GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[pemerton]

I think the scaling introduces an artificial feeling of scaling. I prefer that the inhabitants of a gaming fantasy world not have their interactions dictated by some sort of forced story line.

Well, in my game I don't particularly see the mechanics as dictating the interactions of any of the inhabitants of a gaming fantasy world other than the PCs. And the players of those PCs have chosen to follow this rough story line (start with kobolds, end with Orcus) in virtue of having chosen to play D&D at all.

As for the NPCs, it is the storyline that dictates the stats, and not vice versa. That is, Drow are mysterious undearth beings who are a mere rumour to ordinary surface dwellers. Which is to say, we know it is part of the story that only unusual heroes will actually meet with, let alone fight, Drow in their underground homelands. Which is to say that Drow are paragon-tier monsters.

 

[Lanefan]

I find it rather strange that people seem to be claiming that HIT POINTS are the best way to model in game realities. Because, y'know, it makes perfect sense that Queen Victoria would be a 15th level Aristocrat with a hundred hit points.

A 15th level *undead* Aristocrat by now, wouldn't you think?

Lan-"and she's still not amused"-efan

 

[Wicht]

Snort. Does it really matter? 10th level aristocrat, even with stat penalties (which you now have to account for, this is a thread about GM prep time) still folds, spindles and mauls 99% of the population of the nation, which consists of 1st level commoners. Quibbling over the level is a bit pointless don't you think? Even 8th level, she's obliterating the local blacksmith (lvl 1 commoner) in unarmed combat.

Go granny go.

Using Pathfinder rules:

Queen - 80 years old; for the sake of arguement we'll make her 10th level aristocrat, (though I think thats a bit high myself.) She has therefore a BAB of +7. Her strength is 4 (original 10; -6) for a -3 penalty to hit and damage. In unarmed combat she would have a +4 to hit and do 1d3-3 points of non-lethal damage. She also with her constitution of 5 (original 11; -6 ) has a total of 14 hps.

The Blacksmith, a level 3 expert in the prime of his life has a BAB of 2, a 14 strength and a 12 constitution. He's going to have a +4 to hit, identical to the queen (who is after all divinely appointed) and do 1d3+2 points of non-lethal damage on a punch. He has 16 hps.

It will take the queen 17 rounds of hits, doing 1 non-lethal point of damage each round she hits, to knock the blacksmith out.

Assuming he fights back, he knocks her out in about 4 rounds, maybe 5.

If we want to model wrestling, the queen has a CMB of +4 and a CMD of 10 (I'm assuming a dexterity of about 2 - it was her dump stat ). The Blacksmith also has a CMB of 4 but he has a CMD of 14. Assuming the Blacksmith wins initiative, which is likely considering the queen's dexterity, he puts her in a pin on a roll of 6+ and proceeds to hold her to the ground, knocking her head against the floor or what not, while she struggles to escape. He ends up with a few scratches, but the queen is out in about 4 or 5 rounds again.

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

I didn't say anyone claimed that.
My point is that you only need (elaborate) monster customization rules if monsters and pcs share the same ruleset.

And how, pray tell,do you balance powers that do something besides damage? Or a power that does damage and an effect?

I recommended to look at monster powers from a comparable level. Assuming the power was balanced to begin with, you'll end up with a balanced power. About the only caveat I can think of is synergy effects. But almost every monster is already designed to have synergetic powers.

And if you invent your own monster powers including status effects all you have to do is decide if it is bad enough to warrant using the low damage expression or if it's a negligible 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.

Well, using a dozen books to customize monsters (in 3e) is not required if the players don't get to use a dozen books to optimize their pcs. If they get access to all supplements then monsters definitely should, too.

Making stuff up isn't a strength of 4e... it's a strength of any and every rpg.

Well, turn the argument around then, if you prefer: 3e was a system that discouraged 'making stuff up' and for good reason (the very reason mentioned above).

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

I never refuted that. I claim they're not needed, though (apart from the two-page spread 'customizing monsters' with the tables on hp/attacks/defenses per monster role and the damage progression table).

Check out the official 4e modules: Almost none of the npcs use the DMG guidelines. They're all custom-created.

Note further the evolution of the DMG templates into DMG2 themes. Apparently, the game designers realized that adding a bunch of additional powers will not increase the challenge a monster represents in a significant way.

One of the designers even wrote in his blog that he felt the DMG templates aren't working well.

 

[Imaro]

I didn't say anyone claimed that.
My point is that you only need (elaborate) monster customization rules if monsters and pcs share the same ruleset.

Yet there are games where the PC's and monsters/NPC's don't share the same ruleset... yet there are "elaborate" (maybe comprehensive would be a better term.) customization rules, a prime example I know of are the Angel and Buffy rpg's. So your general statement doesn't necessarily ring true.

