GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Rechan]

The problem here is that at least some players (myself included) demand consistency. There is no need to have a detailed description of each and every ability the creature has, even these that probably aren't useful in an encounter. But the monster really has them - and it breaks suspension of disbelief if they can't be used in the rare case when they would be useful.

We all expect consistency. Don't make this about those who prefer a lean statblock being OK with utterly inconsistency in their gaming.

Not only that, but the players don't see the statblock. The players only see what actions the NPC makes. So there's no inconsistency in the first place.

And most of your abilities, if not related to combat, don't matter if the Pcs never see them. If the villain has his dungeon and his cohorts as animals, and the module says he has some ability to speak to animals, if there are no animals in the place the PCs fight him, then there's no point in noting it, regardless of whether it's a bonus to handle animals, a magical ability, or the fact the guy can mimic animal behavior. He's never going to interact with animals in the PCs' presence, so it's irrelevant for the purposes of what he can do to the PCs.

It's a "does a tree falling in the forest where none can hear it make a sound" situation.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Most GMs care about the world, most players don't. Sure, players want some kind of story, variety of encounter (not just combat), and a thin veneer of verisimilitude, but most of them don't care about the game world's history or about NPC back story, the history of a magic item and so forth. Players are like most people in that respect - they focus on the here and now, on practicalities, on success in their current endeavour.

I think NPCs do need motivation, monsters need to act in plausible ways and to feel like they have lives outside the moment they are encountered, but you don't need a lot of module text to provide that. Gary Gygax's classic modules have very little back story, almost no notes on NPCs' personalities. They focus on what the PCs are doing right now - killing monsters, finding treasure, looking for secret doors, etc. Heck, the giants in Nosnra's hall are frozen in time, eternally feasting, we have no idea what they do the rest of the time.

Noonan is right to say that the combat encounter must work purely as a combat encounter, that it doesn't benefit the GM to have non-combat powers cluttering up the stat block. In a sense he's right to say that the monster doesn't really exist outside the moment it is encountered. However it helps verisimilitude if module writers pretend that it does. I don't think you need a lot of text on this, a couple of sentences for a monster, a paragraph for an NPC.

 

[pawsplay]

The statblock is the part of an NPC writeup relevant for combat.

Objection! Not all stats are combat stats.

 

[AllisterH]

Objection! Not all stats are combat stats.

But in contet of actually fighting the players?

Again...if the BBEG is using a far realm creature and/or hellish creature, are you going to stop in the middle of the encounter and say "wait...the BBEG can't talk/communicate with the creature because he doesn't have the language and/or the Tongues spell"

 

[Imaro]

We all expect consistency. Don't make this about those who prefer a lean statblock being OK with utterly inconsistency in their gaming.

Not only that, but the players don't see the statblock. The players only see what actions the NPC makes. So there's no inconsistency in the first place.

And most of your abilities, if not related to combat, don't matter if the Pcs never see them. If the villain has his dungeon and his cohorts as animals, and the module says he has some ability to speak to animals, if there are no animals in the place the PCs fight him, then there's no point in noting it, regardless of whether it's a bonus to handle animals, a magical ability, or the fact the guy can mimic animal behavior. He's never going to interact with animals in the PCs' presence, so it's irrelevant for the purposes of what he can do to the PCs.

It's a "does a tree falling in the forest where none can hear it make a sound" situation.

The problem with your entire argument is that it is based upon combat being the only type of interaction between characters and monsters/NPC's... and I find that, at least in my experience, to be totally untrue. Hey does that ability to speak with animals matter if the party has a familiar or an animal companion in it... maybe... but removing it entirely sure limits the option that it will ever come up.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

But in both modules, the PCs never meet the villain (much less see them) until they walk into the room at the end of the module and roll initiative. The PCs in Burnt Offerings don't get to appreciate how much everything hinges on the villain's background story. They don't get to experience her. They just kill her. Same with Kalarel - the Pcs don't know him, and only know his name mentioned here or there, and they just show up and shoot him in the face with their swords.

The difference between the statblocks of the two villains? The villain of Burnt Offering mentions she can Turn/Rebuke undead, and she can cast Daylight 1/day. These things will not be relevant in the fight, and are there simply because the villain is a cleric and an aasimar, therefore it's there for posterity as opposed to utility.

