D&D 4E 4e Encounter Design... Why does it or doesn't it work for you?

[pemerton]

On the subject of Skill Challenges, I think the big problem is that they didn't give any sound advice on how to actually implement them.

I strongly agree with this.

Never tell your players they're taking part in a skill challenge until you give them the XP for it.

I'm less sure about this. I generally do let my players know they're in a skill challenge, especially if its of high complexity, because otherwise they don't have all the information they need to make sensible choices about how to use their resources (like powers, items etc).

I see it as being a bit like combat: I don't generally tell the players what the monster hit points are (unless I want to taunt them about leaving a monster on 1 hp!), but will tell them if a monster is bloodied; and most of the time they know how many monsters are on the battlefield (although occasional exceptions to that, like invisible lurkers etc, can be fun).

Likewise in a skill challenge - I try to give enough information to let them make sensible mechanical choices, while not necessarily giving away everything that turns the situation into something purely statistical rather than having some elements unknown to the players because uncertain to the PCs in the fiction.

Does that make sense?

 

[CroBob]

I'm less sure about this. I generally do let my players know they're in a skill challenge, especially if its of high complexity, because otherwise they don't have all the information they need to make sensible choices about how to use their resources (like powers, items etc).

I see it as being a bit like combat: I don't generally tell the players what the monster hit points are (unless I want to taunt them about leaving a monster on 1 hp!), but will tell them if a monster is bloodied; and most of the time they know how many monsters are on the battlefield (although occasional exceptions to that, like invisible lurkers etc, can be fun).

Likewise in a skill challenge - I try to give enough information to let them make sensible mechanical choices, while not necessarily giving away everything that turns the situation into something purely statistical rather than having some elements unknown to the players because uncertain to the PCs in the fiction.

Does that make sense?

I never said not to give them pertinent information, I simply don't label it a "Skill Challenge" until after they've completed it. I make it obvious or outright tell the players they'll need to get up the rocky cliff face, or convince the king to help them, or whatever, I simply don't tell them how to go about it. For example, if I tell them they need 5 Athletics checks to get all the way up the cliff, failing any one check by more than four setting them back one check and potentially falling to their gravetic demise (or at least pain), then I just presented that as their only option. If I simply tell them the thing they want, whatever the objective is, is at the top of the cliff, then they're free to figure out how to get there on their own. They may take the obvious climbing solution, or they could realize they're only about an hour from town, which they can teleport to, then backtrack without the need to climb at all, etc. Just like I tell them the orcs are charging them, and it doesn't imply they must roll attacks and damage at the orcs. They can react however they want. The obvious choice is a fight, but they could, for whatever reason, attempt to get past or avoid the orcs without a fight. I set up the challenge, but I do not tell the players how to solve it.

 

[Manbearcat]

Never tell your players they're taking part in a skill challenge until you give them the XP for it.

I strongly agree with this.

I'm less sure about this. I generally do let my players know they're in a skill challenge, especially if its of high complexity, because otherwise they don't have all the information they need to make sensible choices about how to use their resources (like powers, items etc).

<snip>

Likewise in a skill challenge - I try to give enough information to let them make sensible mechanical choices, while not necessarily giving away everything that turns the situation into something purely statistical rather than having some elements unknown to the players because uncertain to the PCs in the fiction.

Does that make sense?

In the vein of proper advice and meta-game table clarity, I think the 4e designers could have done an immense service to the system and to their clientele if their advice would have consisted of:

- Clarity regarding 4e's intrinsic meta-game agenda.
- How to manage that meta-game agenda with a table that has a discordant or adversarial (to meta-game tools/interests) agenda.
- How to hone the skill of leveraging that meta-game agenda for new players or players who would like to learn but are unfamiliar with the implications and advantages of proper and overt meta-gaming.

This is most important given (from 2e onward) the embedded D&D cultural memes that are antagonistic toward a meta-game agenda (from both DM and player). Many say that they don't think the designers knew what they had with 4e. I'm not sure that is true (it may be, but I find it less likely). I think its entirely likely that either:

1 - they were aware of these antagonistic D&D cultural memes and they wanted to be less overt about the meta-game constructs and expectations that were woven into the 4e system because of it. They were probably hoping for an organic process of growing with this ruleset leading to unconscious acceptance (despite past prejudice against meta-game agenda) of its implicit (and explicit as well) meta-game by the D&D crowd.

