GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Raven Crowking]

Sorry, I think there are two slightly different, but related, conversations going in this thread.

One is about the stat blocks specifically. I don't have any particular issue with the shortened stat blocks, and while it can occassionally lead to a hiccup in consistency or require a DM handwave, I think the shorter blocks themselves are an improvement.

The other conversation is in regards to the idea that the opponents in D&D really only "exist" once the PCs encounter them and last for an average of five rounds of combat before they are killed by the PCs, therefore the only thing that matters is what they can and likely will do in those five rounds. Any deeper writeup including background, motivation and even other abilities is unncessary. That was what I was speaking to in my post where I agreed with Plane Sailing about uninteresting NPCs.

Yes.

The first is not (necessarily) a problem; the second is.


RC

 

[Sir Wulf]

Kalarel has a spy in Winterhaven. Ignoring how hilariously obvious that spy is, what can the players do with her? Well, they can kill her. That's it. There's no convincing her to switch sides. There's no talking to her. You can't trick her out of giving more information then she meant to. You can't spy on her and watch for her communicating with Kalarel. We don't even know why she serves Kalarel in the first place. Her entire purpose, despite potentially being a great big plot device to help shape the module and give Kalarel flavor, is to be really obviously suspicious, and then bite it in a graveyard.

I was looking for an example to discuss, and this one is better than any I'd thought of. Where the NPCs are supposed to show for five rounds, then bite the dust, that's all they're equipped to do.

Suppose that the PCs decided to lay seige to the stronghold of a powerful evil cult, recruiting a force of lawful-good paladins to aid them in their campaign. If all the DM has is the cultists' combat abilities, he's completely on his own when it comes to their non-combat resources. Do their leaders possess rituals for conjuring food and water? Can they bargain with demonic allies? No one knows, since these are things done outside of combat. Could the cult's fanatic berserkers be ordered to fire crossbows at the beseiging force instead of waiting for the heroes to storm the walls? Can the wily cult leader place a berserk minion on his ferocious warhorse, moving to escape while his men combat the PCs? Such questions default to DM fiat, since the stats don't allow for things like ordering a warhorse to fight without a rider.

 

[Sir Wulf]

Kalarel has a spy in Winterhaven. Ignoring how hilariously obvious that spy is, what can the players do with her? Well, they can kill her. That's it. There's no convincing her to switch sides. There's no talking to her. You can't trick her out of giving more information then she meant to. You can't spy on her and watch for her communicating with Kalarel. We don't even know why she serves Kalarel in the first place. Her entire purpose, despite potentially being a great big plot device to help shape the module and give Kalarel flavor, is to be really obviously suspicious, and then bite it in a graveyard.

I was looking for an example to discuss, and this one is better than any I'd thought of. Where the NPCs are supposed to show for five rounds, then bite the dust, that's all they're equipped to do.

Suppose that the PCs decided to lay seige to the stronghold of a powerful evil cult, recruiting a force of lawful-good paladins to aid them in their campaign. If all the DM has is the cultists' combat abilities, he's completely on his own when it comes to their non-combat resources. Do their leaders possess rituals for conjuring food and water? Can they bargain with demonic allies? No one knows, since these are things done outside of combat. Could the cult's fanatic berserkers be ordered to fire crossbows at the beseiging force instead of waiting for the heroes to storm the walls? Can the wily cult leader place a berserk minion on his ferocious warhorse, moving to escape while his men combat the PCs? Such questions default to DM fiat, since the stats don't allow for things like ordering a warhorse to fight without a rider.

 

[Rechan]

Can't the module writer make an educated guess? Space is at a premium after all.

I'm sure we all know what the talk/fight axis revolves around for an NPC - attractiveness. The PCs are highly unlikely to negotiate with orcs, way more likely if the NPC is a beautiful woman (assuming typical players).

There was only one time in my last campaign where the PCs talked when I thought they would fight. Yep, you guessed it, the NPC was a sexy woman.