So not only do we have superfluous things in the statblock, but also we see two different approaches that ultimately end the same way. Burnt Offerings gives great affection to the villain. Details her background, her motivations, her personality. And none of those matter to the PCs, who don't really find them out and end up walking into her room and kicking her ass at the end of the dungeon without any meaningful interaction. Just like Kalarel. The only difference is that the DM gets to read about the former.

The assumption here is that the PCs will encounter the BBEG and roll initiative. It removes any and all possibilities for any other option. Some players may attempt to talk with the BBEG, to get them monologging, to learn more of their evil plans or to justify to themselves they are in their rights to just kill the BBEG. It is true that probably for 95% of any group, the rest of the stuff like motivation, background etc. does not matter, but for the DMs of those 5%, not having that information means they need to come up with it themselves and usually on the fly when the party does not do as expected and just attack.

I agree that statblocks containing whether they NPCs can turn undead or cast Daylight are pretty much useless, but on the other hand, not giving any information as to some of their background, skills and abilities that might be useful in interaction with the PCs other than combat means if needed it is all up the DM.

The final consideration is, who is the true target audience of any published adventure? The answer is not the players who run through it, but the person who purchases it, and that is almost always the DM. If the players love the adventure, but the DM finds it difficult to run because they are lacking information they need or want, that DM is less likely to purchase another. If the players love the adventure and it has stuff the players never see, but makes the DM's time simpler and more interesting, the DM is likely to become a loyal customer.

 

[Wicht]

But in contet of actually fighting the players?

Again...if the BBEG is using a far realm creature and/or hellish creature, are you going to stop in the middle of the encounter and say "wait...the BBEG can't talk/communicate with the creature because he doesn't have the language and/or the Tongues spell"

My players tend to trust me to be fair. But as a DM, if I find that we have one henchman who only speaks draconic and the leader doesn't understand a word of that language, I am going to want to have an answer how the one gives the other orders. Or, as a fair DM I'm going to be forced to say...

"The cleric gives a command to his kobold minion... Kill!" The kobold just stares at him with a stupid expression on his face. What do you do?

There are some of us to whom this stuff matters, both as DMs and as players, and there are others that think its a stupid distraction. That's just the way it is and we have to learn to accept others might see things different. But for myself I like the stats meshing with the story as consistently as possible.

 

[Wicht]

But in both modules, the PCs never meet the villain (much less see them) until they walk into the room at the end of the module and roll initiative. The PCs in Burnt Offerings don't get to appreciate how much everything hinges on the villain's background story. They don't get to experience her. They just kill her.

That's not even close to being true. In my campaign, one of the PCs was the brother of the villain, though he had never met her. He had traveled there to find her. Aside from that, throughout the module there are a substantial number of clues, as a result of which, by the time the PCs met her, they knew exactly who was leading the goblins.

 

[Wicht]

I agree that statblocks containing whether they NPCs can turn undead or cast Daylight are pretty much useless, but on the other hand, not giving any information as to some of their background, skills and abilities that might be useful in interaction with the PCs other than combat means if needed it is all up the DM.

I know of at least one instance where the module was used to run a group of goblin adventurers through it. Daylight might be important to know about in such a situation. Likewise, while unusual, if someone wanted to run a group of undead heroes, the module provides mostly all the information you would need to make it work.

More detail provides for greater flexibility and ease of use. Its only pointless information when you don't need it but the fact you don't need it does not mean it might not have utility to another. Which is something I think module writers do well to keep in mind. You should never assume your module will be used exactly as intended.

 

[innerdude]

I think you misinterpret Noonan's quote - it's regarding monster design, not module design. If you create a richly detailed monster with a memorable personality and a significant place in the story of the adventure, when the PC's finally fight them, they still die in 5 rounds. Noonan's just saying that because of that, they don't need loads of special powers and abilities to be cool and interesting. The DM makes them cool and interesting by integrating them into the story and bringing them to life - the monster manual can't do that. It can just give you 5 rounds worth of combat stats so the monster can fight the PC's at some point in the story.

But how many times does a monster/NPC/BBEG come into play as part of a story as a direct result of a key trait, power, or special ability that is solely germane to that monster/character?

Stripping away "powers," "traits," and "abilities" necessarily lowers the range of options in which a particular monster/NPC can be inserted into the framework of a story--at least without stretching the limits of verisimilitude.

Sure, you can say as a GM that a particular monster works a certain way, because it works for your story. I mean, that's what GM fiat is for, after all. But why not include more of these "hook" traits for the monster, to help GMs create more context-rich encounters?