GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Imaro]

Are you for real?

4e doesn't _need_ monster customization rules because monsters don't share the same rules that pcs do. That's the main difference and the major advantage of 4e's approach.

If you want to create an npc Artificer you're not limited to Artificer powers because npc Artificers can be anything you want them to be. You can grant them the powers of any other existing monster or simply make up your own as long as the result is within the limits given in the DMG (i.e. hp, attacks, defenses, damage).

Making stuff up is always easier than looking up dozens of 3e books to find the combination of feats, templates, and class levels that make your customized monster competitive for its CR. If you truly believe customizing monsters in 4e is more difficult than it is in 3e then you have never tried it.

Go back and read what the original argument was please. No one claimed 4e and 3.x worked on the same rules foundation for monsters and NPC's, so I'm not sure what point you are making here.

And how, pray tell,do you balance powers that do something besides damage? Or a power that does damage and an effect? Making stuff up isn't always easier than looking stuff up (since you can ultimately limit your sources, a dozen books isn't necessary) when you want to keep the game running right. Making stuff up isn't a strength of 4e... it's a strength of any and every rpg.

EDIT: Oh, and just as an FYI... 4e does have monster and NPC customization rules... they've also been discussed earlier in the thread.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Erm. I am not saying that you should be accepting any post as evidence merely because it is posted. While I don't necessarily agree with everything that you say, I certainly do agree with the basic premise that you shouldn't wemble on your position merely because someone else offers a counter. Perhaps I wasn't clear?

It is normal and necessary to guage how much you believe someone knows about a topic in order to guage how much weight to give their opinion.

And seriously, provide any source that comes close to matching the DMing advice in the DMGII.

Post the initial release, you should give no weight at all to my opinion of 4e. I've only directly examined the initial Core 3, and any other data I have comes second-hand (I have two players who also play 4e).

Unfortunately the module writers seem to ignore the DMGII - and yes, the WoTC 4e modules I've read suck.

Now, this is something I do know about, because I have been rewriting some 4e materials for use with RCFG (see sig if you don't know what that is). And, yes, I do see good potential in many WotC modules, but from what I do know about 4e, rewriting them for that system is more labour-intensive than the modules deserve.

Like all systems, 4e has strengths and weaknesses. It seems as though the module writers are targetting the weaknesses, and failing to exploit the strengths. IMHO, anyway. The degree to which later releases alter the strengths and weaknesses of 4e will (obviously) influence how much you should accept that opinion.

A lot of criticisms leveled at 3e generation D&D mechanics, particularly achieving combat balance between spellcasters and martial characters, from an AD&D perspective have been pretty cogent. They hold water just fine and don't boil down to play style differences.

Agreed.


RC

 

[Mallus]

Minions are a literary construct that have meaning in a story.

Sure. But that doesn't stop them from being a useful RPG construct, specifically, a low-powered opponent that frequently requires less bookkeeping.

In D&D 4e specifically, they're a class of opponent capable of hitting, damaging, and even imposing status conditions on like-leveled PC's, but with effectively 1 HP. This breaks D&D's long-running tradition of coupling attack ability with like defensive capability/staying power cf. "hit dice".

(but I'm guessing you already knew all that )

 

[MrMyth]

Hey Scribble, just a quick note... if in the 2 DMG's and/or 2 going on 3 MM's 4e had given us a breakdown and rules for comparing and balancing powers... I would be right there with you... but it hasn't, so in essence even with powers replacing feats in 4e (Which is not something I necessarily agree with, especially as we get more feats that do more than just grant a minor bonus) IMO, we are still lacking in the customization aspect of 4e's monsters and NPC's.

But there are guidelines.

When I create or customize a 4E monster, I know around what attack bonus I should have and how much damage an attack should do, based on whether it recharges, what type of monster role I am in, how many targets it hits, what defense it attacks...

Now, there aren't as useful guidelines for adding the extra features - what conditions it inflicts, what other elements the attack might have.

But I have found, with those guidelines, I can make pretty informed decisions. I know that whatever I choose, I'm not going to have an attack that just blows PCs apart, or bounces off them harmlessly. I know, based on the level alone, the monster will be an appropriate challenge in terms of defenses and hitpoints.

Which - at least for me - are far more useful reassurances than the entirely by-the-book monster customization formulas of 3.5. The CR system really did fail me, time and again. Leveling monsters, advancing hit dice, adding abilities - I often found that I could trust the end result. Yet the book said I could, and so I went with it anyway. It didn't fail me every time, of course - but I regularly found myself comparing newly adjusted monsters to ones from the book anyway, and trying to scale them appropriately from there. Despite all the formulas, monster adjustment was an art more than a science.

