GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Scribble]

The concept of a monster vendomatic is giving me all kinds of evil ideas right now.

Scribble, please prepare for my players not to like you very much...

Lan-"but does it give back change?"-efan

Just make sure the Wizard has some food. Because you know... he needs it.... Badly.

 

[Rechan]

Incidentally Rechan, Where you aware that Paizo, in the last few years has put out...

I'm on Paizo's site about once a week. Back when I followed the messageboards, a lot more than that. So yes, I'm aware.

Just because they DO more than modules, however, does not mean that modules are not the lionshare of their work or revenue. If we completely removed the sales and profits of modules from Paizo, do you honestly believe the company would break even?

AND many of those same things are tie-ins to their modules. The card decks are items/other things that are found in their modules. The Harrow deck is linked specifically to Curse of the Crimson Throne.

Simply put, when I say the words "Paizo", yoru average gamer (who is even aware of Paizo) is going to think "Modules/APs". When I say "WotC", you do not think of anything beyond D&D.

 

[Rechan]

I get the feeling that they are selling many more modules now than they were 2 years ago.

It would SHOCK me if this were the case.

While it may be true that WotC is the bigger company and sells more Core Rulebooks (at the moment) I would love for you to show me what proof you have that WotC sells more modules more regularly.

I'm saying that Paizo needs to sell less compared to WotC for the module to be considered a success.

And I do think that WotC sells more modules in general, if for no other reason because they have more exposure. I can walk into any Barns & Nobles, Borders, etc and I'm going to find at least one module on the shelf. Same with any gaming store. Now, how many of those do you think I'm going to find a Pathfinder module?

Paizo is focusing on a specialized market (those who used to play 3.5 and then updated to Pathfinder, and are internet savvy enough to follow). WotC is just selling to anyone who is now playing 4e.

There's no way for either of us to prove anything, considering that Paizo nor WotC releases any sort of info on their sales. So both of us are going purely on our perceptions and assumptions.

Furthermore, smaller print runs cost more, not less. Therefore it would be logical to assume the smaller company, printing less books must sell for a higher price. You have it exactly backwards.

If that were the case, then Paizo's modules would cost more.

Also, also - You seem to be implying that Paizo's focus on the PDF somehow lessens their cost for print, but that doesn't work. Printing still cost money and Paizo gives the PDFs away for free to us subscribers, after knocking 15% of their prices.

What?

I would suspect it has more to do with management and less to do with company size.

I really don't see how management has any impact on it.

 

[MrMyth]

Oh c'mon! You guys are trolling me right?

I say, "I'm not talking about how stat blocks are used in combat." And I get somebody replying to everything as if I were talking about how stat blocks are used in combat.

So then I say, "Fine, let's talk about stat blocks in combat." And I get somebody replying to my post as if I were talking about scenarios outside of combat.

I'm not sure what the confusion is. I tried to address both scenarios. Inside of combat, there are plenty of tactical options for PCs - as pemerton did a great job of explaining. Outside of combat, the monster's stat block gives them the elements you need to handle most non-combat interactions, whether that is a chase scene, a negotiation, PCs sneaking past monsters or vice versa...

In fact, I'm even more confused how this comes across as trolling. If we've successfully demonstrated that stat blocks are versatile both in and out of combat, doesn't that end the debate entirely?

If it doesn't, then... what are you looking for? I'm willing to accept your accusation of trolling was spoken in jest, but you could at least respond to our actual points rather than act like we are somehow trying to change the terms of the debate!

... unless, of course, a compound went on alert and they were trying to track down the PCs.

This is exactly what I'm talking about: You remove non-combat options from the game because they're "not particularly relevant in combat" and then you wonder why your modules don't have any non-combat options. Geez, I wonder if there might be a connection!

And that's the very point I was making! The discussion should be about which abilities are worth preserving and which are not. I think Detect Thoughts makes a good example of this.

