Tension in combat

[Rydac]

A line from the assassin design diary caught my eye:

"With D&D combat, the tension is highest at the beginning of the fight (when players and monsters have a full array of resources) and lowest near the end (when players are out of resources and monsters are dwindling)

I think that the wizards designers are working from a false premise. Now I like the assassins power mentioned in the original post and in general I'm fine with powers that don't kick in until later in a fight (especially for monsters), but I disagree that tension is highest at the start of combat because all combatants have full resources.

The start of combat is when a monster is best able to withstand a daily or encounter. A few rounds in after hammering a foe with daily/encounter they are often then put down by an "at will" and "at wills" are no longer the 3.x and prior boring "I swing my weapon doing damage X"

Tension should be higher as the combat progresses, resources dwindle and the outcome hopefully balanced on a knife edge Tactics such as one poster mentioned above of bringing in reinforcements is a great tension increase. Tactics of the monsters should also be in great play to bring tension to the battle. To paraphrase a recent Governor Ed Rendell quote "let's not wussify the players" there don't need to be additional rule mechanics to increase combat tension....players can manage their own resources if they want to save a big hit and starting with monster choices DMs have plenty of existing tools to create and run tension filled combats.

 

[Joshua Randall]

To amplify what Rydac said just above, if your encounters lack tension at the end of the encounter, then you need to build better encounters.

Push your players to the limit. Push them past the limit -- they will surprise you, and maybe themselves. Remember that 4e PCs are incredibly resilient, especially compared to earlier edition PCs.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

A line from the assassin design diary caught my eye:

"With D&D combat, the tension is highest at the beginning of the fight (when players and monsters have a full array of resources) and lowest near the end (when players are out of resources and monsters are dwindling)."

This is a good point.

The problem is that players have their full array of resources at the beginning of a fight. What swordsman doesn't need to set himself up with a feint before striking the vorpal blow? What mage doesn't need to conjure fire before hurling a ball of it at the ranks of kobolds?

In my opinion, the way-fun solution is to structure the combat rules so that players don't have a full array of resources at the beginning of a fight. The brawler can't use a haymaker at the start of a fight because he hasn't dazed his opponent yet with a jab. The sorcerer can't web her opponent yet because she hasn't first spun fresh, sticky silk from all ten fingertips.

(Shameless plug alert) Spellbound Kingdoms uses a system like that. If you haven't seen its combat system, you really should check it out. It's different, and it's good. You can download the combat primer for free. It rocks. But don't buy the game at DTRPG or anywhere else yet. I'm just about to release a revision; wait for that.

I wanted to use this system, or an approximation of it shoehorned into 3.x, for Bo9S. But it just wouldn't fly with the development team, I guess (they kept a lot of my fluff and maneuvers, but my mechanics were ignored).

I do like Ari's idea within the 4e framework. Mearls's charge-up token idea from Iron Heroes is not bad either.

But I still think the fundamental problem is what's stated in the design diary quote above, namely, that the full suite of resources is available right from the start. I like a more tactical system where your opening moves determine what's available after that: a fighter who can only recover or roll after a lunge, but can block or riposte or slash following a slash. Each move dictates what further resources become available.

 

[SlyDoubt]

Many of the above posts contain great solutions. My only problem with a few of them that involve scaling bonuses and bonuses derived from those bonuses is the extra numbers needed to be calculated each turn.

Mechanically it may work very nicely but many of these solutions seem clunky and certainly for my groups of players would be considered annoying or detrimental to the experience. Especially after all of the other modifiers combat tacks on from turn to turn.

DMing solutions are assumed and almost pointless to discuss at a certain point. "If your encounters lack tension then you need to build better encounters." How does that help the fact that the system as the rules state it does not compensate for the lack of tension. You can DM yourself out of any situation the rules can ever present. The notable difference is when the effort required is substantially beyond what the rules expect.

I think 4E works fine but I don't think there is a good elegant solution to this problem. It's just part of 4E. The thing is 4E relies so much on passive/inherent bonuses that divorcing elements of it from the whole system is a chore at best. That's unfortunate, but thankfully it's DnD; there are as many answers to this issue as there are people playing the game. Thanks for sharing these ideas though, all are good!

 

[I'm A Banana]

But I still think the fundamental problem is what's stated in the design diary quote above, namely, that the full suite of resources is available right from the start. I like a more tactical system where your opening moves determine what's available after that: a fighter who can only recover or roll after a lunge, but can block or riposte or slash following a slash. Each move dictates what further resources become available.

