GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Raven Crowking]

By this set of criteria one cannot have a good encounter without knowing the abilities of the actual characters who will take part as well as the talents of the players running them. Therefore no published encounter is worth the paper it's written on.

Moreover, there can be no good status quo setting, as good status quo encounters cannot exist.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I can easily recall discussions of how CR breaks down in 3e, where I was told that I didn't know what I was talking about, it was a great, robust, tool, etc. Now, the worm has turned.

3e CR is a good tool. It just has its limits; it's clunky, unwieldy, and the balance for many monsters sucks. On the other hand it's better than any tool that had previously existed in D&D that I know of.

4e, likewise. There are problems in 4e. You can't play a gritty or simulationist game with it. Some of it's silly. Some of it's unbalanced (*cough*Undead Encounters*cough*). Combat often takes too long and can bog down into a grind. On the other hand, the best way to bring the flaws of a system into sharp relief is to offer something better. And to understand the flaws.

I suspect that when 5e is announced, we will be able to discuss the problems of 4e. In fact, I would suspect that some of the folks who stick with 4e will be surprised how some outspoken champions of 4e now are commenting on the obvious flaws then.

And I'll say for 3e it was a vast step up on AD&D. Few of the criticisms levelled by AD&D supporters hold water - and most of those that do are playstyle differences.

Something doesn't have to be old to be viewed through rose-coloured glasses. 4e has flaws, just as Pathfinder has flaws, just as 3e has flaws, just as 1e has flaws, just as all games have flaws. Talking about them openly can, in some cases, help the designers improve the model.

At other times, when based on false premises, it's just noise. For instance when you are applying the same assumptions to minons as to normal monsters. (I'm not saying minions don't have their problems - they are too easy to take out with AoEs by paragon, let alone epic for one - and can feel like a slog if you don't have blasts/bursts).

For example, I am told that the later monster books for 4e are much better than the initial MM......A direct result of noting the flaws of the earlier book?

Yes. Noting the flaws by means of playtesting and informed criticism. When I dismiss your criticisms, that doesn't mean I dismiss all criticisms. Just the ones that are from people who don't know the difference between a minion, a normal monster, a solo, and an elite.

 

[Raven Crowking]

When I dismiss your criticisms, that doesn't mean I dismiss all criticisms. Just the ones that are from people who don't know the difference between a minion, a normal monster, a solo, and an elite.

So long as you only accept discussions of encounters as being discussions of 4e encounters, I suppose there is some validity to that. Obviously, when looking at the content of other posters, you have to examine their posts through the filter of your own experience.


RC

 

[Neonchameleon]

By this set of criteria one cannot have a good encounter without knowing the abilities of the actual characters who will take part as well as the talents of the players running them. Therefore no published encounter is worth the paper it's written on.

Oh, FFS.

A level 20 party has its stronghold approached by the rampaging Tarrasque. Could lead to an interesting fight. Or the Tarrasque getting trapped and curb stomped. Or even the PCs harnessing the Tarrasque.

A level 3 party has its stronghold approached by the rampaging Tarrasque. The PCs are going to run like buggery.

To write a module you need to know within reason what you are pitching at. Is it level 20 or level 3?

Likewise, you don't normally run the same encounters for PCs who are Big Damn Heroes and those who go through life with the motto Lie, Cheat, Steal.

And 4e PCs move very differently to 3e ones, and make far more use of terrain. Whereas they have very few Overwhelming Spells. So you write the encounters and often even the plot differently because what is trivial to a 3e mage isn't to a 4e one - but 4e PCs will take opportunities in combat that simply aren't possible in 3e.

For another illustration, watch a dozen old (pre-1990 or so) films. Then work out how the plots would have changed if the characters had all been carrying mobile cameraphones. (The Rom Coms and Spy Movies often massively). And that's just a change in equipment.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yes. Noting the flaws by means of playtesting and informed criticism. When I dismiss your criticisms, that doesn't mean I dismiss all criticisms. Just the ones that are from people who don't know the difference between a minion, a normal monster, a solo, and an elite.

Normal monster = baseline
Elite monster= tough guy
Solo monster= too many HP to take seriously
Minion= narrative device that has no place or meaning in a game.

Playtesting= something that used to happen prior to release.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So long as you only accept discussions of encounters as being discussions of 4e encounters, I suppose there is some validity to that. Obviously, when looking at the content of other posters, you have to examine their posts through the filter of your own experience.