But I also think that there is a tendency here to try and extrapolate more from a single example than is merited. Are you saying that if a compound goes on alert and the monsters are trying to track down the PCs, that the lack of Detect Thoughts means that scenario can never actually happen? Aren't the monsters capable of searching for the PCs in ordinary ways? And don't some monsters still have relevant special features in such a scene, whether it be special sensory abilities (truesight, tremorsense, etc) or various objects or rituals that might aid in revealing PCs?

That's the heart of the debate. Detect Thoughts is an example of something that would very occasionally have a scenario in which it is especially useful. Noonan would, perhaps, feel that these scenarios are rare enough that it is not needed to be preserved in the stat block. Some might agree, some might object. That's one thing.

But the argument your side is making is somehow extrapolating that this means he has, or wants to, "remove all non-combat options from the game".

That's just not true. Movement, skills, ability scores, languages, perception abilities - all of these remain in every stat block, and provide all sorts of non-combat options. Most special abilities might not be applicable outside of combat, but there are still some that are - along with many that give pretty good guidance on what a creature can do out of combat. ProfessorCirno had his discussion over how a Paizo statblock was so much more useful than a 4E statblock because of how much insight it gave into the NPC - but we demonstrated that 4E statblocks can provide just as much flavor and insight.

Say you have a monster who can dominate a PC temporarily in combat. The 4E approach is for the DM to then extrapolate what it can do to NPCs out of combat - likely having more extended control of thralls. It doesn't need the exact specifics, because you shouldn't ever need to actually roll out a battle between two NPCs.

So, we both have statblocks that provide complete relevant rules on how an NPC can interact outside of combat, while also providing elements that enhance the flavor and personality of the NPC in question, along with a rules system that supports expanding on a creature's abilities when it comes to off-scene actions.

That does not sound like the removal of all non-combat options to me.

Now, will there still be scenarios in which a 3.5 monster has more options than a 4E one? Sure. But having less options doesn't mean it has no options out of combat, as people are claiming. And in return, we do have easier to use stat blocks that are generally more exciting in actual play. It is a trade-off - but not one nearly as extreme as some seem to believe.

As others have asked, Beginning of the End - how much 4E experience do you have? You've raised some claims that 4E statblocks are 'stale, bland, dull, inflexible', and that they lead to boring repetitive encounters. I'm pretty sure many would disagree - it is considered a strength of 4E that encounters play out in exciting and distinct ways. (As others have mentioned - an encounter that consists of 5 copies of the same monster is completely against standard 4E encounter design.)

 

[Fifth Element]

True. But everything is relative. I know there are a lot of people who really enjoy having more depth to non-combat than simply "these are resolved via skill challenges, with DCs set in accordance with the rules in the DMG and DMG2."

Yes, but what things that would provide this greater depth would be included in a statblock?

 

[Wicht]

Rechan:

1) Are you really suggesting that Paizo is shrinking as a market force? That makes me think you are not paying close attention to the situation or you are allowing biases to prejudice your judgment.

2) I'm not sure what you misunderstood about the PDFs, but let me be clear. Paizo gives away their PDFs to subscribers of their lines. They furthermore give a 15% discount on all their merchandise to subscribers to their adventure Path. As a subscriber I pay $13.99 for the adventure paths, get a hard copy in the mail and get the PDF of each book for free. I pay $11.89 for a module, get a hard copy in the mail and get the PDF of the module for free.

3) Arguing that smaller print runs don't cost more per book is pretty silly. Any publisher will tell you that per book, larger print runs are cheaper. In point of fact, if you talk to the Piazo guys, and they're pretty accessible about this sort of thing, they will tell you they don't reprint their modules or APs because smaller print runs cost more, giving them less profit, and reprints don't sell out as fast. This is why publishing companies only reprint hot sellers or evergreen books. You should expect to pay less for a large mass market book simply because the print run costs less per book.