I recommended to look at monster powers from a comparable level. Assuming the power was balanced to begin with, you'll end up with a balanced power. About the only caveat I can think of is synergy effects. But almost every monster is already designed to have synergetic powers.

Sooo... guesstimate...by finding a power that is similar in function, and attached to a monster that is similar in level and role, then pour through the MM's (since we all know there were design flaws in 1... it only makes sense to compare powers in both books.) to first make sure the power you have selected to compare it to is balanced to most powers that are similar, if not select a new power to compare... When this is finally finished then you can actually compare the power you created to a balanced one you have now located...uhm ok.

And if you invent your own monster powers including status effects all you have to do is decide if it is bad enough to warrant using the low damage expression or if it's a negligible effect.

How?

Well, using a dozen books to customize monsters (in 3e) is not required if the players don't get to use a dozen books to optimize their pcs. If they get access to all supplements then monsters definitely should, too.

It's not "required" at all...it is an option and any DM can choose to limit or expand the books they want to use for preparation... and in doing so accept the fact that his choice may increase or decrease preparation time.

Well, turn the argument around then, if you prefer: 3e was a system that discouraged 'making stuff up' and for good reason (the very reason mentioned above).

It never discouraged me from making stuff up, and it provided structure for times that I wanted to fall back on it. Again a general sweeping statement, that unless you can show where the text in the actual books discouraged making stuff up, is only subjectively truthful for those that chose to interpret 3e that way.

I never refuted that. I claim they're not needed, though (apart from the two-page spread 'customizing monsters' with the tables on hp/attacks/defenses per monster role and the damage progression table).

Not needed... for you. Others may need (though I think want is a better term since very little is technically "needed" in an rpg) exactly this.

Check out the official 4e modules: Almost none of the npcs use the DMG guidelines. They're all custom-created.

Okay, and? Again making stuff up is possible in any roleplaying game... however the reason I'm paying money is to have the rules to do so... if those rules do not cover what I want to make up or how I want to make it up... then I have no reason to purchase them.

Note further the evolution of the DMG templates into DMG2 themes. Apparently, the game designers realized that adding a bunch of additional powers will not increase the challenge a monster represents in a significant way.

Citation please? Where have the designers stated this... or are you inferring this?

One of the designers even wrote in his blog that he felt the DMG templates aren't working well.

That would be interesting reading indeed... do you happen to have a link.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The idea that hit points are the only model of reality in a game is ludicrous.

Well IMHO and all that, the idea that hit points model reality at all is kind of ludicrous.

 

[MrMyth]

Sooo... guesstimate...by finding a power that is similar in function, and attached to a monster that is similar in level and role, then pour through the MM's (since we all know there were design flaws in 1... it only makes sense to compare powers in both books.) to first make sure the power you have selected to compare it to is balanced to most powers that are similar, if not select a new power to compare... When this is finally finished then you can actually compare the power you created to a balanced one you have now located...uhm ok.

Making up powers completely on the spot, in 4E, for me, takes only a few moments and consistently yields absolutely more balanced results than strictly following every formula for monster advancement in 3.5. This is because the numbers largely stay balanced, and it is typically pretty obvious where something falls in the power level: an area-effect at-will stun (save ends) is at the top end, while a power that reduces someone's movement by 1 is not that big a deal.

For the times when you really are unsure, it honestly doesn't take that long to flip open the MM level index, find something similar of the right level, and make a quick comparison. And once you've done that a time or two, you often don't need to for future powers.

Now, I'm not going to claim that such free-form design is going to be the easiest approach for everyone. But I think you are vastly overestimating how much time it takes to check the balance of a power, as well as underestimating how forgiving the system is when adding conditions to powers. And at least for me, I can go crazy adjusting a monster in 4E without ending up with the sort of unbalanced nonsense I could get by advancing 3.5 monsters strictly by the book (either by hit dice, templates or class levels).

Now, was every monster creation in 3.5 flawed? Absolutely not. And for many people, those guidelines remained a solid anchor for their own design. But again speaking from my own experience, 3rd Edition very much felt like it discouraged 'tinkering', while 4E feels like it encourages it, and both makes it quick and easy.

You don't need to agree with this, you are perfectly free to prefer another system, but I don't think it fair to imply that it takes forever to create a new power and quickly compare it to existing ones of that level.

 

[Imaro]

Making up powers completely on the spot, in 4E, for me, takes only a few moments and consistently yields absolutely more balanced results than strictly following every formula for monster advancement in 3.5. This is because the numbers largely stay balanced, and it is typically pretty obvious where something falls in the power level: an area-effect at-will stun (save ends) is at the top end, while a power that reduces someone's movement by 1 is not that big a deal.

