GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[BenBrown]

The assumption here is that the PCs will encounter the BBEG and roll initiative. It removes any and all possibilities for any other option. Some players may attempt to talk with the BBEG, to get them monologging, to learn more of their evil plans or to justify to themselves they are in their rights to just kill the BBEG. It is true that probably for 95% of any group, the rest of the stuff like motivation, background etc. does not matter, but for the DMs of those 5%, not having that information means they need to come up with it themselves and usually on the fly when the party does not do as expected and just attack.

On the other hand, this can lead to disappointment. You read the module, think about the villain's motivation, and figure out how you're going to deliver the monologue. Then you've got to work hard to keep your face from dropping when the players attack before you've finished saying "At last we meet."

 

[innerdude]

More detail provides for greater flexibility and ease of use. Its only pointless information when you don't need it, but the fact you don't need it does not mean it might not have utility to another. Which is something I think module writers do well to keep in mind. You should never assume your module will be used exactly as intended. [emphasis added]

EXACTLY.

Stripping away special abilities and powers from a monster stat block ADDS to GM prep time, not remove it, because if a GM wants a unique power added to a monster, he/she has to do it ad hoc, within the range and limit of their knowledge of the rules.

Think of a fledgling GM trying to come up with a unique monster for an encounter. The more "stuff" they have in the block, the more raw material they have with easy reference right in front of them to make concrete choices about how that monster is used.

Is it easier to ignore powers that are spelled out, or to try and come up with something unique on your own (especially if your level of system mastery is relatively low)?

"Nah, I don't need powers A,B, and G, so I'll just ignore them."

If you're going to do something "unique" with a monster, it's a moot point anyway, isn't it? You still have to come up with the "something unique and cool" on your own in either case--the difference is in the first case, you have a much broader set of concrete options on which to veer your direction.

And Wicht's point is spot on--the more "stuff" you have, the more ability the GM has to take ideas in directions the designers never thought of.

 

[Umbran]

On the one hand, you have a player basically telling his GM, "I want context. Encounters have meaning by creating context."

And on the other hand, you have one of the designers of 4e who seems to be saying, "Context is meaningless until the moment a PC walks into the room and an encounter starts. There's no reason to try and 'build up' fancy monsters and abilities, and spend precious GM time creating all of these fantastic traits for something that spends a grand total of 20 minutes (or less) in use at the game table."

On the one hand you have a player. On the other, you have one designer.

A player. One designer. What's more likely - that these represent some fundamental dichotomy in RPGs relevant to all adventure design, or they're just two folks who like different things in games?

It seems to me both are being expressed as extremes that don't make much sense in practical application. To have context and foreshadowing for every single individual monster is having a lot of work for little payoff. But to never worry about context is to build a game that seems to have little continuity, and would make me wonder if I'm playing an RPG or a skirmish tactical battle game.

I would expect the real world to be in between the two - context for monsters/NPCs when it matters, and little context when it doesn't.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

The final consideration is, who is the true target audience of any published adventure? The answer is not the players who run through it, but the person who purchases it, and that is almost always the DM. If the players love the adventure, but the DM finds it difficult to run because they are lacking information they need or want, that DM is less likely to purchase another. If the players love the adventure and it has stuff the players never see, but makes the DM's time simpler and more interesting, the DM is likely to become a loyal customer.

I agree 100%. Adventure modules should inspire the DM, and background details can enrich the campaign. The crux of the issue at hand seems to be how to communicate such information. I can't speak for all DMs, but I prefer these background details and flavor elements to be outside the combat statblock.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Designing anything on a type of pre-defined life expectancy paradigm contributes to the kind of proscribed outcome adventure design that needs to die in less than 5 rounds IMHO.

In a game as opposed to a constructed story who says a monster will die and if they do, when?

Many monsters can be bargained with, or even used for other purposes by PC's rather than just being sword fodder.

A monster is part of the game world. As such, it should have a place and any abilities which aid it in attaining and maintaining that place.

Otherwise just having creatures spawn when adventurers draw near and despawn after being looted makes as much sense as slapping together attributes designed for a 1 minute lifespan.

 

[wcpfish]

Designing anything on a type of pre-defined life expectancy paradigm contributes to the kind of proscribed outcome adventure design that needs to die in less than 5 rounds IMHO.

In a game as opposed to a constructed story who says a monster will die and if they do, when?

Many monsters can be bargained with, or even used for other purposes by PC's rather than just being sword fodder.

A monster is part of the game world. As such, it should have a place and any abilities which aid it in attaining and maintaining that place.

Otherwise just having creatures spawn when adventurers draw near and despawn after being looted makes as much sense as slapping together attributes designed for a 1 minute lifespan.

I think this abosultely nails it. For a set of monsters that actually HAVE a place in the world check out the Monsternomicon by Privateer Press. After reading this bestiary (in my mind the single best rpg-supplement ever made by any company) I knew EXACTLY where I wanted to place each monster, the circumstances leading up to these encounters, as well as the aftermath. These monsters were much more 'real' than just a set of numbers.

Exploder Wizard hits it dead on -as a GM - YOU choose the philosophy behind the monster either it a) has a history, a family, a lair, and motivations or b) it's a bag of hitpoints carrying 'phat lewtz' or c) somewhere in between. YOU get to decide.

