That's not my experience at all. I'm constantly surprised by the things my players have their PCs do (both in and out of combat).4e encounter design is great, but leads to a certain sameness to encounters.
<snip>
But it's terrible for building an encounter that will surprise you (the dm).
I could link to any number of actual play examples I've posted, but one that comes to mind at the moment is when the PCs were in a town square, in combat with a cultist who was blasting them through a window overlooking the square. The PC wizard used Arcane Gate (or something like that) to teleport up into the room with the cultist, and then proceeded to use Thunderwave to blast the wall off the house (taking the wizard with it).
That surprised me. And it was easier to achieve in 4e then any other system I've GMed, mostly because the ease of adjudication in 4e (due to standard damage expressions and standard DCs).
My own approach to this sort of situation is have a successful skill check (with skill depending on context) trigger "minionisation" of the enemy. Thus, on a success, the PC can cut down the NPC with a single blow/magic missile/whatever; on a failure, the PC is now in combat with a full-hp enemy and has to deal with the consequences (mostly, that the enemy has a chance to escape and get friends).Monster hp are such that its almost impossible to take put a patrol silently (unless it is all minions
<snip>
I think this could have been cured with better minion rules, rules that made minions more dangerous (and thus priority targets) and less vulnerable to auto-hit powers.
I think the second line I've quoted is true for any RPG - the GM needs to keep an eye on pacing and variety. Modules like the G-series, for example, don't produce that on their own!4E has the "set piece" problem in a big way.
<snip>
The DM will need to make an effort to pace things and inject some variety to avoid the game from being one big fight after another.
I also agree that 4e favoures "set pieces", but I don't see that as a problem - I want the events in my game to be exciting and memorable!
In the context of an isolated encounter, 4E's design is pretty good. For overarcing adventures/stories, it's a tad too limiting due to its self-contained nature.
You seem to be thinking of "consequences" here mostly in terms of attrition of resources for the players (PCs?), and attrition of the enemy (which is attrition of the GM's resources).it's very difficult to carry consequences from one encounter to another and I've not seen where 4E makes use of the outcome of one encounter to affect other encounters
4e does have attrition (healing surges, daily powers) but I don't think that's the most interesting part of the game - at least in my game, these mostly play the role of shaping the tactical context and the stakes of any given encounter, rather than as ends in themselves.
But there can be many consequences other than attrition consequences - as in, enduring and significant changes in the fiction. Nothing at all in 4e precludes events having downstream consequences, and in fact skill challenges are about the only example in the history of D&D of a non-combat mechanic intended to play the same role as combat mechanics do in generating enduring and significant changes in the fiction independently of free roleplaying.
(1) A skill challenge is an encounter, at least as 4e uses that word.I don't see 4E's encounter design handling this sort of tactic very well, and would probably try and model it as a Skill challenge. I'd somewhat feel for the DM whose players did this spontaneously; I'd imagine many DMs would chafe at the party "destroying" the planned encounter in the goblin room.
(2) Nothing in the 4e DMGs encourages the sort of railroading you're describing here (of GMs chafing at players destroying their planned encounters), and [MENTION=6690267]Dragoslav[/MENTION] gives an example that shows how 4e is very easy to run without railroading, because it supports rapid generation of mechanically robust content.
This very much captures my own experience - can't XP it at this time, sorry!One reason for my love of 4e is because I find 4e encounter design to be very cinematic, plot oriented, and goal oriented. I've never felt a previous edition was able to capture this
<snip>
I can incorporate much more freedom to the PC's choices, without cornering them onto a railroad to make sure the encounters I designed don't go to waste. Also when they do something unexpected, I don't have to squirm in my seat because I didn't prepare a contingency for their plan, I just make it happen on the spot.
I've pushed the envelope in every aspect of encounter design. I feel the freedom to imagine up any situation the PC's can get themselves into, and can come up with a set of mechanics to resolve the conflict.
<snip>
Flexibility of 4e encounter design is limitless once you understand action economy, damage expressions and hit points, and PC resources.