GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[FireLance]

Huh. It never occurred to me that this could be an issue for some people. That would explain some of the push for putting non-combat info in the statblock, I suppose.

I must admit that it was an issue for me. Prior to 3E, I would occasionally read a module, look at a monster or NPC's stat block, and experience a vague sense of dissonance because it didn't seem possible for it to do what it had done according to the module's backstory or was supposed to do if the module unfolds as planned. It was for that reason that I welcomed the 3E stat block when it was first introduced, but after several years of experience with the system, I subsequently decided that I would prefer a more streamlined way to present information that was purely relevant to combat. The 4E stat block gave me that, but at the cost of removing almost all non-combat information. IMO, there is a happy medium between the two, and a separate section for non-combat information in the stat block might be one way to do it.

 

[FireLance]

I think the 3e designers made the conscious decision (and I think late 2e module writers did too) to put enough into the stat blocks so that the DM wouldn't have to juggle books quite so much. In the 1e/early 2e days with one-liner stat blocks, DMs would have the Monster Manual open fairly often if the monster included any funky special abilities.

3E might have done so for unique abilities, but spell-like abilities required the DM to reference the base spell in the PH (if he did not already have it memorized ) and common abilities (such as swarm traits, damage reduction and blindsight) required the DM to reference either the DMG or the MM Glossary for details (again, unless he has already memorized it).

 

[Rechan]

I must admit that it was an issue for me. Prior to 3E, I would occasionally read a module, look at a monster or NPC's stat block, and experience a vague sense of dissonance because it didn't seem possible for it to do what it had done according to the module's backstory or was supposed to do if the module unfolds as planned. It was for that reason that I welcomed the 3E stat block when it was first introduced, but after several years of experience with the system, I subsequently decided that I would prefer a more streamlined way to present information that was purely relevant to combat. The 4E stat block gave me that, but at the cost of removing almost all non-combat information. IMO, there is a happy medium between the two, and a separate section for non-combat information in the stat block might be one way to do it.

Well, when I think about non-combat info found in the statblock... It's like this:

There is no stat that represents how much wealth an NPC has. However, if the statblock doesn't tell me the NPC's wealth, then how can I reconcile the NPC being a noble, or being able to fund an army, or being able to bribe/hire assassins? There's no stat for Political Authority, so how can I account that this NPC is seated Senator or has the ear to the king? Nothing in the numbers can account for the NPC being a trust fund baby or being the childhood friend of the King.

To me, that is identical to what rituals the NPC can cast and what the NPC is doing behind the scenes to other NPCs. It's all story. I shouldn't need to check the math to make sure that the NPC should be allowed to hire assassins; he just does. I don't need a mechanic to declare "A comet falls from the sky" or "It's raining", so I shouldn't need a mechanic to tell me if an NPC can do something off screen to another NPC that he can't do to the players. It doesn't matter how he brainwashed those NPCs; if he can't brainwash a PC, then what's the point of the rule? He just Does.

And ultimately, here's the crux of the matter: I think the fewer rules, the better. Rules are simply there to answer the question: "does it succeed or not?" And since you can't have a rules light system AND a rules dense system, it has to be one or the other. As someone said earlier in the thread, if the 3e NPC just "lacks" the ride skill, then those are skill points the NPC is missing, and therefore the thing is wrong. That therefore builds an expectation that the NPC must have everything accounted for, and that if it doesn't, the DM is cheating or it's just not Right.

So if the Rule exists, it's one step closer to rules heavy, one step closer to being the norm/expected that one SHOULD/MUST account for it, and a shift towards that sort of way of thinking in the design. The more accounting for something you need, the further you move away from what I want out of the game. Which is putting things at odds with those who want more accounting, more rules to account for possibilities.

One thing that really grabbed me first in 4e was very little things. "This is a magic pool of cool water. If you dunk yourself in the pool, it gives you Resist fire 5 until you take a short rest". "These statues are touched by the power of Piety; standing next to them gives you a +1 to your will defense". If I tried to do this in 3e, I would feel the need to Account for where this stuff is coming from, and players would be more likely to go "really? Wow, I want to make one of those. How do I do that?" and now it's a balance issue. With 4e, just saying "it's magic" is good enough for the design philosophy and I can move on.

 

[Rechan]

3E might have done so for unique abilities, but spell-like abilities required the DM to reference the base spell in the PH (if he did not already have it memorized ) and common abilities (such as swarm traits, damage reduction and blindsight) required the DM to reference either the DMG or the MM Glossary for details (again, unless he has already memorized it).

And Grapple. Don't forget Grapple.

 

[FireLance]

Well, when I think about non-combat info found in the statblock... It's like this:

There is no stat that represents how much wealth an NPC has. However, if the statblock doesn't tell me the NPC's wealth, then how can I reconcile the NPC being a noble, or being able to fund an army, or being able to bribe/hire assassins? There's no stat for Political Authority, so how can I account that this NPC is seated Senator or has the ear to the king? Nothing in the numbers can account for the NPC being a trust fund baby or being the childhood friend of the King.

To me, that is identical to what rituals the NPC can cast and what the NPC is doing behind the scenes to other NPCs. It's all story. I shouldn't need to check the math to make sure that the NPC should be allowed to hire assassins; he just does. I don't need a mechanic to declare "A comet falls from the sky" or "It's raining", so I shouldn't need a mechanic to tell me if an NPC can do something off screen to another NPC that he can't do to the players. It doesn't matter how he brainwashed those NPCs; if he can't brainwash a PC, then what's the point of the rule? He just Does.

That's not really the type of non-combat information I would put in a stat block though. I would certainly put information about the NPC's personality and motivations, and some favored non-combat modus operandi so that if he escapes and the PCs encounter him again, they could have the opportunity to recognize him from the way he goes about achieving his goals. Think about some of the memorable characters from fiction and what makes them distinctive. IMO, this is one type of information that should go into a non-combat stat block.

