Cation, Information, Paranoia and Preparation(Forked Thread:)

[Reynard]

Forked from: 11 Reasons Why I Prefer D&D 4E

I forked this because I think it is an interesting discussion, but really not edition dependent.

Unless your party is using Clairvoyance at EVERY door, they are going to enter combats without knowing the enemies sometimes. I've seen this argument on these boards more than a few times and I never really understand it.

Unless your players know the makeup of every encounter every time, they are going to fight "blind" sometimes. It's not about stumbling, it's about not having perfect information. I've yet to see a group have perfect information in any adventure and, quite frankly, I hope I never do. Sounds intensely boring.

"Oh there's fifteen orcs in the room to the left and seven in the room to the right. Down the hall there's this and that. What do you want to do first?"

I highly, highly doubt that this happens in any game.

So, eventually, your party is going to go into encounters blind. I'd hazard a guess that they go into encounters blind more often than not actually.

As far as running away goes, well, considering how slow most PC's are, any small PC is moving 20, anyone in heavy armor is moving 20, and the vast majority of monsters move 40+. Running really isn't an option.

There's a world of difference between going in completely blind and going in knowing the exact number, nature and layout of the enemy. Context has a lot to do with it, of course: if the PCs are seeking a relic buried in the catacombs beneath a temple, they know they are likely to be encountering undead -- many of which have save-or-die and level-drain attacks. They'll prepare accordingly. In addition, scoutin, listening at doors, paying attention to clues in the environment all allow a party to prepare for likely types and numbers of enemies even if they don't know for sure what's behind the door or around the bend. Plus, coming in well equipped -- in mundane gear, in magical gear and in spells, not to mention straight up character capabilities -- allows a party to deal better with various kinds of threats, both presumed and unknown.

This isn't to say that the occasional "where the hell did THAT come from!" encounter can't or shouldn't happen -- the otyugh that the goblins use as a trash disposal, the specter of an theif that died trying to sneak into the tower, etc... Those kinds of encounters spice up an otherwise "themed" adventure locale and force the party to think on their feet -- but, IMO, they are best used sparingly and generally shouldn't be "required" encounters (thus allowing the PCs to respond with a vehement "frak this!" and an iron spike under the door).

 

[Hussar]

Forked from: 11 Reasons Why I Prefer D&D 4E

I forked this because I think it is an interesting discussion, but really not edition dependent.



There's a world of difference between going in completely blind and going in knowing the exact number, nature and layout of the enemy. Context has a lot to do with it, of course: if the PCs are seeking a relic buried in the catacombs beneath a temple, they know they are likely to be encountering undead -- many of which have save-or-die and level-drain attacks. They'll prepare accordingly. In addition, scoutin, listening at doors, paying attention to clues in the environment all allow a party to prepare for likely types and numbers of enemies even if they don't know for sure what's behind the door or around the bend. Plus, coming in well equipped -- in mundane gear, in magical gear and in spells, not to mention straight up character capabilities -- allows a party to deal better with various kinds of threats, both presumed and unknown.

This isn't to say that the occasional "where the hell did THAT come from!" encounter can't or shouldn't happen -- the otyugh that the goblins use as a trash disposal, the specter of an theif that died trying to sneak into the tower, etc... Those kinds of encounters spice up an otherwise "themed" adventure locale and force the party to think on their feet -- but, IMO, they are best used sparingly and generally shouldn't be "required" encounters (thus allowing the PCs to respond with a vehement "frak this!" and an iron spike under the door).

I do think this is an interesting topic too.

But, there are several problems with your point. First, not ever adventure is themed. Sure, those catacombs might have undead, or they might have golems and constructs. Or they might have aberations. Or demons. Or a mixture of all of the above. What defenses and ideas work on one creature type don't always work on another.

Plus, you are ignoring larger dungeon type adventures, like, say, Return to Temple of Elemental Evil. There are pretty much every single type of monster in the large dungeon. The odds that you will have anything but the sketchiest idea of what is in the next room are fairly low.

Sure, listen helps. But, undead and constructs don't generally make any noise. Spiking the door doesn't help against anything incorporeal either.

And, even if you know the type of monster, there are so many differences within type that you aren't all that much better off. Sure, if you're going into a crypt, having lots of protection from evil, and Death Ward spells is a good idea. Until that ghoul paralyzes you, or something hits you with a fear effect, or any number of other things that undead as a type can do.

Yes, there are times when you might have a general idea of what you are facing. Maybe even a fairly specific idea, in the case of a lair, but, by and large, most adventures don't allow you to gain that much information about what you are facing and, even if they do, generally don't allow you the time to go back to town and stock up on the anti-whatever goodies that you need.

 

[LostSoul]

How do you avoid the problem of having the players constantly prod you for information?

 

[Reynard]

Yes, there are times when you might have a general idea of what you are facing. Maybe even a fairly specific idea, in the case of a lair, but, by and large, most adventures don't allow you to gain that much information about what you are facing and, even if they do, generally don't allow you the time to go back to town and stock up on the anti-whatever goodies that you need.

