cover all possible situations. I do think though that it covers all the situations where an action hero would REALLY be helpless, as opposed to just needing to pull off some trick.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yup. Or, put another way, shift the initiative back to the GM who can choose to use the orcs (reinforcements/an ominous curses or precarious parleys) as proxy for (a) escalation or for (b) revealing a terrible truth about the present situation/giving the PCs an opportunity with dangerous prospects (both of which lead to tension-filled decision-points).

Hehe, yes, you can put it in DW terms, very nice.

Just took a quick look at the article, and it certainly does seem Cortex + inspired (which 4e plays very nice with).

Definitely going to have a look at that one.

I think you're saying that the "loadout" of 4e adventures was overburdened with crunch (which is the easy part in 4e)? From my recollection and scant read-throughs, I think they improved as Dungeon rolled along and the understanding of the system by its creators and its user-base matured into acuity.

I'm probably not the best person in the world to comment on adventure/module organization, however, as I have only ever used them for dungeon maps in games that feature crawls!

I think the format used by WotC for adventures pretty much sucked. They first had a whole description of everything in general terms, and then an entirely separate section containing detailed encounter crunch for each encounter area, AND in many cases they put the stat blocks at the end. This required a massive amount of page flipping and lead to a lot of editorial errors where the 'read through' description contained inconsistencies with the 'crunch section', and you often had to be reading both at the same time to actually grasp what they were talking about.

Later there were some adventures that were laid out in a better format, but I have to agree that they were mostly way too focused on trivia that didn't matter much or could be glossed, and not enough on explicating the encounter as an action sequence and plot element. Frankly I've run exactly one heavily modified 4e adventure (hmmm, no, 2).