2 - the editing process was a shabby, rushed, incoherent thing. Editing subbed out to interns who weren't aware of the design framework, agenda and implications and then the primary editorial staff (who may have had slightly more awareness of the design framework, agenda and implications) having 2nd and 3rd order impact on the final product. I often wonder just what died on the cutting floor (perhaps due to page-count but also perhaps due to outright nubbery) and how deleterious that was to the overtness, clarity and breadth of the "advice" portion of the books.

 

[NewJeffCT]

On the subject of Skill Challenges, I think the big problem is that they didn't give any sound advice on how to actually implement them. The way it reads in the book, it seems like you pretty much just roll a number skill checks and see what your success to fail rate is. That's really poor implementation. Skill challenges should be more organic, integrated into the story naturally. You don't tell the PCs that they need so many of this kind of check before failing a certain number of them, simply describe the situation, and ask the PCs what they want to do. Whenever they do something requiring a check, have them roll it, and that check counts towards the skill challenge, assuming it's a relevant thing they're trying to do. Never tell your players they're taking part in a skill challenge until you give them the XP for it.

I found them tough to put them in on the fly - why do I suddenly need to have the players make 6, 8 or 10 rolls when a single roll would do before, or maybe 2 rolls? I think if I could plan something out ahead of time, it worked fairly well.

 

[CroBob]

I found them tough to put them in on the fly - why do I suddenly need to have the players make 6, 8 or 10 rolls when a single roll would do before, or maybe 2 rolls? I think if I could plan something out ahead of time, it worked fairly well.

A lot of the time, it's obvious why you need several rolls. For climbing, one roll simply doesn't get you far enough up the cliff. When you're convincing the King you need his help, you're not only trying to convince the King, you're also trying to convince his wife and his adviser whom are both sitting right next to him. Once you get to the Chief Quartermaster for whatever the King said you could have, you may still need to convince him not to half-ass their supplies, because he's not yet convinced and is only doing it because he was told to. Etc. All of this can be done on the fly, no problem. It's not so much that you're trying to do one thing super well, it's that you're trying to accomplish several related things (climbing a cliff isn't merely climbing a cliff, it's climbing each however far the PCs can get of the cliff, until they reach the top). That's why I was never a fan of complex trap disarming. If you have several traps, sure, but one big trap that's hard to get is a higher DC, not several attempts.

 

[pemerton]

They were probably hoping for an organic process of growing with this ruleset leading to unconscious acceptance (despite past prejudice against meta-game agenda) of its implicit (and explicit as well) meta-game by the D&D crowd.

If that's true, it was pretty naive!

 

[Quickleaf]

4E encounters were much easier to build and it was pretty easy to judge what would be a decently challenging encounter.

However, I found solo monsters to be weak on their own, even as early as level 3 or 4. They always needed support to make it a decent encounter.

My big problem was that in two years of DMing 4E, I was almost never satisfied as a DM afterwards. In 1E, 2E, 3E and 3.5E, I was able to balance out encounters and really challenge the PCs right down to the last swing of the sword or last spell cast when everybody on both sides was down to the end of their hit points. However, in 4E, if I didn't knock the PCs out in Round 1 or 2, I had no chance since I've already burned my bad guys' daily and encounter powers and action points. If I'm lucky, I have a 33 or 50% chance to recharge one nice power, but that's about it.

I'm assuming you are speaking specifically about solos, and not combat in general?

Yes, I whole-heatedly agree that solos (especially in the first two MMs) were poorly designed. Even after MM3, it is the rare solo which can actually challenge the entire party and stay interesting throughout the long fight. That's why many of the solos I run now are L+3 or higher and I use AngryDM's "3 phase boss monster" model (with tweaks). Actually, while I think DMG2 was a really good book, one thing I was hoping they'd cover but didn't was solo design.

Another example of how the fans flex the system more than the designers.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I'm assuming you are speaking specifically about solos, and not combat in general?

No, not just solos, it was all combats. In the 2 1/2 year long 3.5E campaign I ran before the 4e game, I could count the number of unsatisfying encounters on one hand (for me as a DM). In 4e, it was the total opposite. In the 2 year long 4e campaign, I had maybe a handful of encounters that were satisfying to me as a DM.

 

[CroBob]

No, not just solos, it was all combats. In the 2 1/2 year long 3.5E campaign I ran before the 4e game, I could count the number of unsatisfying encounters on one hand (for me as a DM). In 4e, it was the total opposite. In the 2 year long 4e campaign, I had maybe a handful of encounters that were satisfying to me as a DM.

Well, what aspects of encounters satisfy you as a DM?

 

[Steely_Dan]

I always gauge (eyeball) encounters I design around the specific party in question, I find the challenge guidelines lacking in every edition to date.