RC

I don't assume that you are talking only about 4e. I just assume that when you are talking about 4e you should instead be listening or can be ignored because you demonstrably don't understand the game - and I've been providing illustrations of the differences for quite a while. And seriously, provide any source that comes close to matching the DMing advice in the DMGII. The only thing I've ever read that was as useful was Robin's Laws of Good GMing - of course Robin Laws was one of the names on the DMGII. Unfortunately the module writers seem to ignore the DMGII - and yes, the WoTC 4e modules I've read suck.

 

[ExploderWizard]

To write a module you need to know within reason what you are pitching at. Is it level 20 or level 3?

Most certainly correct. Within that ballpark, the abilities and resources of different parties can vary by quite a bit even if the number of players and character levels are identical. Consider a 4th level encounter against a party of 5 PC's. Party #1 is made up of all rogues and party # 2 is an all cleric party. The dynamic will be totally different and published encounter may not consider either of these parties during the design process.

Likewise, you don't normally run the same encounters for PCs who are Big Damn Heroes and those who go through life with the motto Lie, Cheat, Steal.

Why not?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Normal monster = baseline
Elite monster= tough guy
Solo monster= too many HP to take seriously
Minion= narrative device that has no place or meaning in a game.

Playtesting= something that used to happen prior to release.

When? About the only thoroughly playtested version of D&D ever was 3.5 - and that's because it was the playtested version of 3e. Seriously, 4e was playtested before release - but there is no way a handful of playtesters can provide the richness of a large community.

Also, Solo Monster = Too many hp to take seriously? Why shouldn't a Dragon have a bucketload of hit points? (I don't use humanoid solos unless they are massively and obviously magically empowered).

As for minions, why don't they have meaning in a game?

 

[Scribble]

Oh, I'm quite aware of these methods which IMO can be pretty much boiled down to... slap a template on it... but these in no way give one the diversity in customizing monsters and NPC's that was available in 3.x. I was asking for the rules that allowed one to slap any class (since we still don't have templates for PHB 3... or the artificer), or paragon class on any NPC or monster. Where are the rules for giving monsters/NPC's feats? In fact is there even a detailed system for assigning powers or skills to NPC's or monsters (besides just eyeball it) in 4e? I'm genuinely curious.

I think though you can't really compare these as "added options" because how monsters are built in 4e is different then in 3e.

Sure, there aren't any rules for adding feats to monsters in 4e, but it's not a lacking feature because they don't accomplish the same end result as they did in 3e.

In 3e in order to legally "unlock" certain attacks/abilities you needed certain feat chains.

In 4e the same end result is accomplished by just giving the creature that ability/power- No feats are needed. Same thing if you want it to have a non attack power that a feat might have accomplished in 3e; again you just give it that power.

Same I feel is true for 3e style templates. A lot of what they were designed to accomplish is now done by simply changing the powers a bit, or choosing another monster "role."

They're not a lack of options in my opinion because there's no longer a need for them. The way they're built from the start gets me to the end monster I want/need more quickly.

Could the game use more options? Hell yeah, added stuff I can play with is always cool... But I don't feel as if I'm lacking any options I once had as a DM in 3e now that I play 4e. In fact, because it's more easily accomplished I feel like I customize monsters far more often then I ever did with 3e. This design model works well for me I guess.

If 3e's design model worked for you though- right on. I bow to your superior 3efoo.

 

[Imaro]

You have the templates for the other classes...base it on those. Unless you want to argue that whenever they publish a new class, suddenly you can no longer completely customize monsters.

Yet whenever a new class was published for 3.x I could instantly apply that class to a monster or NPC.

There aren't any, largely because 4E feats are different from 3E feats. They are generally small modifiers and bonuses. If you want to apply some modifiers and bonuses to your monster, just do it.

So there are no rules for this, thus supporting my argument. Thanks.

No there isn't (other than the specific powers granted by templates), and thank god for that. They give a whole lot of guidelines, but few hard rules, which makes customization much easier.

So again you support my position, and as far as whether skill customization is a good thing or not, let's just leave it at personal opinion...and thank god for the OGL. I'm curious though... how do vague guidelines make customization easier? How does guesstimate= easier... faster maybe, but then I could just as easily guesstimate in 3.x.