D&D 4E 4E is too video-gamey

[RigaMortus2]

(Long thread, which I didn't intend when I first started this post...)

No, this is NOT "that" kind of thread. I just used that subject line to draw attention I'm not really here to complain about how I think some of 4E's aspects seem too video-gamey for my taste (I've done that already, as have other people)...

Instead, I wanted to express how I've already been using these so-called video-gamey aspects with my 3.5 games. I was thinking about it today on my drive in to work. All this time, I've actually had some video-game aspects present in games that I run (which isn't often). Anyway...

Whenever I DM (again, not often) I tend to set up encounters, most often the BBEG encounters, sort of like something you would encounter in a video game. All my end-boss encounters I try to have a pattern for, so that players can figure them out, and hopefully defeat the encounter before the encounter defeats them. It is MUCH fun, and I think my players have fun with it too. It is a lot more fun than "stand there, full attack... every round".

The advantage this has is that, each encounter (end boss, BBEG, what have you) is different. In a video game, once you "learn" the pattern to defeat an encounter, you just use that same pattern every time you run into that encounter. Whereas, in D&D, encounters (or end-bosses) don't tend to "respawn". Or, if the BBEG gets away, when next you meet, his pattern will be different.

I just want to give two quick examples of encounters I enjoyed running, that had a fun pattern and learning curve to them, which I think my players really enjoyed. BTW, these were customized encounters/creatures. I did not pull them from the MM...

The Plant Creature
The party was encountering a lot of plant-themed encounters, with evil Druids, bad treants, and so forth. The end-boss encounter was below ground. The party was looking for people that were abducted from town. They came upon an underground room which contained a plant/flower type of creature. It's roots came out of the ground, and twisted around the room, forming a sort of barred jail cell cutting off half the room. Beyond those roots were the people abducted, they were basically imprisioned behind the wall of roots. Connected to those roots was a large flower with a mind of it's own (a defense mechanism of sorts). The party tried to hack past the roots, but could not break it's hardness. The flower came alive to defend. It had different attacks which the party had to adapt to...

Attack 1
It shot a "lightning" based beam in a line.
Attack 2
It shot an "fire" based cone .
Attack 3
A single target ranged attack.
Attack 4
Roots would emerge from the ground and deal damage.

The flower would move around, get into position, and use one of it's attacks (which was random, 1d4). I would give a hint the round before as to how the flower acted before each attack. So the players eventually learned how to avoid each specific attack (anything from casting the right energy resistance spell to just getting out of the way). Eventually, they learned the pattern and were able to defeat the creature, the root wall withered away, and they rescued the prisoners.

The Maedar and his friends
For those that don't know, a Maedar is the male equivalent of a medusa. Where a medusa can turn creatures to stone with a glare, the Maedar can turn stone to flesh with a touch and they have a sort of stone-walk ability (like Earth Elemental's earth glide)

We were running Monte Cooks Arcana Evolved for this. This was a higher level encounter. It was in a huge room. There were stone statues all over the room. The BBEG was a high level Lich Maedar. Way over the level of the characters (by like 10 levels). However, the objective wasn't for the party to hurt the Maedar, but to prevent him from released the stoned creatures.

Each round the Maedar would use his stone-walk ability, get next to a statue, and try to revive it. It wasn't instant, it took a couple of rounds to turn a statue back to flesh. Some statues were bigger than others (ie Large creatures, like Ogres) so they took more time. If the Maedar was hit during the exchange, it had a chance to interrupt him, and he would have to start over again. Usually, this just mean stone-walking a fair distance away and trying to revive another statue. Oh, and after he used his stone-to-flesh power, he had to wait a round or two before he could use it again, so he took advantage of that time to attack the party (since he had levels of Lich and monster levels, is Magus levels were lower level, so his attack spells weren't way over the power level that the party could take).

The encounter consisted of interrupting the Maedar, running back and forth across the battlefield preventing him from turning the statues back to flesh, dealing with the creatures he was able to turn to flesh, and trying to crush/destroy statues before he got a chance to get near them.

I should mention, the party did have a higher level NPC with them on their side that was helping.

Eventually, all the statues were either destroyed or killed once they became flesh. Which left the Maedar and the party. At this point, this is where the high level NPC came it. The exchange between the NPC and the Maedar you could consider as a cut-scene from a video game. Like I said, the intent of the encounter wasn't for the party to "kill" the Maedar, it was for them to stop him from turning the statues to flesh and gaining an army.