Now...ahem...a brief push of my own recently released product ...Urban Adversaries is available now for 4e D&D and features monsters with which I tried quite consciously to capture the 'Monsternomicon feel'. Each of my monsters fits into an urban environment and has a role to play. Each encounter (with XP total) has an actual story behind it as to why the PCs would be involved. If you're seeking more than bags of hit points I ask you to give it a look!

Thanks!
William C. Pfaff
www.escapevelocitygaming.com
Urban Adversaries available at rpgnow.com and drivethrustuff.com

 

[pawsplay]

But in contet of actually fighting the players?

Again...if the BBEG is using a far realm creature and/or hellish creature, are you going to stop in the middle of the encounter and say "wait...the BBEG can't talk/communicate with the creature because he doesn't have the language and/or the Tongues spell"

If I haven't figured this out in advance, I'm an idiot, and if I'm a professional game designer and I don't take such things into account, I make my customers act idiotically. Simply noting, "Speaks Far Realmsian with a Cthulhoid acccent" is a few keystrokes well spent. Yes, it matters if the BBEG can communicate with their own minions.

 

[The Shaman]

Designing anything on a type of pre-defined life expectancy paradigm contributes to the kind of proscribed outcome adventure design that needs to die in less than 5 rounds IMHO.

Oh, EW, must you always be so right all the time?

 

[Beginning of the End]

And I'm wondering what to make of these two seemingly diametrically opposed ideas.

You laugh in Noonan's misguided face. That's pretty much all you can do.

Here's a quote from The Alexandrian:

If D&D were simply a skirmish game, Noonan would be right: You'd set up your miniatures and fight. And the reasons behind the fight would never become important. But D&D isn't a skirmish game -- it's a roleplaying game. And it's often the abilities that a creature has outside of combat which create the scenario. And not just the scenario which leads to combat with that particular creature, but scenarios which can lead to many different and interesting combats. Noonan, for example, dismisses the importance of detect thoughts allowing a demon to magically penetrate the minds of its minions. But it's that very ability which may explain why the demon has all of these minions for the PCs to fight; which explains why the demon is able to blackmail the city councillor that the PCs are trying to help; and which allows the demon to turn the PCs' closest friend into a traitor.

And, even more broadly, the assumption that detect thoughts will never be used when the PCs are around assumes that the PCs will never do anything with an NPC except try to hack their heads off.

One is forced to wonder how much the design team is playing D&D and how much the design team is playing the D&D Miniatures game.

Are you going to say that the BBEG couldn't communicate with the otherworldly creature that it is using as a sub-boss becasue it didn't have/know either the language or the Tongues spell?

There are two problems with Noonan's attitude:

(1) He is, in fact, dismissive of the non-combat qualities of a monster. When that's your design ethos as a company, it's unsurprising that the non-combat qualities of a monster are being shirked in the modules.

If you say that PCs only interact with their opponents during combat, it's probably unsurprising that your modules are seen as grind-happy combat fests. (They are.)

(2) Yes, actually, I would say that. And if I want the BBEG to be able to communicate with the otherworldly creature, then I would give the BBEG a way to do that: A magic circle derived from Atlantean arts. A crystal ball infused with infernal energy. A sacrificial ritual.

And this is precisely the kind of contextualizing detail that make the BBEG come alive: When you discover the journal detailing his journey to one of the lost outposts of Atlantis and use that knowledge to identify the unique geo-sympathetic locations where his magic circle could be scribed... When you go to the ruined remnants of his former master's wizard tower and find the remnant of the ritual he used to infuse the crystal ball... When you track him from one gruesome sacrificial victim to the next...

All of these tell you something about the BBEG. They create a relationship between the PCs and the BBEG.

When you gloss over the detail work like this, the details don't exist (QED). And if they don't exist, the PCs can't learn about them or interact with them. And if the PCs can't learn about any details outside of combat...

Well, that's when you're back to the grind-happy combat fest modules again.

 

[Rechan]

The problem with your entire argument is that it is based upon combat being the only type of interaction between characters and monsters/NPC's... .

And what stats are necessary to be used outside of combat?

In 4e if the villain has a high bluff/intimidate skill it notes it. Its perception skills are listed. So any skill the PCs used in interaction would be noted.

What other stats are important for non-combat interaction?

For instance, the statblock for the villain in Burnt Offerings lists her Ride skill. Considering she's in the bottom of the dungeon with no mounts in sight, and escape is next to impossible... ride is going to be relevant how?

In my campaign, one of the PCs was the brother of the villain, though he had never met her

And this is somehow expected to be the norm? Your DM obviously changed the module so your character could be her brother. You wouldn't have known about it had the DM not changed the story. The module says nothing about being related to her. I am talking about what the module says, not how your DM changed it.

The module says nothing about if PCs want to parlay, and in her writeup, everything it says on the page with her stats is purely about what she's doing and why she's doing it when the PCs show up. No indication is given that she even wants to talk - in fact, the writeup says that if she suspects combat is imminent, what buffs she casts on herself.

And your point about PCs just so willing to talk before initiative is rolled can equally be applied to Kalarel in the 4e module. My point is that we know nothing about either villain, and either villain is just stuck in the last room of the dungeon and awaits the PCs to kick in the door and say Hello. MY point is that one has a huge story around her, one has none, but neither module uses this for involving the PCs.