I see this, and I instantly think, "This is another Dungeon Design style layout!" You can think of it like a dungeon: each room has a few branches, which each lead to a different room with different branches, and so on. Maybe certain "rooms" have traps (possibilities for failure?), others have treasure (bonuses for success?), and your goal, when using this system, is to get your character's attacks from their weakest point to their strongest point as quickly as possible.

...and now I want to use random dungeon generators to generate link-able move sets.

It's interesting, it's cinematic, and it contains some elements of reality, but I can see a few issues with it from a design standpoint (like overlarge complexity), but it's certainly an intriguing idea...

 

[Iron Sky]

Skimming through this thread, I had a great idea that would help with grind in general AND with the encounter/daily alpha-nova issue. I'll call it the "+round" rule:

Players and monsters get a bonus to damage equal to what round of combat it is: +1 damage in round 1, +2 damage in round 2, +3 damage in round 3, etc. The surprise round might grant a +5 damage to make surprise rounds actually scary.

Encounter powers get double this bonus: An encounter power used in round 1 would add +1 x 2 = +2 damage. An encounter power used in round 5 would do +5 x 2 = +10 damage.

Daily powers get triple this bonus: A daily power used in round one would add +1 x 3 = +3 damage. A daily power used in round 5 would do +5 x 3 = +15 damage. This would give more incentive to take dailies that are heavy hits over those with encounter-long effects, which tend to be the best option in most cases.

Monster recharge and encounter powers count as encounter powers. Monsters with recharge powers would still spam them as often as possible, but monsters with 1/enc powers might actually save them for a bit to get a better damage bonus, adding a bit more tension and surprise for the players as well: "This thing doesn't hit too hard... whoa! Where'd that come from!"

As a hypothesis, you might increase the multiplier by 1 at Paragon and by 2 at Epic: At-wills do +roundx2/x3 damage, encounters do +roundx3/x4, and dailies do +roundx4/x5.

This way the players have opposing incentives that should make for interesting decisions: Do I unload encounters and dailies early hoping to take down the monster before it gets a couple rounds in and it is hitting REALLY hard or do I wait until I get the immense damage bonus?

No only is it mechanically useful, it gives it a neat anime-style "charge up" where the good guys seem to use their best powers only at the end of the fight and own the enemy right on the brink of being beaten themselves.

Thanks for the posts guys, I think the idea that spawned from them is going to change the way I run 4e. Goodbye grind!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Many of the above posts contain great solutions. My only problem with a few of them that involve scaling bonuses and bonuses derived from those bonuses is the extra numbers needed to be calculated each turn.

Mechanically it may work very nicely but many of these solutions seem clunky and certainly for my groups of players would be considered annoying or detrimental to the experience. Especially after all of the other modifiers combat tacks on from turn to turn.

DMing solutions are assumed and almost pointless to discuss at a certain point. "If your encounters lack tension then you need to build better encounters." How does that help the fact that the system as the rules state it does not compensate for the lack of tension. You can DM yourself out of any situation the rules can ever present. The notable difference is when the effort required is substantially beyond what the rules expect.

I think 4E works fine but I don't think there is a good elegant solution to this problem. It's just part of 4E. The thing is 4E relies so much on passive/inherent bonuses that divorcing elements of it from the whole system is a chore at best. That's unfortunate, but thankfully it's DnD; there are as many answers to this issue as there are people playing the game. Thanks for sharing these ideas though, all are good!

Well, OK, but the question stated in the OP remains...

I agree with you that all the extra fancy book keeping type solutions don't really excite me personally. 4e seems to already be rather heavy in the book keeping department. Adding more layers seems like going in the wrong direction.

So, we are left with building better encounters. That really IMHO IS the solution. Some good ideas have already been put forward in this thread. Don't play all your cards on round 1 is a great technique for instance. There are others though.

Build the increasing tension into the encounter environment. Make the environment dynamic and inherently ratchet up the tension. Terrain elements can become more dangerous as the encounter progresses for instance. The encounter area can be unstable, pushing the PCs to act quickly say. While this might seem to make the encounter even more front-loaded this can work. Maybe the platform the artillery monsters are on can be collapsed but it takes several rounds to do it. Maybe the PCs can SEE reinforcements coming, so they will have to hold back some at the start. A variation of that would be the PCs can stop the reinforcements by doing something like caving in a side passage or something. There are other tried and true techniques.