[Some side info... The NPC on their side was a very old Vampire Medusa. Not quite "good" but they had a common foe, so they teamed up. The Medusa was held prisoner by the Maedar for a very long time. The Lich (Maedar) needs a phlactery to keep it's soul safe. It cut out the heart of the Medusa and used that as the focus for his phlactery. So, in order to have a chance of killing the Lich Maedar, the party would have to destroy the heart, which in turn would kill the Vampire Medusa that was helping them, hehehe. In the end, the Medusa accepted her fate, and the Maedar sacrificed the heart himself to get rid of his annoying arch nemsis]

So anyway, I hope I demonstrated how I have been using interesting and unique video-game aspects all along when I run my games. I think this is kind of what they are doing with monsters from the MM. Giving them unique abilities so the players can try and figure out the best strategy against them.

The difference seems to be, where I tend to save this for a major encounter, it seems like every monster will have it's own unique attack sequence, which IMHO is a bad thing. Take the example of the Gnoll Strangler. It has a garrotte attack it can use, and then (to be sneaky) it uses the person it garrotted as a meat sheild when it gets attacked. Now, since this is presumable a common gnoll an adventurer might encounter several times during their adventuring career, they might be surprised with this attack the first time they encounter it. But they'll get used to the pattern after awhile.

If the Gnoll Stranger was set up as a BBEG encounter, it would be much more memorable.

PC 1: "Hey, remember that time we encountered the Gnoll Stranger? What a fight that was. Poor Bob."
PC 2: "You're never gonna let me live that down, are you?"

Whereas now it will be (assuming a Gnoll Strangler IS a common foe)

PC 1: "Hey, remember that time we encountered the Gnoll Stranger?"
PC 2: "Which time?"

 

[eleran]

However, there are other gnoll types. You're right that the gnoll strangler, if overused, will become exceedingly redundant. But what monster is that not true for?

I think it is up to each and every DM to make these things special and memorable. The gnool strangler is but one tool in an immense toolbox. Even dragons would become passe` after encountering too many.

I also think the converse works well. Your PCs run across a small band, you can put a gnoll strangler into a decent pack of other gnolls and until he whips out that garrotte the players will be none-the-wiser.

Honestly, I only see it becoming a problem if the DM is unimaginative or the PCs are in the midst of "Assault on the Gnoll Kingdom".

Too much of a good thing, even water, is a bad thing.

 

[Simonides]

Hrmmm... this puts me in a difficult position. On the one hand, I personally agree that turning more video-gamey is not a terrible thing to happen to D&D (whether I agree that that is what is happening is another topic). On the other hand, I am forced to disagree with the OP's tactics.

I really like the maedar fight as outlined. It is clear from early on what the maedar is doing and the party has several actions to interrupt it. But the plant thing, and even the maedar to a lesser extent, are problematic in my mind: they do not adapt.

The idea of an enemy with a set script works in video games, but, once you figure out the pattern, the game becomes much easier. This is a bad thing, in my opinion, at the game table. In order to challenge the players, enemies should change up their tactics when it becomes clear their patterns have been figured out. If the creature doesn't, there should be some special reason (modrons may be incapable of changing their tactics, for instance). One of the best aspects of tabletop gaming is that it is open-ended - that the game learns from and reacts to the players. That adds a level challenge that can't be found in video game. The players have to constantly adapt because the game is constantly adapting to them.

If a battle is too scripted, it becomes kind of useless to play it out once the players have figured out the script. The question of 'victory' or 'defeat' has been resolved at this point, so now it just becomes 'lather, rinse, repeat.' It is similar to those battles in which all of the undead are turned and are now cowering in the corner. Does the DM make each player roll attacks and damage round after round to kill all of the undead or does he simply say, at that point, 'you spread out and destroy the cowering undead' ?

Video games are an excellent source of inspiration, in my opinion, but that is all they should be. My players are coming to my table instead of playing video games precisely because I don't behave like a computer. So, with respect to the OP, I have to say I dislike your idea of scripting for NPCs.

 

[MichaelK]

While I appreciate making battles unique and memorable, I use TV shows and novels more than video games as my basis.

Nothing particularly against video games, but they're not really my style.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If the Gnoll Stranger was set up as a BBEG encounter, it would be much more memorable.

