Perhaps I should start a new thread for this question, but it seems so closely related to what we're talking about.
How often do you as 4E DMs use non-challenging encounters? Next session my characters are going to investigate an abandoned temple, now inhabited by gnolls, who have begun to dig up some ghosts of the temple's previous inhabitants.
Due to the constraints, I don't want to have too many real combats get in the way of the story, but story-wise it feels important to have the players have to deal with some angry ghosts. This is just an example.
I've used non-challenging encounters to great effect. The players in one of my groups are 5-7 level. This past weekend we had more than a few "insignificant" encounters with the sole purpose of providing them information. The thing to note is that if an encounter is supposed to be non-challenging, then it should remain non-challenging. If I know that this party is going to fight a non-challenging encounter with goblins, then the goblins will be non-challenging. I will not put same level creatures, elites, or solos if the purpose is to be non-challenging. And for this group anything below Level-1 is going to be non-challenging. They are a well oiled "killing machine" when they want to be.
Use of skill challenges is also a great way to handle some of this stuff. Imagine that talking to the ghosts to get information was the goal. Part of a skill challenge could be first drawing them out, then calming them, as they are the restless dead. Part of it could be reminding them of what they were (think Aragorn in the Paths of the Dead reminding them of their oath). Speaking to them in their language, etc.
But what if someone has a ritual to "Speak with Dead", then they have spent resources to beat the encounter. You get what you designed - a non-challenging encounter. And the PCs get to do other things beside combat, even rituals, skills and utility powers. If the PCs fail, or with each failure they lose healing surges, or HP to signify the dead zapping their lifeforce - they are using resources. You can even make it so that these surges dont return until a particular event or trigger.
I agree with earlier posts about a lack of flavor encounters in 4E. This is one thing I miss most about 3E (and 3.5); the feeling that one or two wandering monsters, while not a real threat, and some impact on the party. Now I feel silly having the players roll initiative for things like this. It just lengthens the session without really accomplishing much (mechanically). Maybe the waste a daily, or an encounter (if there's no time to rest after), and if I'm lucky I make them burn a surge. With the risk of grind already in 4E, does this just add to that problem?
I totally disagree with the premise that you can't have flavor encounters in 4e. And I particularly disagree that wandering monsters were somehow flavorful in previous editions. If I threw a non-challenging encounter in 1e, or 3.x - the players did not get impacted at all. But I knew this going in. Usually the monster got one attack in - followed by being summarily decimated. It was non-challenging so I did not set my hopes that it would be challenging. And if it is non-challenging there is no grind in 4e. Throw 4 standard goblins at my current players and 3 of them will be dead before their initiative comes around. But I know that going in, non-challenging means exactly that.
All this being said, I'd love to move away from the strict encounter-based story-telling I've been using lately. Just wondering if you chaps have any thoughts or experience with this.
And if this feels too much a departure from the original topic, disregard this post and I'll start another thread.
Trit
This is a very good question. Like you say, it is probably a departure from the OP, but I think it is very interesting.
I don't use encounter based story-telling with my group. What I mean by that is that I don't use encounters to advance some sort of overarching metaplot, or use combat encounters to resolve the preponderance of the game and tell a story. There might be certain "setpiece" encounters in which the "story" is resolved by the encounter, but I don't slavishly throw encounters at my group to have a story.
Story is determined by the players. The actions of their characters is what determines the story. If their actions suggest that resolution should by a combat encounter, then there's a combat encounter. If I had planned a combat encounter and their actions suggest a different type of solution, then the encounter advances in that fashion without combat.
I consider the LotR movies to be action adventure fantasy movies. Similar to how I've always viewed all editions of D&D. In typical action adventure fashion the movies have a lot of "combat encounters." However, those encounters are not the majority of the films and they are appropriate to the actions of the protagonists.
There was an encounter with goblins in Balin's Tomb, but that encounter was triggered by a careless action from the protagonists. They encounter a Balrog, but it happened mostly off-screen. The protagonists tucked their tails and ran in that one. Then after that the story is punctuated by trying to get to Loth-Lorien when orcs are on their tails -no combat. Then there's the "encounter" in Loth-Lorien - no combat, then a long trip on the river - no combat. Then they finally meet the Uruk-Hai - Combat.
All of these encounters feel as if they are organic to the actions of the "players". They are not "random wandering monster" encounters. Even the encounter with the advance worg party, which might feel like a random thing, is planned. The goblins are sent by Saruman to attack the fleeing people of Rohan. But the "story" is based on the decisions that the protagonists made. Theoden decides that they will leave Edoras, and defend at Helms-Deep. The protagonists go with them. The focus on that battle only happens because the protagonists are with the people of Rohan. If the protagonists had headed towards Isengard to take Saruman head-on then maybe a different type of encounter might have happened.
My point is that the "story" in only important to focus on when it intersects with the actions of the players. That is why I only put combat encounters when the actions of the players "dictates" it. If the players wanted to spend their time in a city, being private investigators, then the encounters should be thematically appropriate to their actions.
I hope that makes sense.
