GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Beginning of the End]

I think Christopher Robin's point is that Noonan's quote was with regards to 3e (Monster Manual 5), not, as innerdude says, 4e.

So we're hypothesizing that Christopher Robin is unaware that they were designing 4th Edition at the point? And similarly unaware that the designers have stated that the latter day products of 3.5 were being impacted by 4th Edition design philosophies?

Oh, I see reading further that Christopher Robin himself is making that claim.

Well, fair enough.

I think you seem to be reading it from the standpoint that they designed the game to make the statement true... whereas I feel they designed the game based around an already truthful statement. (if that makes sense.)

Well, if you agree with the statement that NPCs will never interact with PCs except for 5 rounds of combat, then there's really not much else to be said.

The original post talked about the disparity between Noonan's statement and the statement: "Combat is a part of stories and fiction solely there to provide drama, but endless slogs with monsters and NPCs I don't care about have zero drama."

I disagree with Noonan and agree with the other guy. You obviously disagree with the other guy and agree with Noonan.

Admin here. Don't tell other people what they must think or feel. It's a guaranteed way to start an argument instead of discussing the topic, and it's a good way to get yourself booted from a thread. ~ PCat

This ignores the fact that monsters in 4e, unlike 3e aren't designed to be the "typical" of the species. They're designed more to be one type of a whole. So the next time you see X monster it probably won't be the same, because the DM is using another one of many versions of X monster. (You notice this even more in the monsters that show up frequently like orcs and goblins and stuff...)

I keep hearing how easy it is to reskin in 4th Edition, but now you're telling me that you never re-use a stat block? Weird.

(You're about to tell me that that isn't what you said. But it is. Re-read your post until you figure out why.)

Again. Dismissive sarcasm doesn't work well. A good rule of thumb: after you write a post, reread it and ask yourself "are people going to think I'm being a jerk?" If the answer is yes, don't hit submit.

(3) It assumes that multiple versions of the same monster will never appear in the same combat. Monsters only last 5 rounds and nothing they do outside of those 5 rounds matters? Even if we accept the premise, if we have an encounter with 5 of those monsters at the same time and each of them survives an average of 5 rounds, then that stat block actually needs to fill up 25 rounds worth of actions.

I don't get your math. 5 monsters at the same time that last 5 rounds is still only 5 rounds.. unless each one is popping out 1 at a time from the monster vendomatic.

And each round each of those monsters gets to take an action. What's five times five?

Stat blocks might only have a few rounds worth of powers, but they do include the creature's ability modifiers, relevant skill, perception abilities and special senses, and movement capabilities. I would think that pretty much everything you need to respond to the various possible scenarios outside of combat - chase scenes, negotiations, trying to sneak past enemies, etc.

Oh c'mon! You guys are trolling me right?

I say, "I'm not talking about how stat blocks are used in combat." And I get somebody replying to everything as if I were talking about how stat blocks are used in combat.

So then I say, "Fine, let's talk about stat blocks in combat." And I get somebody replying to my post as if I were talking about scenarios outside of combat.

Now, here is where I see the heart of the actual debate - what abilities qualify as important against the PCs? Detect Thoughts wasn't particularly relevant in combat, given it took several round to start picking up useful info.

... unless, of course, a compound went on alert and they were trying to track down the PCs.

This is exactly what I'm talking about: You remove non-combat options from the game because they're "not particularly relevant in combat" and then you wonder why your modules don't have any non-combat options. Geez, I wonder if there might be a connection!

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

What we need to settle this for once and for all is some science. Some god-and-gary-gygax-forsaking science.

Now, I'm just a guy with a math degree so I don't actually know from real science. But to lay out my rough sketch we would need:

* A DM who has only ever run 3.5 games to run 4 players who have only ever played 3.5 published adventures through Keep on the Shadowfell.

* A DM who has only ever run 4E games to run 4 players who have only ever played 3.5 published adventures through Keep on the Shadowfell.

* A DM who has only ever run 3.5 games to run 4 players who have only ever played 4E published adventures through Keep on the Shadowfell.

* A DM who has only ever run 4E games to run 4 players who have only ever played 4E published adventures through Keep on the Shadowfell.

* A DM who has only ever run Paizo games to run 4 players who have only ever played 4E published adventures through Burnt Offerings.

* A DM who has only ever run Paizo games to run 4 players who have only ever played 4E published adventures through Burnt Offerings.

* A DM who has only ever run 4E games to run 4 players who have only ever played 4E published adventures through Burnt Offerings.

etc., etc. I don't have a government grant to keep this post going.

