GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Raven Crowking]

Have we established that this is the one fundamental difference between Paizo and WotC adventures? Does Paizo charge 50% more for their products?

No. They have demonstrated the ability to make and sell a superior product at 50% less.

He may be looking at the proposal to take existing WotC adventures and provide multiple approaches for every encounter, but the problem to begin with is that WotC are not well thought out. What was suggested was a method of thinking them out better.

AFAICT, the high price point of WotC modules is based off the Delve format -- Half the bang for your buck delivered straight to you at twice the cost!


RC

 

[MrMyth]

Man, I find I dislike 4e more and more and it's precisely because of things like this.

An approach that encourages more interesting and engaging encounters is something to dislike?

There is nothing saying you can't have a fight with 10 Orc Warriors. But fights are more exciting if you have a half-dozen Orc Grunts, 2-3 skilled Orc Raiders, along with an Orc Chieftain leading the band and his advisor, an Eye of Gruumsh. It's an encounter that will be both more tactically interesting, while also having more flavor and narrative in the game itself.

I'm genuinely interested in hearing why you think this is a bad thing.

 

[Rechan]

If Paizo is not Shrinking then they are either growing or stagnating. Growth would suggest they are selling more today than 2 years ago. So what's so shocking to you?

You said their place in the market. Not the number of modules sold.

 

[Umbran]

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.

... for you.

There are better games out there for you.

It is reasonable to say that 4e doesn't provide enough tactical flexibility for you.

This is one of those times and threads where the "IMHO" really needs to be stated, not assumed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You said their place in the market. Not the number of modules sold.

"I get the feeling that they are selling many more modules now than they were 2 years ago." is the exact quote, to which you replied "It would SHOCK me if this were the case."



RC

 

[Imaro]

An approach that encourages more interesting and engaging encounters is something to dislike?

There is nothing saying you can't have a fight with 10 Orc Warriors. But fights are more exciting if you have a half-dozen Orc Grunts, 2-3 skilled Orc Raiders, along with an Orc Chieftain leading the band and his advisor, an Eye of Gruumsh. It's an encounter that will be both more tactically interesting, while also having more flavor and narrative in the game itself.

I'm genuinely interested in hearing why you think this is a bad thing.

Why is it assumed in 3.x that you would be fighting 10 orc warriors. Why wouldn't you be fighting 5 orc warriors, 2 orc scouts, 2 orc clerics and an orc barbarian? This is just something thats been bugging me as far as the assumptons in this discussion go... 3e was designed so that you or a module writer can customize monsters in tons of ways... why is this being ignored?

 

[billd91]

An approach that encourages more interesting and engaging encounters is something to dislike?

There is nothing saying you can't have a fight with 10 Orc Warriors. But fights are more exciting if you have a half-dozen Orc Grunts, 2-3 skilled Orc Raiders, along with an Orc Chieftain leading the band and his advisor, an Eye of Gruumsh. It's an encounter that will be both more tactically interesting, while also having more flavor and narrative in the game itself.

I'm genuinely interested in hearing why you think this is a bad thing.

No, I dislike an approach that assumes that encounter that doesn't have NPCs that are built differently is somehow flawed. I've always been able to mix up the way I include different NPCs in my encounters. I've also never had much of a problem with making NPCs behave differently and use different tactics even if they've been all built the same.

 

[MrMyth]

Why is it assumed in 3.x that you would be fighting 10 orc warriors. Why wouldn't you be fighting 5 orc warriors, 2 orc scouts, 2 orc clerics and an orc barbarian? This is just something thats been bugging me as far as the assumptons in this discussion go... 3e was designed so that you or a module writer can customize monsters in tons of ways... why is this being ignored?

I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. I certainly think it was less common - and often more work for the DM - in 3.5 to populate an encounter with a diverse group of enemies, but it was certainly doable, both in home games and adventures.

But the specific post I was responding to was someone who said the encouragement of an encounter with different enemies was something he disliked about 4E. My assumption would be that he thus preferred an encounter with 10 orc warriors. It wasn't a commentary on 3.5, but on his specific tastes, and my apologies if I made it sound otherwise.

 

[MrMyth]

No, I dislike an approach that assumes that encounter that doesn't have NPCs that are built differently is somehow flawed. I've always been able to mix up the way I include different NPCs in my encounters. I've also never had much of a problem with making NPCs behave differently and use different tactics even if they've been all built the same.

Ok, I do see what you are saying better now. And you are right - a good DM can definitely keep such encounters interesting. Every enemy being the same mechanically doesn't mean they act the same tactically, or display the same personality.

But I do think it is fair to say that encounters with more diversity are inherently more interesting, both for the DM to run and the players to experience. And that is the 4E philosophy - to encourage that diversity. An encounter with 5 identical enemies isn't the end of the world. But it is something that shouldn't be the default. For most DMs, it is more engaging to run an orc band that has one or two leaders, several warriors, and a number of grunts. Even if you can just take 10 identical guys and have one act like the chief and a few act like his bodyguards, I think something is lost of he is identical to the least of his grunts. It certainly works in a pinch, but wouldn't be an approach I think most would favor.

Nonetheless, your preferred gaming style is certainly your own choice to make. But I will still find it strange that you actively dislike 4E for taking this approach. If you don't choose to use it, it certainly doesn't impede your games - and I think it benefits many, many others.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. I certainly think it was less common - and often more work for the DM - in 3.5 to populate an encounter with a diverse group of enemies, but it was certainly doable, both in home games and adventures.

But the specific post I was responding to was someone who said the encouragement of an encounter with different enemies was something he disliked about 4E. My assumption would be that he thus preferred an encounter with 10 orc warriors. It wasn't a commentary on 3.5, but on his specific tastes, and my apologies if I made it sound otherwise.

Nope, I apologize, I read it wrong and interpreted it with a bias that I felt was being expressed in this thread. Sorry about that.