I think the disconnect lies here. I generally don't run pre-written modules, so to me the idea that "most" adventures -- or, more correctly in my case, most situations -- aren't themed and/or don't allow the PCs to regroup after discovering the nature of the threat is alien to me. I don't use big dungeosn full of everything in the MM because I tend toward simulation: the vast majority of enemies encountered in a given situation are going to be of a given type or at least tied together by the nature of the situation. Again, I try and throw in a "surprise" or two, but they have to make sense in the context of the scenario and therefore can be countered and usually fled from.

 

[Reynard]

How do you avoid the problem of having the players constantly prod you for information?

I find it a little odd that you refer to it as a problem. If I am not giving the PCs enough information -- a mistake I sometimes make, as I tend to think I am more clever than I actually am - I expect them to prod me for information that allows them to make meaningful choices. Now, sometimes players will ask for information that they aren't capable of discovering or sensing and I have no qualms about asnwer those kinds of questions with a "You don't know." Overall, though, i enjoy the interaction and negotiation between players and the DM more than I do dice rolling, so players that engage me and the scenario through their characters generally get lots of leeway.

The short answer: I don't, I encourage it.

 

[LostSoul]

I find it a little odd that you refer to it as a problem.

The problem is when the party gets paranoid and loses the ability to make decisions. I've seen players argue for 15 minutes about whether or not to open a door. (At this point, I usually have my PC open the door, to hell with the consequences.)

If players think they may be missing something, and you reward finding those little things, they can spam you with questions that get them nowhere. It's great if there's something they can find, and they find it. It sucks if they spend half an hour asking a stupid goblin questions that it doesn't know in the hopes they might gain an advantage. (At this point, I have my PC kill the goblin.)

If you reward asking questions, prodding the dungeon, looking into all the nooks and crannies, players are going to want to do that - even if there's nothing there to be found. It's like all those stupid crates that you have to smash in every video game ever made. There might be some helpful loot in them, so you want to go spend all that time smashing them all - which is dead boring - because if you don't not only are you missing out on the loot but you feel like you're missing something.

Anything that produces an in-game reward should be fun to do.

 

[Hussar]

I think the disconnect lies here. I generally don't run pre-written modules, so to me the idea that "most" adventures -- or, more correctly in my case, most situations -- aren't themed and/or don't allow the PCs to regroup after discovering the nature of the threat is alien to me. I don't use big dungeosn full of everything in the MM because I tend toward simulation: the vast majority of enemies encountered in a given situation are going to be of a given type or at least tied together by the nature of the situation. Again, I try and throw in a "surprise" or two, but they have to make sense in the context of the scenario and therefore can be countered and usually fled from.

You don't need to use everything in the MM to have the problem though. You gave the example of a crypt. So, I laid out undead, constructs, and outsiders as possible inhabitants.

But, even within each of those types, you can have a HUGE variety of abilities. Sure, you are immune to level drain with the spell, but, then the vampire's charm gaze gets you. Protection from Evil might save you from that, but then the ghoul's paralysis gets you.

It becomes a giant game of Rock Paper Scissors. Guess wrong and you have little or no defenses.

Now, in a tomb raider scenario, sure, the party is likely going to be able to retreat and come back. That's fine. But, they still have to survive the first foray.

In a more complicated scenario - say an exploration scenario a la Isle of Dread - things become virtually impossible to plan for. Sure, on the Isle, you're going to face animals and whatnot. Ok. But, there are all sorts of other goodies on the island too. It's simply not possible to be prepared for everything all the time. And, it's also not possible to have foreknowledge of every encounter.

Can you minimize risks? Sure. That's what spells like Arcane Eye and sending a scout forward are all about. That's good play. But, eventually, you have to open that door, and there's a large chance that while you might know that undead are in the area, you won't know what is specifically behind that door. Lacking that knowledge, there is a significant limit on how prepared you can be.

 

[BeauNiddle]

There is also the limitation of protection to worry about. Protection is usually provided by spells. Spells are limited. Do you prepare in case and run the risk of being unable to continue (no more death wards, prots from evil, etc.) Or do you spend the first few rounds of every encounter buffing up (wasting turns, all PCs have to be in range, etc.) Or do you go all SWAT (load up on every buff that might be necessary and CHARGE! before the durations run out)

Also it depends on how much refluffing the DM does - can you recognise the Bodak'a'like before it uses it's gaze attack?

 

[Reynard]

Anything that produces an in-game reward should be fun to do.

Ah. This is a definition of fun issue. From the rest of your post it is obvious that as a player you don't find that kind of play fun (to the point of ruining it for the other players if they engage in it) so I can only tell you that some people do.

 

[Reynard]

Can you minimize risks? Sure. That's what spells like Arcane Eye and sending a scout forward are all about. That's good play. But, eventually, you have to open that door, and there's a large chance that while you might know that undead are in the area, you won't know what is specifically behind that door. Lacking that knowledge, there is a significant limit on how prepared you can be.

I agree. But adventuring is dangerous. Going down into a deep dark hole looking for loot, knowing that there are things down there that can kill you with a look, takes a combination of skill and guts. Assuming we are still talking about the kind of D&D that includes exploration, risk and reward, I don't quite understand what would motivate a player to sit down at the table if they weren't willing to accept the possibility of their character dying ignobly at the bottom of a kobold spike pit as much as they were willing to accept the possibility of their character hauling a wagon full of riches out of the dungeon.

The balance between the unknown and how the players engage the dungeon or other adventure setting is far more fun, IMO, than the combat that inevitably ensues.