PC 1: "Hey, remember that time we encountered the Gnoll Stranger? What a fight that was. Poor Bob."
PC 2: "You're never gonna let me live that down, are you?"

Whereas now it will be (assuming a Gnoll Strangler IS a common foe)

PC 1: "Hey, remember that time we encountered the Gnoll Stranger?"
PC 2: "Which time?"

The question is - how often does the BBEG Gnoll Strangler get to use his ability? I think after the first time, people will avoid it. The adaption is very... binary. The interesting thing if you use the Gnoll Strangler again is that the players can now "repeat" the battle, but this time use their new knowledge to their advantage, and feel a stronger sense of accomplishment. "Last time, a Gnoll Strangler screwed us - or rather Bob - over. Now that we know how these guys fight, we can outsmart them!"

Off course, I guess after the 3rd Gnoll Strangler encounter, this gets old. But then, I generally advise to use the same encounter setup too often. If you reuse the Gnoll Strangler, ensure that the context is different, or that it's at least a few sessions later...

 

[RigaMortus2]

The idea of an enemy with a set script works in video games, but, once you figure out the pattern, the game becomes much easier.

Which is why I tend to save it for more meaningful encounters. The PCs aren't going to know the pattern upfront, it may take them awhile to figure out.

Just to be clear, the "pattern" is just one way to defeat the encounter. Figuring it out makes the encounter a little easier. I see it as a good thing, because it is like figuring out a puzzle.

With the Gnoll Strangler, I would agree. If you use the same pattern for standard creatures over and over again, it becomes easier.

In order to challenge the players, enemies should change up their tactics when it becomes clear their patterns have been figured out. If the creature doesn't, there should be some special reason (modrons may be incapable of changing their tactics, for instance).

With the plant encounter (for example), it only had a few defenses at it's disposal. Really, it was more like an obstacle than a creature, because it was stationary. However, there was a random aspect to it, since I would randomly roll for the attack each round. Everything else for that encounter is something that you would normally do anyway. Giving a hint as to what the NPC might do is something DMs do anyway. In fact, they have a skill for that. Spellcraft will tell the player what spell is being cast. And knowning the attack type is also something players would know. If you figure out an enemy likes to cast Burning Hands (similiar attack that the plant creature had), you'll know to spread out and stay more than 15 feet away from either the enemy or your allies, so when the attack does occur, he isn't nailing everyone.

In addition to that, just because you can figure out a pattern doesn't mean you'll be in a position to do anything about it. If you know someone is going to do a certain type of attack, and you can't position yourself favorably because of the terrain or the size of the room or ally/enemy placement, there isn't much you can do about it.

One of the best aspects of tabletop gaming is that it is open-ended - that the game learns from and reacts to the players. That adds a level challenge that can't be found in video game. The players have to constantly adapt because the game is constantly adapting to them.

That role is never taken away from the DM. But it depends on how drastically the changes are. In the Maedar encounter, had the party used high level magic to teleport the Maedar to the Astral Plane, that pretty much would have ended the encounter, and they would have won w/o figuring out any apparent pattern.

If a battle is too scripted, it becomes kind of useless to play it out once the players have figured out the script The question of 'victory' or 'defeat' has been resolved at this point, so now it just becomes 'lather, rinse, repeat.'

You make it sound like just because a DM designs an encounter with a hidden pattern to it, that he is somehow incapable of changing it on the fly or is now limited to changing it up. This isn't the case at all. I see a pattern as a tool. Just one possibility of defeating an encounter. It's kinda like saying, "If I were one of the players, this is what I would do in this situation to win the encounter" and then you build off of that. As a DM, I find it interesting to see if the players can figure out your puzzles/patterns, and if they would do it the same way you would.

And I have to reiterate, I personally would not set up every encounter with a 'pattern' to it. Just meaningful ones. 4E seems to have these pre-built into each NPC in the MM.

The other question you asked is "Does it make the encounter easier?" Yes, because that is the purpose of it. Why is that such a BAD THING(TM)? Think of a pattern for an encounter just like you would a puzzle you present your players. If the only way to open the magic door is to answer a riddle, and the players answer the riddle and the door opens, you shouldn't think to yourself "Damn, they figured out the riddle, that made it too easy for them to get through the door." With a combat encounter, figuring out the pattern is just HALF the equation. You still have to roll the dice and defeat the encounter. You just have a little more knowledge than you did pre-encounter.

