GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[firesnakearies]

Quite the opposite, the mood I'm sensing here is that people would like to see effort taken to account for numerous different modes and write on that basis.

Let's say you're setting out to write a module. You've got a good story and background, a fine BBEG, a few excellent set-piece scenes, a map, and a bunch of bad guys.

So go ahead. Write it as if it's going to be all brawl, all the time; no quarter asked or given.

But don't stop there! Go back and write it again, this time as if the PCs are expected to try to talk their way past every encounter.

Then write it again assuming the PCs will try to sneak past or completely avoid every encounter and will never enter any room by its front door.

Then write it a fourth time, to account for anything missed in the first three passes, and you're done Step 1. You should by now have four - well, at least three - different written versions of every encounter and location.

Step 2 is to combine the different versions of each encounter or location into one coherent write-up which, if done right, now accounts for at least 3 significant modes of play and maybe catches quite a few more.

Tie 'em all together with a bit of story and you've got a module.

Lanefan

God, yes. THIS is exactly the kind of adventure I want to be buying. This is what a pre-written, published, for-sale adventure module should BE. Every time.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I haven't bought or read the (I assume you mean 4e) MM2, but if they're reduced to writing up Insane Noble Humans as monsters I don't think I'm missing much.

You are missing a Lot in the MMII. The balance is superb and so is much of the fluff. Sure there's a bit of silliness there and the Insane Noble certainly qualifies - but there has always been silliness in D&D (flumphs? Owlbears?)

Theoretically that's true.

But the point is that 4th Edition's monsters were explicitly designed to support 5 rounds of combat and nothing more. (We know that because the designers told us it was true.) Those same designers who said "monsters are good for 5 rounds of combat and nothing more" are the same designers working on WotC's modules.

Shockingly, the opponents in these modules are good for 5 rounds of combat and nothing more.

This isn't really a matter of connecting the dots. It's a matter of looking at the huge, blazing neon signs.

To reiterate: The problem here is not that Premise A gave us Stat Block B and then Stat Block B gave us Problem C. It's that Premise A results directly in Problem C. The fact that Premise A also results in a flawed stat block which contributes to Problem C is practically irrelevant: The faulty premise, and every conclusion resulting from it, needs to be re-analyzed before ANY of the problems can be solved.

Except that the problem isn't that Statblock B is remotely bad. Statblock B is the single most usable statblock and produces the most interesting results in any tactical tabletop roleplaying game I have ever played. And most monsters do last five rounds or fewer and don't do anything.

The problem as I see it is that what the design philosophy produces is an absolutely superb tool for the five rounds or fewer monsters. And something that's no better than average for anything else. The designers would rather use the masterwork tools than the cheap ones. So follow the five rounds or fewer model.

 

[Xris Robin]

But the point is that 4th Edition's monsters were explicitly designed to support 5 rounds of combat and nothing more. (We know that because the designers told us it was true.)

When and where, exactly, were we told this?

 

[bagger245]

Slight tangent, but nothing in the Human Insane Noble stat block requires him to be a noble or even implies that he is one. I could use the same stat block for a Human Possessed Cultist and save myself the trouble of the PCs asking if they can get his lands.

Then again, if that noble isn't particularly high-ranking, the total value of his possessions may be pocket change to 23rd-level PCs.

The monster stats are supposedly interchangeable or "refluffed", so you can have a variety of humanoids with Human Insane Noble stats. Heck, the name of the creature doesn't mean anything.

Of course, when used in a module, the Insane Noble is fully living and breathing in the game world, so besides his combat stats, he does need non-combat stats as well. But if we follow closely to the devs design goal, the Human Noble only lives for 5 rounds when you meet him ie 30 seconds of game time.

 

[Umbran]

So go ahead. Write it as if it's going to be all brawl, all the time; no quarter asked or given.

But don't stop there! Go back and write it again, this time as if the PCs are expected to try to talk their way past every encounter.

Then write it again assuming the PCs will try to sneak past or completely avoid every encounter and will never enter any room by its front door.

Then write it a fourth time, to account for anything missed in the first three passes, and you're done Step 1. You should by now have four - well, at least three - different written versions of every encounter and location.

Step 2 is to combine the different versions of each encounter or location into one coherent write-up which, if done right, now accounts for at least 3 significant modes of play and maybe catches quite a few more.

Tie 'em all together with a bit of story and you've got a module.

Fine. Let us assume, for the moment, that the "mood" is actually representative of what the DMs want on a more broad scale.

Now, remember that time is money. Effort is money.