OK, I'll do a couple more off the clock:

* A DM who has never run an RPG game to run 4 players who have never played published adventures through Keep on the Shadowfell. (as a control group)

* A DM who has never run an RPG game to run 4 players who have never played published adventures through Burnt Offerings. (as a control group)

Then we do a phone poll on all the players, run the results through some statistics magic, and find out once and for all what is the one, true way to write up adventures, encounters, NPCS, and monsters.

All published adventures to follow will stand on the shoulders of this groundbreaking study of the proper way to write a professional D&D-style RPG adventure.


** Note that the adventures must be run exactly as published with no extemporaneous adlibbing by either the DM or the players. The adventures must be run exactly as written to ensure scientific fidelity.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Keep gets as much crap as it does because for many people that was their introduction to 4e. For a good number of people it came out before the Core books did.

If it weren't for that it would just be another lousy adventure in WotC's long standing history of them.

But because it was in many ways the "face" of 4e, it's given a much harsher treatment.

I don't hate 4e. I think at least combat wise 4e can be lots of fun. But I can't find a 4e game going amongst my friends because, for many of them, Keep was their introduction - and they want nothing to do with the game after it.

On the other hand, it's easy to find a Pathfinder game, because the DM can easily buy a Paizo adventure for it, run it as it is, and have a damn good time with the group.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Piratecat here. While I understand what inspired this post, please report problematic posts instead of responding to them. You can report a post using the small triangular "!" at the bottom left of every post.

The real problem seems to be an inability to convince you that we're not looking at the underlying design philosophy behind both the stat blocks and the combat-happy WotC modules.

No. The real problem seems to be your inability to accept that the WoTC approach has huge advantages as well as disadvantages.

I'm saying that you have a stuffy nose and a nasty cough because you have the flu. You're saying, "I don't see how a stuffy nose could possibly be giving me a nasty cough!"

No. I'm saying I don't have a cough at all. I have a stuffy nose, you have the cough. But you are trying to claim I have one and then trying to diagnose my hayfever as flu.

Ignoring the flawed premise that monsters never do anything in the game outside of combat, there are still at least three flaws in Noonan's logic:

(1) It assumes tactical inflexibility. It assumes that the monster should always do the exact same thing no matter what the PCs do. By saying "they'll only be around for 5 rounds so they should only have 5 rounds worth of stuff to do", you are concluding that they should never have multiple options (which would allow them to respond to a variety of situations).

This is a mixture of a misunderstanding and a deception.

The misunderstanding is that the relevant skills are anything other than the protagonist ones in the way you run 4e. If it's opposed, the PCs roll at a target number based on the monster's approach and abilities. Saves time and a dice roll and is mathematically the same. If it's unopposed, it's DM fiat. And did you seriously make every monster interact with every other monster when the PCs weren't on the screen?

The deception is that except in rare cases (spellcasting monsters), 4e isn't a hell of a long way ahead of 3e in terms of options for the monsters. For one thing it has actually different options for different monsters. It's not that I'm ill. It's that you're trying to transfer the illnesses you have onto me.

(2) It assumes monsters will never be re-used. Because if they were going to be re-used, it might be valuable to have some variety between those encounters.

Um. You are talking about 4e here rather than 3.X/Pathfinder? A non-caster in 3.X can ... attack. Or possibly sunder or trip. Same as every other damn 3.X monster in the game.

There is more difference between a generic 4e goblin and kobold than a 3e kobold and orc (and arguably a 3e kobold and ettin). Yet you mysteriously aren't saying that you can't re-use 3e goblins.

(3) It assumes that multiple versions of the same monster will never appear in the same combat.

Except they do and this isn't a problem. Yet mysteriously there isn't a problem using multiple 3e Chain Devils in an encounter, let alone multiple ogres.

Monsters only last 5 rounds and nothing they do outside of those 5 rounds matters?

Nothing the monsters do when offstage needs rolling for.

Even if we accept the premise, if we have an encounter with 5 of those monsters at the same time and each of them survives an average of 5 rounds, then that stat block actually needs to fill up 25 rounds worth of actions.

Um... Anything you say. Me, I find that if every monster does a completely different action every time you aren't fighting monsters so much as random grab bags of abilities with no coherence. (And high level 3e spellcasting monsters are Wizards in a Skin Suit - the part that matters is that they can cast the same skills as other wizards). Ogres should move like ogres. And that means they should repeatedly bash people over the head with clubs. But they do do different things in different situations and the situation changes over the rounds and based on their positioning.

The statblock for a 3e goblin fills up precisely one round of actions. So you only ever use one goblin once?

There are lots of reasons why combat in 4th Edition has gotten the "grind" level, but one of the problems are the shallow, bland, inflexible stat blocks.

Bland? There's more fluff in the difference between Shifty and Goblin Tactics is than between the entire Goblin and Ettin statblocks in 3e.

Inflexible? It's a hell of a lot easier IME to customise monsters in 4e than 3.X (the Monster Builder helps, admittedly).