And amusingly, almost universally if it's a sexy woman (at least as far as the MM or modues are concerned), it's evil and trying to eat you/kill you.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's funny, because I just introduced a character to play to that stereotype. I know that the PCs will be doubly cautious, and yet doubly susceptible. Even though their divination has suggested that she is not an enemy, and may provide the only means of their surviving past the year's end.

(Moving from rules playtest into full sandbox, she and a group of others intends to move a city from their current plane to another because Cthuloid monsters are escaping, and are probably going to devour this plane.)

Giving players divination abilities (or the means to them) doesn't derail plot, IMHO and IME.....it gives the players a chance to understand scope and background, and make meaningful choices. What happens when a PC tries divination to determine the motive of the villians in KotS?


RC

 

[Rechan]

Sorry, I think there are two slightly different, but related, conversations going in this thread.

One is about the stat blocks specifically. I don't have any particular issue with the shortened stat blocks, and while it can occassionally lead to a hiccup in consistency or require a DM handwave, I think the shorter blocks themselves are an improvement.

The other conversation is in regards to the idea that the opponents in D&D really only "exist" once the PCs encounter them and last for an average of five rounds of combat before they are killed by the PCs, therefore the only thing that matters is what they can and likely will do in those five rounds. Any deeper writeup including background, motivation and even other abilities is unncessary. That was what I was speaking to in my post where I agreed with Plane Sailing about uninteresting NPCs.

Agreed.

Or rather, somewhat. This is very usefu to distinguish the statbock issue and the phiosophy behind the monster's purpose.

I think the second point is ok in terms of the combat encounter itsef. Monsters are designed to do their thing within 5 rounds, because that's the expiration date of your average monster.

The issue is when you consider the encounter in the context of the story around it. If it's a random encounter and/or the PCs have no intention of taking, it's fine. But if there is more to it, then there is more to it.

But the onus is not on the combat encounter or the stats. The onus for depth is on the adventure AROUND the combat encounter. Regardess of how many rounds the bad guy breathes after initiative is cast, the BBEG, the important guys, need to have depth.

My issue with KotS is not the end fight. It's that the PCs never meet the BBEG before then. They have a tiny perspective (if any) of who is behind it, and so the BBEG is just some unknown monster in an end room. There's no story payoff.

That's a separate issue from the encounter.

Even if monsters die in 5 rounds, there needs to be depth around those 5 rounds to make it fee better.

So I do not think the 5 round theory is bad, but it needs to be cohesive with the story around it. And that is on those who write the adventures.

 

[Scribble]

If I were going to play 4e, or make a new monster book for 4e, I would want to include more information in the book that isn't necessarily reflected in the statblock....but which is called out to the DM for attention, because the DM can use that information both to plan encounters, and to enhance the RP potential of existing encounters.

Like what?

And how would you include it?

Yet, OTOH, examine fey creatures. In 1e, it is clear that fey creatures are supposed to be representative of how fey appear in fairy tales and folklore. Yet, overwhelmingly, they seem geared to combat (IMHO and IME, at least). Why is that? The system is not designed to codify the type of "action" these creatures represent.

Suddenly, in 3e, it is possible to have fey creatures that actually seem like fey creatures. Why? Both WotC and 3pp codified the necessary types of "action" in the game rules. There is an example of something that WotC got absolutely right, IMHO.

In what way did 3e do this?

Can you give me an example?

 

[Zinovia]

I think that most of us will concede that Keep on the Shadowfell suffers from a number of flaws, and could stand to be improved. The flaws are inherent to the module, not the entire system. There is not enough in the way of suggestions for what to do with a group that likes to negotiate their way through everything. All too often NPCs and plot devices that should become important later in the adventure are dropped, leaving the players to wonder, "What was that all about?". NPCs are always carrying incriminating notes in their pockets. Settings are often bland and poorly described. There are too many combats that are far too similar to each other in any given mod. Yup, we know there are things that desperately need improvement, but expanded stat blocks are not the solution.

I feel the stat blocks contain a decent amount of information, and they are well suited to combat encounters. The issue I have with many modules is the lack of description, including description of monsters and NPCs. I would like for the Monster Manual to include a bit more written information in some of the entries, especially size (it may be Medium, but is it 4 feet high, or 8? The illustrations are nice as far as they go, but it still is useful to know just a little more. Some entries have this info, but many do not.