And thus I was very glad when 4E outright acknowledged that. You get guidelines and pointers, and the advice to check your work anyway. You do have some templates for adding classes to existing monsters, or NPC rules for building humanoid NPCs from scratch. But if you don't want to go by the book, you can also just take a monster and swap some of its powers for appropriate level ranger powers.

And that is the real strength - the time is takes to make those adjustments is far less than I would spend statting out high-level monsters or NPCs. And more basic changes - like adjusting a monster's level up or down - I can often do on the spot. Combined with the expanded base options for many monsters... I find I prefer 4Es approach, and that it provides all the customizability I need.

I have yet to find myself in a situation where I wanted a certain monster or type of monster, and couldn't put together one, and one that was distinct in what it could do and how it played. And if anyone is really concerned that the DM might get it wrong without strict rules to ensure balance... the fact that it takes less work leaves you plenty of time to compare it to existing monsters and confirm whether a new ability is appropriate at that level or not.

Will the system be perfect for everyone? Of course not. But I've found it is easier for starting DMs by providing them with a more diverse selection of distinctive monsters, and it is easier for advanced DMs by putting the power into their own hands and giving guidelines, rather than absolute formulas, to create and adjust monsters as they desire.

 

[ExploderWizard]

And if you are using your game as a form of colaborative storytelling?

This is precisely when they make perfect sense. If you are not?


.[/QUOTE]
For that matter, they make sense in the game world if used carefully (they are the guys who run away at the first hit or the pets who provide a distraction).[/QUOTE]

Nope. Minions only exist relative to the PC's. In order to serve as a setting for a game, the elements of that setting need to make sense without the presence of the PC's. Minions fail that test.

If I wanted a pure game I'd probably play Descent. Or (more likely) Dominion or Wings of War. Or even Mass Effect or Team Fortress 2.

Pure?

 

[MrMyth]

Nope. Minions only exist relative to the PC's. In order to serve as a setting for a game, the elements of that setting need to make sense without the presence of the PC's. Minions fail that test.

Oh, come on - it is a fundamental premise of 4E that the stats for monsters are there to simulate their interactions with PCs, not their interactions with the rest of the world. If a tree falls on a 4E minion in the forest, and no PCs are around to see him, does he die?

Answer: It is entirely up to the DM. What happens to a mook, off-screen, in a situation entirely separate from the PCs, does not require dice-rolling. What happens should be determined by some of those very things you are concerned about - the elements of the setting, the constraints of the story, and the narrative of the DM.

Now, maybe you disagree with this. Maybe you really want a fully-functioning world that you could remove the DM and the players and let it play itself like some sort of tiny mechanical universe. Sounds cool, sounds fascinating - but it isn't 4E. It isn't D&D at all, honestly, but it certainly isn't 4E. Within the context of 4E, as a game that people are actively involved in playing, minions absolutely have a place - both mechanically and within the narrative.

 

[Imaro]

But there are guidelines.

When I create or customize a 4E monster, I know around what attack bonus I should have and how much damage an attack should do, based on whether it recharges, what type of monster role I am in, how many targets it hits, what defense it attacks...

Now, there aren't as useful guidelines for adding the extra features - what conditions it inflicts, what other elements the attack might have.

But I have found, with those guidelines, I can make pretty informed decisions. I know that whatever I choose, I'm not going to have an attack that just blows PCs apart, or bounces off them harmlessly. I know, based on the level alone, the monster will be an appropriate challenge in terms of defenses and hitpoints.

Which - at least for me - are far more useful reassurances than the entirely by-the-book monster customization formulas of 3.5. The CR system really did fail me, time and again. Leveling monsters, advancing hit dice, adding abilities - I often found that I could trust the end result. Yet the book said I could, and so I went with it anyway. It didn't fail me every time, of course - but I regularly found myself comparing newly adjusted monsters to ones from the book anyway, and trying to scale them appropriately from there. Despite all the formulas, monster adjustment was an art more than a science.

And thus I was very glad when 4E outright acknowledged that. You get guidelines and pointers, and the advice to check your work anyway. You do have some templates for adding classes to existing monsters, or NPC rules for building humanoid NPCs from scratch. But if you don't want to go by the book, you can also just take a monster and swap some of its powers for appropriate level ranger powers.

And that is the real strength - the time is takes to make those adjustments is far less than I would spend statting out high-level monsters or NPCs. And more basic changes - like adjusting a monster's level up or down - I can often do on the spot. Combined with the expanded base options for many monsters... I find I prefer 4Es approach, and that it provides all the customizability I need.

