Dynamic vs Static Encounters

[Neuroglyph]

Am curious if folks find that D&D Encounters in 4e are too Static- ie. little or no interaction between encounter elements in a dungeon? So you have one encounter, wait, rest, continue to the next in a very MMO style of dungeon delving.

I wrote some ideas down in my blog trying to make my encounters more dynamic and the dungeon crawls less like a flowchart... but I'm curious if most players and DMs even mind about having static encounters?

Would welcome any and all feedback.

 

[keterys]

I've seen plenty of 4e encounters that involved calling for help from nearby rooms, alarms, or what not... they just tended to be planned as fighting multiple rooms at once, or dealing with waves.

I also tend to find that my primary reason for resting is not for healing surge purposes, but because I enjoy using encounter powers. Not even that I necessarily need them, but I _enjoy_ having them, so I proactively rest to get them back.

You'll also find that 4e potions can fulfill many of the same requirements as a 3e wand of cure spells. There's still a limit of number of surges, but in terms of a long battle of many waves, that's almost never the actual issue.

There is a discussion in one of the books, I want to say the DMG2, about recharging second winds or spending surges after key milestones in a long running fight, as well as things like crystals that recharge encounter powers.

Which, in a long winded manner, is my way of saying that I haven't seen it as a problem, but perhaps as a feature. I'd rather that when multiple encounters were likely to run into each other the DM were cognizant of that possibility, and I'd like there to be the greatest possibility that I'll get to use my shiny powers rather than having to stick to an at-will for an encounter or more.

Edit: Thanks for the link to Masterplan in your blog - that looks very interesting

 

[Nytmare]

So you have one encounter, wait, rest, continue to the next in a very MMO style of dungeon delving.

That's an MMO thing? I could have sworn that they borrowed that one from us too?

From what I've seen of the published 4E adventures so far (granted that amounts to two and a half adventures), I recall at least a double handful of what I guess you're calling dynamic encounters. Minions running to uncage guard beasts, fights that grow as alarms are sounded, insidious trapped doorways that drown the thief while the rest of the party tries to hammer the control mechanism to pieces. Heck, how many DMs lost their first party to a kobold running scared into the cave and telling Irontooth that there was a group of shiny new PCs to murder?

 

[Saeviomagy]

I remember the days of playing OD&D, fighting one room of monsters at a time and then resting a day before opening the next door with absolutely no precautions taken.

I mean sure the DM rolled a chance for a random encounter, but they were usually easier or more rewarding than the next room would be.

 

[Blackbrrd]

THeck, how many DMs lost their first party to a kobold running scared into the cave and telling Irontooth that there was a group of shiny new PCs to murder?

Or have had the players massacre the kobolds leaving one to tell Iron Tooth all his minions are dead and the mean bastards are coming for them.

Personally I think the dungeons are much too static and the guard-setup is lacking a LOT. The PC's usually defeats a dungeon in many separate encounters. Realistically they should have been slaughtered by a throng of monsters. Not much fun for the players though.

This is one of the reasons I really hate dungeon crawling - most of it makes little to no sense at all.

My own modules are outdoors 90% of the time and if the characters attack a lair, they KNOW they are gonna attack the whole damn thing. The monsters are going to come at them in waves until they retreat, get killed or slaughter the monsters.

This way the players are going to think of game in logical therms, not meta-game "we will get encounters that suit our level". The players have to think of way for the characters to subdivide the problem into manageable encounters.

The problem with this "logical" approach is that I have usually only made the problem, not the solution, so if I have passive players they either just walk away or walk into a deathtrap.

BTW, one way of handling big dynamic encounters is as mentioned above, to allow the players a new use of second wind and/or regain their encounter powers. I would rather have it by the players slamming a door in the face of the monsters, doing some great AoE control thing that makes the monsters back away or similar action. This means I have something between no-rest and a short rest. A little breather?

4e has something else to handle big dynamic encounters too, it's called daily powers.