In modules space is at a premium. We don't need great detail about run of the mill baddies, unless they only appear to be ordinary, but are concealing some deep and plot-relevant secret. It also doesn't do much good to have reams of backstory on the BBEG if the players have no means of discovering that information.

The idea of NPC roleplaying blocks is a good one, giving us one concise summary of how to RP this character. As it stands, much of the NPC motivation, description, and other info is hidden in various interlude encounters where the group is apparently wandering the town, interrogating everyone who might have a gold exclamation point over their heads. Suggestions for how to use some of the NPCs might also be useful; several of those in Thunderspire were interesting, but unclear on exactly what they were intended for, such as Surina. If the group listens to her too early on, they end up trying to tackle something a bit too hard for them, and bypassing the plot train of the very linear main story. A note in the Tactics section about how baddies will react if they lose morale, or are interrogated would be useful.

It isn't the stat blocks or the idea that most enemies live only five rounds that is the issue. That is probably true for most of them. The issue is that in order to make the encounters against the big villains truly memorable, it has to become personal for the PCs. They need to hate the BBEG and fervently work to bring them down. Once you can achieve that, the group will go through hell or high water to reach the BBEG and foil their wicked plans. Without a personal motivation, it is difficult to make the party care one way or the other- they are just going through the motions. In most of the modules I have seen lately the BBEG doesn't encounter the PCs at all until the bitter end. The description and motivations of the BBEG are often not communicated well to the players, appearing only in the DM background info. This is the problem that makes WotC modules play like a series of D&D minis battles rather than an RPG. There are too many fights with not enough reason to care about any of them.

 

[Azgulor]

Umbran, brings up a good point. However I think an important distinction is being lost by a few folks here.

As Umbran stated:

Then, we had games which had rules (and stats) for almost everything under the sun, and we complained how bloody long it took to stat up the NPCs and monsters so fully.

So, now they give us a bit of a mix - all the combat stuff is statted out for NPCs, but the non-combat stuff is left to the DMs imagination. And still we complain.

If you're a GM that hates prepping monsters & NPCs, then for your home-made adventures, minimal stat blocks are a very good thing.

However, if you're buying a pre-made adventure - regardless of how long the stat block is, the GM isn't the one writing it up. It's been done for you already. No time wasted.

As for the 4e module approach, I'd say it leans closer to the opposite end of the "detailed bad guy/monster" than a mix. (YMMV.) The absence of motive, characterization, etc. forces the GM to come up with it such things. That is unless the game is truly being played as a beer-n-pretzels skirmish game.

There's no right or wrong, here, just differences in taste/style.

If I take a step back from my own preferences for a moment and look at it objectively, though, I have two questions with regards to pre-made adventures:

1. Does the presence of additional, non-mechanical detail in an adventure increase or decrease the utility of the adventure?

2. When I buy a module am I looking for a traditional adventure (synopsis, plot, characters, statistics, maps, & locales) or am I looking for pre-built encounters & maps?

As a consumer, if I'm evaluating a module based on 1 & 2 above, am I getting the bang for my buck with the "lighter" module or the "fuller" module?

I suspect that there are a far greater number of GMs that would hold up Crypt of the Everflame or Sunless Citadel against Keep on the Shadowfell as an example of good design. I also suspect that those same GMs would say the additional info provided better helps them to run the module.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Like what?

And how would you include it?

I can give you an example of the kinds of things I did for RCFG. If it is really important, I could borrow a 4e MM (mine being given away) and try to bring up specific issues on a monster-by-monster basis.

In what way did 3e do this?

Can you give me an example?

I have a whole thread devoted to it, around here somewhere.

Ah, here the thing is: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-house-rules/86637-faerie-encounters.html

Largely, I would say that 3e's introduction of a working skill system meant that you could create creatures that were dealt with using game mechanical requirements, but without requiring combat. In fact, I would suggest that some of the encounters in the thread could be easily reworked into 4e terms as Skill Challenges.


RC