How much do you want to pay for this module that has been written 4 times over?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Noted, but it's not the end of the world if the PCs kill the boss right at the start of the adventure without realizing what they've done.

I agree. In module writing, though, there seems to be a sense that if the "story" doesn't unfold in a certain manner, catastrophe will occur. That leads to "the Boss" lurking in the deepest, darkest pit he can find....sometimes without any real plan at all!

I would rather play in games where the NPCs are....shall we say....more likely to react in a believable fashion. Even if that means some potential villian is killed before his time.

I agree with this - both your diagnosis, and your admonition to "give the players the information".

Cool.

Interesting, DMG 2 tackles this head on - it has suggestions for vignettes, and it has suggestions about using GM fiat to prevent the villain being killed in early presentations (this latter approach I think would have to be handled with care among traditional D&D players!). I doubt that you (ie Raven Crowking) would want to use these particular techniques, but they add to the repertoire, which includes the divination methods you mention.

You are correct in thinking that I would not think much of them. Many a villian has survived encounters with my PCs without requiring fiat. All that is required is something the PCs need more than killing the villian at that time, i.e., some reason to not kill the villian.

Heck, lowly orc mooks have managed to save themselves by offering reasons not to simply kill them. I do this, among other reasons, to encourage the players to consider similar tactics when it becomes obvious that they are not going to win some fight.

Why are the module designers not following the advice in their own rulebooks?

Perhaps they haven't read those sections yet?

How much do you want to pay for this module that has been written 4 times over?

Much more than I would for a module that wasn't written properly once.

YMMV.


RC

 

[Sir Wulf]

Fine. Let us assume, for the moment, that the "mood" is actually representative of what the DMs want on a more broad scale.

Now, remember that time is money. Effort is money.

How much do you want to pay for this module that has been written 4 times over?

I don't think that it takes four full rewrites to figure out whether a scenario has enough detail to accommodate different play styles. It just requires consideration that such styles may occur and a few lines of text to address them.

As an example, if a guard room holds 12 orc guards, we've been told nothing but what we need for a brawl. If it holds 12 orc mercenaries, grousing because they haven't been paid in two months, we have a hook for another approach than combat. The party's half-orc barbarian might just try to bribe them to abandon their leaders.

That didn't take much effort.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think the Delve Format might be to blame. It has the advantage of allowing the DM to run each encounter very easily, without the need to flip pages to look at the map, look up monster stats in the MM and monster abilities in the PHB. But the drawback is there's a lot less space for background, setting, NPC motivation and personality, etc.

Hussar has a point that the current WotC format is better for newbies, though I can see that it also works well for those DMs who like to write all their own 'fluff'. Indeed these DMs may well feel they do a better job of it than any module writer would.

 

[Dausuul]

Fine. Let us assume, for the moment, that the "mood" is actually representative of what the DMs want on a more broad scale.

Now, remember that time is money. Effort is money.

How much do you want to pay for this module that has been written 4 times over?

More than I'll pay for a module like Keep on the Shadowfell, but that's not saying much since the latter amount is zero.

It's not like the four-times approach is going to be a complete rewrite every time. If there's an encounter with a hydra, you don't really have to worry about what happens if the PCs try to talk to it:

PC: "Pardon us, old chap, but we were wondering if you could assist us in our quest?"
Hydra: "GRRAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHH!" "RRRAAAAAARRRRRGGGH!" "GRRRRRHHH!" "MRRAAAAAAAWWWWRRRR!" *two heads grab PC by arms and legs and start trying to pull him in half*
PC: "Right-ho, we'll just be moving along then, shall we?"

(Because apparently my hypothetical players learned how to speak English from reading P.G. Wodehouse.)

Let's say the four-times approach doubles the writing time involved in the module, and let's say the writing time makes up 50% of the module's cost, with the rest being devoted to printing costs, warehousing, shipping and distribution, et cetera. So that's a total increase of 50% in the cost of the module. I can live with that.

 

[Hussar]

Actually, there's a few easier ways of doing this than rewriting the entire module.

Add in BETTER maps. Have a small copy (or hell, make it a free download as a supplement) of the main map of the adventure. Let's assume a dungeon of some sort to keep it simple. One map shows the basics. The next map plots movements over time. A third map maybe shows an Alert status dungeon vs a "standard" readiness level.

I honestly think that in this case, a picture really is worth a 1000 words. Those two extra maps would go miles towards bringing an adventure location to life and wouldn't require a whole lot of extra work.

Certainly not a 50% price bump on modules. If you think the increased quality would get people to buy modules that expensive, I think you're mistaken Dausuul.