I have yet to find myself in a situation where I wanted a certain monster or type of monster, and couldn't put together one, and one that was distinct in what it could do and how it played. And if anyone is really concerned that the DM might get it wrong without strict rules to ensure balance... the fact that it takes less work leaves you plenty of time to compare it to existing monsters and confirm whether a new ability is appropriate at that level or not.

Will the system be perfect for everyone? Of course not. But I've found it is easier for starting DMs by providing them with a more diverse selection of distinctive monsters, and it is easier for advanced DMs by putting the power into their own hands and giving guidelines, rather than absolute formulas, to create and adjust monsters as they desire.

Dude, I have no problems with people's preferences. And believe it or not, with an application I was working on nearing release and my free time severly limited, I enjoyed some of 4e's philosophy on things. Is it my favorite D&D? No. I prefer 3e/Pathfinder. Is 3e/Pathfinder my favorite RPG? Again, No. I prefer games like Runequest, nWoD and Reign to games like D&D...

My whole argument started because a general blanket statement about melee monsters and NPC's having more options in 4e than 3e was used, and I have found that, without waving the wand of extreme GM fiat, this issue is a little more complicated than a 4e> 3e blanket statement.

Edit: Wow, I pprobably should have snipped that quote, sorry about that... also I realize that those three games I listed are toolbox games, that provide the means (in a concrete way) to construct what one wants out of them while still being heavily oriented towards their genre, so I guess that is perhaps my preference and why 4e doesn't hit my buttons like it does others.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Oh, come on - it is a fundamental premise of 4E that the stats for monsters are there to simulate their interactions with PCs, not their interactions with the rest of the world.

Quite true. A core problem with the system in fact.

Now, maybe you disagree with this. Maybe you really want a fully-functioning world that you could remove the DM and the players and let it play itself like some sort of tiny mechanical universe. Sounds cool, sounds fascinating - but it isn't 4E.

Also true.

It isn't D&D at all, honestly,

Wrong.

Not that D&D has ever been focused primarily on anything outside of the play group but it has generally supported multiple play styles.

 

[MrMyth]

My whole argument started because a general blanket statement about melee monsters and NPC's having more options in 4e than 3e was used, and I have found that, without waving the wand of extreme GM fiat, this issue is a little more complicated than a 4e> 3e blanket statement.

Fair enough. I do think I would still stand by that statement, since I think it was geared towards the options of melee monsters out of the book (rather than DM-crafted NPCs), as well as the differences between having a variety of attacks that only really involve damage, and a variety of melee attacks that more regularly feature conditions and distinct effects.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Post the initial release, you should give no weight at all to my opinion of 4e. I've only directly examined the initial Core 3, and any other data I have comes second-hand (I have two players who also play 4e).

Ah. 4e plays much better than it reads. And the II line (the PHB II, the DMG II, and the MM II) are all very good, both signifcantly expanding the play space and improving the balance of 4e.

Now, this is something I do know about, because I have been rewriting some 4e materials for use with RCFG (see sig if you don't know what that is). And, yes, I do see good potential in many WotC modules, but from what I do know about 4e, rewriting them for that system is more labour-intensive than the modules deserve.

Re-writing for 4e is actually quite easy. If the module fits a pulp action-adventure then the fluff can stay unchanged. Mechanics for non-combat are rules light. It's just the combat encounters you need to re-write. Large, open, flowing, with interactive terrain (or just things to push people off).

Re-writing from 4e modules on the other hand isn't. Or rather isn't worth it as most published 4e modules are either dull or have brilliant combats that don't translate (because pushing people back into their own pit traps and the like is a signature of 4e and doesn't work in earlier editions).

Like all systems, 4e has strengths and weaknesses. It seems as though the module writers are targetting the weaknesses, and failing to exploit the strengths. IMHO, anyway. The degree to which later releases alter the strengths and weaknesses of 4e will (obviously) influence how much you should accept that opinion.

Most of the modules are poor, granted. And it's not always easy to see the places where 4e beats out a generic rules light game unless you understand it.

This is precisely when they make perfect sense. If you are not?

For that matter, they make sense in the game world if used carefully (they are the guys who run away at the first hit or the pets who provide a distraction).

Nope. Minions only exist relative to the PC's. In order to serve as a setting for a game, the elements of that setting need to make sense without the presence of the PC's. Minions fail that test.

Ah. You equate game with simulationist. To me this makes as much sense as asking about the economics behind Risk. Chess is a damn good game - but pawns being able to only move forward makes no sense.

Pure?

Dominion qualifies. Although Dominion is an abstract tabletop deck building card game. (I don't like much of pure anything.)