Is it really obvious? How do you determine whether a power should have a "recharge" value, a "save ends", or "until end of your next turn" effect? If you decide on a recharge... how do you determine what that power should recharge on? Is a burst power that does less damage equal to a single attack that does the same damage but inflicts a condition? If so, what conditions are balanced and which aren't? In designing a monster how does one determine how many recharge, save ends, encounter, at-will, minor action...etc. powers to give it? Should this be influenced by it's role?

And so on... I think it's often stated as "simple" because many people (though not all) give little to no thought to many of these things when designing freeform monsters and powers (or else we would have concrete rules for them.). I don't know if that necessarily makes it simple or they are simplifying what goes into designing new monsters and powers themselves and claiming 4e did it.

For the times when you really are unsure, it honestly doesn't take that long to flip open the MM level index, find something similar of the right level, and make a quick comparison. And once you've done that a time or two, you often don't need to for future powers.

I don't have my MM with me right now, but I think it would be interesting to see what type of disparity exists in things like number of powers for monsters of the same level as well as monsters of the same role. What's the disparity in effects available (types, number of, type of action, etc.)... is there a low level monster that can stun and damage? How much damage does he do? Is it less, more or equal to a monster of the same level that can't?

Now, I'm not going to claim that such free-form design is going to be the easiest approach for everyone. But I think you are vastly overestimating how much time it takes to check the balance of a power, as well as underestimating how forgiving the system is when adding conditions to powers. And at least for me, I can go crazy adjusting a monster in 4E without ending up with the sort of unbalanced nonsense I could get by advancing 3.5 monsters strictly by the book (either by hit dice, templates or class levels).

Emphasis mine... and I think you are vastly underestimating the paralysis and uncertainty that can arise from such freeform design for monsters and NPC's... especially when one has chosen a generally non-freeform rpg to play.

In 3.5 once I got comfortable with the system and had used it's rules (brokenness and all)... it was easy enough for me to start shaping the game outside of the guidelines provided by the rules because I understood them. I'm not so sure "make it up without guidelines"... or even "make it up without complete guidelines" is the best approach. I like 4e and wish they would provide some more guidelines and rules for constructing monsters NPC's and powers.

Now, was every monster creation in 3.5 flawed? Absolutely not. And for many people, those guidelines remained a solid anchor for their own design. But again speaking from my own experience, 3rd Edition very much felt like it discouraged 'tinkering', while 4E feels like it encourages it, and both makes it quick and easy.

Well I can respect that you felt like that... it just irks me that the whole 4e encourages/ 3e discourages thing is often stated by fans of 4e as if it were an objective truth... and it's not.

You don't need to agree with this, you are perfectly free to prefer another system, but I don't think it fair to imply that it takes forever to create a new power and quickly compare it to existing ones of that level.

I didn't imply that "it takes forever to create a new power and quickly compare it to existing ones of that level." especially since you have added a qualifier of "quickly compare". What I did argue is that some people may not find this freeform method as simple and easy to use. They may in fact find it confusing and

 

[MrMyth]

I didn't imply that "it takes forever to create a new power and quickly compare it to existing ones of that level." especially since you have added a qualifier of "quickly compare". What I did argue is that some people may not find this freeform method as simple and easy to use.

Well, that I won't argue with. But it did feel like you were dismissing the method entirely rather than just saying it isn't to your style.

I certainly agree that more guidelines with powers would be a good thing. For myself, I do find the rules adaptable enough to play around with powers without feeling like I will break the balance of the system. But I certainly understand that it may not seem so for everyone - and there are, after all, still rules for advancement, NPCs, levelling, etc. Or, in the end, just swapping in appropriate powers from other monsters - which I do think is a relatively manageable task. Finding other appropriate monsters of similar level and role is easy enough with the books themselves, and outright trivial with DDI.

In the end - yes, not everyone will prefer this approach. But I do recommend at least trying it, even if you find it confusing or intimidating, and seeing how the results actually work out in the game.

 

[Imaro]

Well, that I won't argue with. But it did feel like you were dismissing the method entirely rather than just saying it isn't to your style.

I certainly agree that more guidelines with powers would be a good thing. For myself, I do find the rules adaptable enough to play around with powers without feeling like I will break the balance of the system. But I certainly understand that it may not seem so for everyone - and there are, after all, still rules for advancement, NPCs, levelling, etc. Or, in the end, just swapping in appropriate powers from other monsters - which I do think is a relatively manageable task. Finding other appropriate monsters of similar level and role is easy enough with the books themselves, and outright trivial with DDI.

In the end - yes, not everyone will prefer this approach. But I do recommend at least trying it, even if you find it confusing or intimidating, and seeing how the results actually work out in the game.

Hey, in all honesty...even though it may seem like I'm totally down on 4e, I'm not... this thread has given me an inkling to start playing around with the monster and NPC creation tools as well as trying it freeform( Doesn't mean I don't still want some codified rules WotC ). I do wish WotC would allow companion character rules, templates and some of the other stuff to be added to the Monster Builder tool as well.