I've just found that vanilla encounters really have little place in 4e. Once in a while they're OK to set a mood or establish some facts on the ground, but really EVERY encounter should be fitting into a narrative and building the story. Monsters should be an active force working to thwart the PCs. Provide intermediate objectives in the adventure that let the PCs rebuild their resources somewhat too. If the players feel like unleashing in an encounter so they can move on quickly toward the real objective is great. The whole situation should be like a roller-coaster ride with constant ups and downs. Or like an escalating disaster, or an unfolding mystery. Keep the focus off the task of cutting through hit points and on being big heroes.

 

[SlyDoubt]

You're absolutely right about 'build better encounters' but what I mean to say is that isn't a legitimate solution. That's a solution to any and all problems in any RPG that involves a GM running everything outside the PCs. That is not a specific 4E solution.

The thing is the stuff the DM guides tell you to do doesn't stop these problems from happening. So for all it's straightforwardness 4E is not easy to DM and create exciting and interesting encounters with tension like the OP is saying.

Saying "Be a better DM!" is not a solution. It's a workaround that can be applied to any and all situations. I think 4E has this glossy sheen that makes newer players/DMs think it manages itself in a sense. Look how easy things are! 1,2,3, presto! Encounter done. In reality it's nothing like that. Compare it to the new 4E Gamma World which due to alpha mutations and omega tech has built in qualities that develop tension.

I don't think this element of RPGs being run by GMs can ever be overcome entirely but 4E doesn't go far enough in my book. It goes half way and then abandons the new DM.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You're absolutely right about 'build better encounters' but what I mean to say is that isn't a legitimate solution. That's a solution to any and all problems in any RPG that involves a GM running everything outside the PCs. That is not a specific 4E solution.

The thing is the stuff the DM guides tell you to do doesn't stop these problems from happening. So for all it's straightforwardness 4E is not easy to DM and create exciting and interesting encounters with tension like the OP is saying.

Saying "Be a better DM!" is not a solution. It's a workaround that can be applied to any and all situations. I think 4E has this glossy sheen that makes newer players/DMs think it manages itself in a sense. Look how easy things are! 1,2,3, presto! Encounter done. In reality it's nothing like that. Compare it to the new 4E Gamma World which due to alpha mutations and omega tech has built in qualities that develop tension.

I don't think this element of RPGs being run by GMs can ever be overcome entirely but 4E doesn't go far enough in my book. It goes half way and then abandons the new DM.

I guess there are a couple questions and comments that come out of this though. I don't disagree that "be a better DM" is an adequate response to a question of better game design, the two things are orthogonal to each other. OTOH I still come back to my response, which is that adding more book keeping to my game isn't something that appeals to me. Maybe it is an answer for some people, I can't speak for others. I just know I don't want it.

My other observation/question is just this. How is 4e different in this respect than any other version of D&D? In most respects 4e seems rather better in this department.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

I see this, and I instantly think, "This is another Dungeon Design style layout!" You can think of it like a dungeon: each room has a few branches, which each lead to a different room with different branches, and so on. Maybe certain "rooms" have traps (possibilities for failure?), others have treasure (bonuses for success?), and your goal, when using this system, is to get your character's attacks from their weakest point to their strongest point as quickly as possible.

...and now I want to use random dungeon generators to generate link-able move sets.

It's interesting, it's cinematic, and it contains some elements of reality, but I can see a few issues with it from a design standpoint (like overlarge complexity), but it's certainly an intriguing idea...

I actually originally conceived of the SK system as linkable move sets. But some playtesters didn't like the idea of having so many cards in addition to a character sheet and dice. Also, retaining the flavor of individual combat styles (mounted, two weapon, great weapon, etc.) was harder with mix-and-match cards. So I went with static flowcharts.

The complexity really isn't a problem. I haven't met anyone who doesn't get the flowcharts pretty much instantly.

In regards to 4e, yeah, I don't think there's much to be done that doesn't involve a ton of DM work. Build better encounters. Throw in tricks like spells that increase damage as the fight goes on, or stained glass windows that shatter as the fight goes on, etc. Build monsters with wacky back-loaded powers. DM stuff. The system, imo, is not amenable to easy hacking in this regard.