Do you not use Knowledge skills? If I use Knowledge Dungeoneering to find the weakness to an Abberation, does that not make the encounter a little easier? And that just involved a skill roll, whereas a pattern for a combat encounter involved the players using their brains to figure it out (or even realize that there is a pattern at all).

 

[RigaMortus2]

While I appreciate making battles unique and memorable, I use TV shows and novels more than video games as my basis.

Nothing particularly against video games, but they're not really my style.

Well, the disadvantage to that (and don't get me wrong, I see advantages AND disadvantages to both applications) is that movies and books are even MORE scripted. The writer pre-defines the actions for the characters.

If you want to model an encounter like Luke vs. Darth Vader at the end of RotJ, and you have a specific vision and idea of how you want the encounter to run, and you have assumptions on how your players are going to react, it may become a disappointment when they don't act that way. To be more specific, lets say your intention is that during or after the battle, the defeated dark lord redeems himself by killing his master (just like Darth Vader did), isn't it going to be disappointing if the player(s) decide to kill the dark lord before he gets that chance?

The video-game pattern IMHO is more adaptable. Because while there are set things that I want to occur during the encounter, and there are specific ways around it, the resolution is still open ended.

I just see that modeling an encounter off of a movie or book as something that would be cool (I wish to replicate the Spartan battle from 300 for example), as long as the players act it out the way you imagine them to, which is often not the case. If I've missed your point (and I think I may have), can you elaborate a bit more about what you mean?

BTW... In my Maedar example, I mentioned I had a cut-scene (so to speak), an interaction with the Maedar and the Vampire Medusa, that the players/characters did not interact in. It was a plot device. This is something seperate than a pattern for an encounter. This is something you can use in any game. It's not related. But maybe that is what you were talking about? Again, sorry if I misinterpreted what you were trying to get across.

 

[Wiman]

I understand the reasoning behind the D&D is becoming video gamey arguement, however I have one thing to say....most video games are based on elements of D&D, and in some ways going to 4th edition is bringing that back in the fold. I'm about to hit 30 (22 playing D&D) so I've seen video games evolve from Activision and Pong to XBOX 360 and the MMORPG, and very little that has came out in the "fantasy" genre of video games can not have some of the credit based on D&D. So an equally valid arguement would be "Video Games are too D&D" which you don't see coming out of many people's mouths as opposed to the vice versa.

As per the repetitive nature of encounters and the ability of the human mind to solve any situation when shown what something has to offer in the ways of attacks and abilities....well that's why we currently have domanance in real life...the ability to adapt to situations that arise. I'm not tring to start an arguement but this to me is a moot point in a game I enjoy (new situations will bring challenge, old situations will not unless variables change considerably.)

As for the difference between Medias such as television, video games, hell even radio....used in a game, it's just a matter of preference. That being said I like the new system for one simple reason, I have a kid now and I don't have the time to make up monsters for every encounter (4e. should also make the monsters faster to make not better I believe the quality of the monsters will be the same.) so books full of different varients help...otherwise the trade off between the qualities of 3.X and 4 are to me like picking the two best kids at the beginning of making teams, one might be better then the other on any given day so close your eyes and make a pick. 4e. will make prep faster, that's its big advantage to me. <I know I'm off topic, and I apologise>

 

[RigaMortus2]

very little that has came out in the "fantasy" genre of video games can not have some of the credit based on D&D. So an equally valid arguement would be "Video Games are too D&D" which you don't see coming out of many people's mouths as opposed to the vice versa.

I think that there is a fear that because video games are so linear, that copying an idea from them into an open-ended type of game (like PnP D&D or any PnP RPG), might make that more linear as well. Which is not true of course...

I often wonder, if video games came before PnP RPGs, and then someone came up with an idea to adapt a fantasy video game into this new thing called a Pen and Paper roleplaying game, would we have the same arguements?

 

[Wiman]

I often wonder, if video games came before PnP RPGs, and then someone came up with an idea to adapt a fantasy video game into this new thing called a Pen and Paper roleplaying game, would we have the same arguements?

Of course we would, but everyone now would probably just switch sides on the arguement if that had happened.....only kidding. In a related area World of Warcraft adaptation to 3e was a dog of a system IMHO.