The other type of information is significant non-combat interactions. If the NPC has been brainwashed, and the PCs can remove that brainwashing with a skill challenge, that sort of information should go there, too.

 

[Rechan]

A non-combat statblock would be very useful/interesting. But for a while now, I've been thinking non-combat situations (social or mental conflicts mainly) should have a combat-like system. The DFRPG does this, and so far it's my favorite system.

 

[Hussar]

I think that the stat blocks themselves should be lean and trim, and only contain the most mechanically combat-relevant information. Like the 4E stat blocks.

But the adventure text outside of those stat blocks should contain tons of information beyond "how will the creature use its powers in a five-round fight". More background and details on the locations, events, and inhabitants of the adventure can only be a good thing, and can help equip the DM to deal with a much wider range of possible choices by the PCs, rather than just writing with the assumption that "they're going to kick in every door and roll initiative".

Paizo-style adventures with 4E-style stat blocks would be my preference.

I'd love to see that too.

I think, and this is purely a gut feeling and I have no proof of it, that the reason we don't see this is because we're not the target audience for WOTC modules. Dungeon mod's probably, but not the stand alone mod's.

The reason I think this is that the WOTC mods are primarily meant for very new gamers. You buy your basic set, you've hardly gamed at all, maybe you've run the adventure in the back of the 4e DMG, and you head down to your FLGS and see this shiny adventure book.

Now, you or me, with years of experience gaming, want a totally different product than that guy. Bombing that guy with pages of details can be very bewildering. What's important? What's necessary? How do all these details work? What can I do with them?

A new gamer doesn't have the experience to discriminate between what's required by the game and what might be safely ignored. So, everything's important. Without all that extra detail, the DM can run the module, it might not be fantastic, but it will be fun. It won't suck (hopefully). KotS might not be the best module in the world, but, it's no Forest Oracle either. Running it straight up is a fun time in a beer and pretzels sense.

IMO, one of the real strengths of the classic modules is that they were pretty sparse on detail. I mean, what are Lareth the Beautiful's motivations? How does he want to achieve those goals? What are his goals? Reading T1, you'd have no idea.

Yet, Lareth the Beautiful remains a very memorable NPC. Probably largely due to the art associated with him and his name.

I would argue that he remains memorable simply because DM's weren't buried under tons of details about him. Hommlet has massive amounts of details when looked at as a whole. But, each location is only about a paragraph long. Most are not all that detailed at all. Just a few words here and there, and nothing contained in anything resembling a stat-block.

Honestly, I think that it's not a case that WOTC modules suck. They just suck for me.

 

[firesnakearies]

There is no stat that represents how much wealth an NPC has. However, if the statblock doesn't tell me the NPC's wealth, then how can I reconcile the NPC being a noble, or being able to fund an army, or being able to bribe/hire assassins? There's no stat for Political Authority, so how can I account that this NPC is seated Senator or has the ear to the king? Nothing in the numbers can account for the NPC being a trust fund baby or being the childhood friend of the King.

To me, that is identical to what rituals the NPC can cast and what the NPC is doing behind the scenes to other NPCs. It's all story. I shouldn't need to check the math to make sure that the NPC should be allowed to hire assassins; he just does. I don't need a mechanic to declare "A comet falls from the sky" or "It's raining", so I shouldn't need a mechanic to tell me if an NPC can do something off screen to another NPC that he can't do to the players. It doesn't matter how he brainwashed those NPCs; if he can't brainwash a PC, then what's the point of the rule? He just Does.

One thing that really grabbed me first in 4e was very little things. "This is a magic pool of cool water. If you dunk yourself in the pool, it gives you Resist fire 5 until you take a short rest". "These statues are touched by the power of Piety; standing next to them gives you a +1 to your will defense". If I tried to do this in 3e, I would feel the need to Account for where this stuff is coming from, and players would be more likely to go "really? Wow, I want to make one of those. How do I do that?" and now it's a balance issue. With 4e, just saying "it's magic" is good enough for the design philosophy and I can move on.

These are some good thoughts. I feel the same way.

I don't need rules or stats for how an NPC (or location, or magical phenomenon, or whatever) interacts with the story or the world. I'd rather just make that up, or have a published adventure tell me that.

I just want rules and stats for how they interact with the players, in a mechanics-driven conflict-resolution situation specifically. Outside of that, I'd rather just narrate it and have the players accept it as the in-game reality.

 

[firesnakearies]

Honestly, I think that it's not a case that WOTC modules suck. They just suck for me.

Yep. This.

 

[Lanefan]

I think that the reason modules tend to put the BBEG in a room at the end is to avoid having the PCs slay the BBEG earlier, thus ending the "plot".

Noted, but it's not the end of the world if the PCs kill the boss right at the start of the adventure without realizing what they've done. This happened rather spectacularly once in my last campaign; they knew the boss was a Giant, probably Frost; and they knew his name...but they didn't have anything to connect the name to any particular Frost Giant. So, before the PCs ever reach the actual adventure (the point of which was to remove the threat he presented to the locals) they get in a brawl with some of his underlings, one runs for help, brings back the boss (and some others), and the PCs take him (but not all the others) down.

Without knowing what they've done they carry on into the adventure anyway. (I had another Giant step up and become the replacement boss but he was nowhere near as potentially interesting to play as the first one was)

In fact, it could be an interesting twist to a module if the PCs keep hearing rumours about some named BBEG, go and invade the lair of said BBEG, and find all the rumours are just rumours and they already killed this guy some time ago without realizing the significance of said act.

Lan-"then again, I'm an evil rat bastard anyway"-efan