Shallow? Compared to 3e? Where all the monsters move the same?

No, grind's not to do with the statblocks on those counts. It's to do with the MMI giving far too little damage to many critters, DMs going outside competence, and a lack of focus.

It's not just an issue of space: The Delve Format (and, to a large extent, the entire design of 4th Edition) is about the "perfectly balanced tactical encounter".

This quest for "perfect balance" inherently limits interactivity and minimizes player impact on a strategic level.

The quest for every encounter to be balanced does, I agree. On the other hand, the quest for every encounter to provide the DM with sufficient information to know what will work simply provides the DM and module writer with much better tools and knowledge to be able to know what will work. And to then throw the unbalanced ones at the PC.

What Noonan said: "Until the moment they interact with the PCs, they’re in a state of stasis. And five rounds later, they’re done."

They are in narrative stasis. No dice are being rolled for them. And success or failure is a matter of DM fiat.

I'm not sure what you think is being misrepresented here. The NPCs don't do anything until the PCs see them, as soon as the PCs see them combat will start, and "five rounds later, they're done".

The big question is what happens to characters when the actors aren't on stage - and it is a pretty open one. Watch Rozencrantz and Gildenstern are dead. The answer 4e has taken is that they are at that point in the mind of the DM and players and don't need rolling for. And the statblock contains the things you roll for. Physical Stasis != Narrative Stasis. (Or do you seriously roll for all your monsters when DMing when they aren't interacting with PCs? For that matter do you DM?)

I just got done telling you that the problem is the underlying design premise that NPCs don't do anything outside of combat, but you're still trying to distract the issue by talking about stat block methodology.

No. We're pointing out that you are talking out of your hat. And the stat blocks demonstrate this.

 

[Rechan]

It's been well dissected that Paizo and WotC are two very different beasts, especially when it comes to adventure writing.

Paizo:
Smaller, dedicated fanbase.
Online focused model (Subscription based, strong PDFs)
Extensive customer service.
Staff dedicated to interacting with fans and responding on the internet.
Talented staff with lots of resources on module writing.
Weight of Dungeon and Dragon magazines as reputation.
Fewer staff.

WotC
Largest RPG company.
Dead-tree focused.
Resources put all over the place (D&D rules, boardgames, M:tG)

Saying that Paizo doesn't charge much for a module means that WotC doesn't need to charge much is just not a fair comparison.

WotC has to appeal to a wider audience, newbies and people who do not use the Internet at all. Their modules need to stay in print longer and sit on the shelves at FLGSs. WotC is the largest gaming company and thus, for a product to break even or be profitable, it must sell many more units than a Paizo module to be considered a success. By Paizo's modules being in PFRPG rather than the broader 3.5, they've ensured that fewer people are going to buy their modules, so they have designed their business strategy around that. Cultivate a loyal fanbase and keep getting them to buy, vs WotC's business model 'throw it out there and get the most to buy it as possible'.

In the link I provided above, someone gave a quote from an FLGS owner in how he doesn't sell Paizo products because Paizo offers so many incentives for customers to buy online, compared to WotC who does free events at FLGSes and otherwise tosses support to the FLGS.

Not only does WotC expect more, but they've been given less room to work with; the new module (HS1) is 36 pages! In the thread "Help WotC make Better Modules", it was stated that 36 is the new limit for WotC modules. Considering the amount of detail and effort and re-writing 4 times folks want, you just cannot churn out gold in 36 pages and expect it facilitating everyone.

There is way more going on than just "What people will pay for a module". Brand loyalty and yes, edition. But also, I suspect that people who buy Paizo modules may very well be different kinds of gamers, different people, compared to those who are going to buy a WotC module.

Simply put, Paizo is the best of the best, and saying "Well I expect everyone to operate on the bar set by the best" isn't a fair expectation. Nor is "I expect the biggest gaming company's prices to compare to a small third party company's".

 

[Wicht]

By Paizo's modules being in PFRPG rather than the broader 3.5, they've ensured that fewer people are going to buy their modules, so they have designed their business strategy around that.

I hate to keep arguing with you about Paizo but I don't think they have done any such thing. I get the feeling that they are selling many more modules now than they were 2 years ago. While it may be true that WotC is the bigger company and sells more Core Rulebooks (at the moment) I would love for you to show me what proof you have that WotC sells more modules more regularly.

Furthermore, smaller print runs cost more, not less. Therefore it would be logical to assume the smaller company, printing less books must sell for a higher price. You have it exactly backwards.

Also, also - You seem to be implying that Paizo's focus on the PDF somehow lessens their cost for print, but that doesn't work. Printing still cost money and Paizo gives the PDFs away for free to us subscribers, after knocking 15% of their prices.