Oh, and one thing, - I really hate consumables like healing potions. I feel they can take the edge out of bad encounters and make them bland. Or, the DM just has to pile on even more to make the encounter hard.

 

[keterys]

Heh, I like potions of vitality upwards for making the party scared and burning treasure, but still very unlikely to die. I mean, I've got a few goals - bloody someone, drop someone, make them burn dailies, make them burn consumable healing... but I never really want to _kill_ someone.

 

[Quickleaf]

I try to include "dynamic thinking" in my adventure prep. For example, there's a skill challenge to infiltrate the thieves' guild in our adventure this friday, and if PCs depending on how PCs do they could slip by even the notice of a rival also infiltrating the guild (gaining a surprise round vs. him later), or alerting the entire guild to their presence (every encounter 12 minions appear after a couple rounds to attack them).

 

[Blackbrrd]

Heh, I like potions of vitality upwards for making the party scared and burning treasure, but still very unlikely to die. I mean, I've got a few goals - bloody someone, drop someone, make them burn dailies, make them burn consumable healing... but I never really want to _kill_ someone.

For me potions just means I have to throw even more monsters to make 'em scared.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think this has anything to do with 4e. The same exact dynamics existed in earlier editions of D&D except there was no such thing as encounter resources so the only option was for the party to retreat and rest for an entire day if they were run down on healing and spells. So actually I think 4e has a lot better system for allowing for this kind of thing.

As Keterys said, there's always the option of adding in some kind of feature to an area that will let the party regain some or all of their encounter resources. Also its not really a hard and fast rule that a short rest is 5 minutes. It could be 1 minute if the DM decides that will be more dramatic in a given situation. There is also no reason why the DM cannot declare a milestone in the middle of an extended encounter if he wants. It won't do as much as a rest, but it will give the characters an AP refresh and maybe let them bring out some extra item daily power use, which can be pretty handy.

As far as the whole issue with multiple encounters chaining onto each other, well, that's an adventure design issue. Personally I always have a good idea of what the monsters are likely to try to do, such as getting reinforcement etc. and PLAN on that happening. In other words don't make the reinforcements plus the current encounter overwhelming. Instead have two encounters that individually are reasonably easy but combined are obviously much harder. If the party is clever enough to figure out a way to avoid fighting the whole thing at once, good for them. If that would make the whole area too easy, then have the second group of monsters get reinforced if the party takes a short rest after the first. That way there is at least one hard encounter and if the party is both clever and willing to forgo that rest they can potentially end up with something like 3 easy to moderate fights but without a rest.

Of course throwing in a skill challenge now and then which the party can pass to get a rest or avoid a gang up is good too. Again this is an entire set of options that were not really present in earlier editions, at least formally.

The only area where I think the players have LESS options in 4e is in terms of large scale battle shaping magical effects. In the old days the magic user could probably just wall off an area with a Wall of Stone or something and exercise operational level battlefield control, which is not really well supported in 4e. This does of course have the upside of putting more narrative control in the hands of the DM and limiting wizards but some players will miss it.

Finally there is always another option in encounter design to handle gang ups. Make a lot of the monster's advantage rely on terrain, traps, hazards, etc. This means there are not so large numbers of actual monsters that can move around and gang up on the party, but the overall challenge level is the same. The guards in the next room may be weak, but if they stay put behind their defenses and traps they're a challenge. Logically they won't likely rush in to reinforce another group in this case, and if they do the total sum of monsters isn't overwhelming.

 

[Neuroglyph]

While I can't deny that there are dynamic encounters in some of the modules, I still hold to my assertion that there are more static ones. And I agree that potions can aide in providing some healing during combats, but it's still not as potent as healing wands had been.

It feels like it takes more planning to create a dynamic encounter in order to avoid overwhelming the PCs, than in previous editions. I'm not suggesting it's impossible, but there is a pull to make encounters static by how the system is designed.