So I get more from Paizo for less and you are telling me its because as a smaller company it doesn't cost them as much. I'm not sure I believe that. Paizo pays for good artists. They pay their freelance writers (I am told) as much as just about anybody in the business, excepting WotC in their hayday. They print on quality stock. And they still manage to keep their prices down. I would suspect it has more to do with management and less to do with company size.

 

[Wicht]

Incidentally Rechan, Where you aware that Paizo, in the last few years has put out...

Card Games,
Board games,
Map tiles,
Game aids in the form of card decks,
a line of republished sf/fantasy novels,
a successful new rule set with 2 books out and 2 more on the way this year,
they have entered into a license agreement to have their own line of miniatures
and that their gameworld novel line starts up later this year.
They have their own small convention, a major online store and a successful Pathfinder Society.

Paizo does a little more than just modules.

 

[Umbran]

To raise a bigger question: why does any of this need to be edition-specific?

Because the presentation of the adventure is edition specific. It is not enough to say, "design an adventure that has these specific qualities". Any of us GMs can probably do it for ourselves, for either edition, and run it at our table. But a hefty portion of it would never make it into notes - it'd remain in our heads.

For publication, at the end there needs to be a real, usable document that contains all of it. The real challenge doesn't lie in the adventure design, but in the expression of that design in each edition.

Now, add onto that a bit of game design (not adventure design) philosophy: 4e does not seem to be designed for the DM to have "stats for everything" (for an NPC or otherwise). The intent seems to be that like in much earlier editions, the DM is supposed to handle a lot of stuff with less explicit mechanical support, and be "old school" about it, if you will.

But you seem to want mechanical support expressed for that same stuff. See the conflict?

 

[BryonD]

In 4e I don't need a stat block to help me with non-combat encounters, because (to the extent that these are handled mechanically) these are resolved via skill challenges, with DCs set in accordance with the rules in the DMG and DMG2.

True. But everything is relative. I know there are a lot of people who really enjoy having more depth to non-combat than simply "these are resolved via skill challenges, with DCs set in accordance with the rules in the DMG and DMG2."

In short, tactical flexibility and variety is not just a function of a monster's statblock. It's also a function of something closer to the ordinary meaning of "tactics" - combination of forces, terrain etc.

True. But everything is relative.
Tactical flexibility is a sum of numerous elements. How the monster is built is certainly one key element. Combination of forces is another. Terrain is yet another. There are certainly more, but I'd agree these will be pretty dominant.

However, combination of forces and terrain and other such elements can be varied under any system. So giving a particular system credit for the variety that these changes provides is kinda disingenuous to the actual point. The question is: does the system mechanics (creature stat block specifically in the case, but not limited to that) add to the game beyond what simply changes tactics and terrain gives to ANY game?

For 4E the answer is YES. Very much yes. 4E is a good game.

But, there are better games out there. And it is reasonable to say that, compared to those games, the statblocks and mechanics of 4E don't provide enough tactical flexibility.

 

[Scribble]

Well, if you agree with the statement that NPCs will never interact with PCs except for 5 rounds of combat, then there's really not much else to be said.

The original post talked about the disparity between Noonan's statement and the statement: "Combat is a part of stories and fiction solely there to provide drama, but endless slogs with monsters and NPCs I don't care about have zero drama."

I disagree with Noonan and agree with the other guy. You obviously disagree with the other guy and agree with Noonan.

Please don't tell me what I "obviously think" thanks.

I agree with both. If you read some of the things I've said, I would like more non combat elements added to WoTC adventures. None of my home games are combat only either.

I DO NOT, however, believe the non combat stuff needs to be in a combat stat block.

I also believe that because of this a lot of what I consider "noise" can be taken out of the stat block.

In a combat stat block give me what I need to run the monster/npc well for roughly the amount of time it will exist in combat (should the PCs manage to kill it) even if I've only ever seen the creature once before.

I keep hearing how easy it is to reskin in 4th Edition, but now you're telling me that you never re-use a stat block? Weird.

Sure- In a single fight, probably, sometimes between sightings of the same type, but more often then not, they won't encounter exactly the same stat block.

(You're about to tell me that that isn't what you said. But it is. Re-read your post until you figure out why.)

I will happily debate with someone about differing opinions anytime, however, if that person starts to get into "Look at me I'm psychic arrogant tells me what I'm thinking" mode.... I'm no longer interested.

If you want to keep talking awesome- but if you want to keep trying to insult me, or talk down to me, I'ma talk to someone else.

And each round each of those monsters gets to take an action. What's five times five?

Yes, 5 x 5 i= 25... But if it takes 5 hours to get from here to East Overtheresville, putting 5 people in the car isn't going to suddenly turn it into a 25 hour trip! (Although I suppose if one of those people is your mother in law it might FEEL like 25 hours...)