4) As for your point about not being able to see how management might impact quality, price control and company growth, well, I'm pretty much at a loss as to how to respond to such thinking.

 

[Rechan]

Rechan:

1) Are you really suggesting that Paizo is shrinking as a market force?

Where do you get "shrinking" from? No.

2) I'm not sure what you misunderstood about the PDFs, but let me be clear. Paizo gives away their PDFs to subscribers of their lines. They furthermore give a 15% discount on all their merchandise to subscribers to their adventure Path. As a subscriber I pay $13.99 for the adventure paths, get a hard copy in the mail and get the PDF of each book for free. I pay $11.89 for a module, get a hard copy in the mail and get the PDF of the module for free.

3) Arguing that smaller print runs don't cost more per book is pretty silly. Any publisher will tell you that per book, larger print runs are cheaper. In point of fact, if you talk to the Piazo guys, and they're pretty accessible about this sort of thing, they will tell you they don't reprint their modules or APs because smaller print runs cost more, giving them less profit, and reprints don't sell out as fast. This is why publishing companies only reprint hot sellers or evergreen books. You should expect to pay less for a large mass market book simply because the print run costs less per book.

Taking all of this into consideration:

How can you explain how a smaller company can print fewer books (and thus pay more), and offer a huge discount for subscription, pay the same for labor, offer lower prices, and make a significant profit?

There's more than just "management finesse" going on, guy.

 

[Wicht]

If Paizo is not Shrinking then they are either growing or stagnating. Growth would suggest they are selling more today than 2 years ago. So what's so shocking to you?

Management works both ways. Poor management can result in higher prices and lower quality. Good management can set price goals and profit margins they feel comfortable with in such a way as to give better bargains. And don't discount the effects of having one of the most experience RPG bosses in the business running your company.

Also, there you go again assuming fewer books are being printed. I have no clue how many modules WotC actually sells/prints/etc. or for that matter how many Paizo prints.

Paizo actively goes with whomever can print a given book the cheapest and will use a different printer for their hardcovers than they use for their APs and modules. I don't know what printing practices WotC favors.

 

[MrMyth]

Yes, 5 x 5 i= 25... But if it takes 5 hours to get from here to East Overtheresville, putting 5 people in the car isn't going to suddenly turn it into a 25 hour trip! (Although I suppose if one of those people is your mother in law it might FEEL like 25 hours...)

To be fair, I understand what he is saying here. He isn't saying the cmobat takes 25 rounds.

He is saying that over the course of it, monsters take 25 attacks. If every monster only has 2-3 options, and you have 5 of the same monster, you will see the same attacks over and over again.

But it is flawed argument for several reasons.

1) An encounter with 5 copies of the same monster is completely against the encounter design of 4E. It is a badly designed encounter to begin with - of course it will have flaws!

2) If the combat is over in 5 rounds, each monster won't necessarily live that long. Some will be dying out in rounds 3 and 4, and so forth.

3) Not every attack of the same type will resolve the same. Misses, crits, etc. Say we did have an encounter with 5 Orc Raiders. So, let's assume 25 attacks overall. Each has two attacks - melee with a greataxe, ranged with a hand-axe. They also each get one special attack in melee that can heal them. So let's assume we'll see 10 Greataxe attacks, 10 Hand-axe attacks, and 5 Warrior's Surges.

But wait - they are also encouraged to charge (with higher charging speeds), and ranged attacks from up close ignore cover and concealment. So the fight probably starts out much more tactical - the orcs likely make use of cover and concealment that won't help the opponents against their hand-axes, while also trying to draw the party members away from each other. Then, as combat descends into melee and orcs get bloodied, they start fighting like proper orcs with greataxes - and can go charging about, taking advantage of their greater speeds to overwhelm isolated opponents. Those who themselves get surrounded use Warrior's Surge to keep up the good fight!

So now, over the course of a battle, we'll see 5 Greataxe attacks, 5 Greataxe charges, 5 Hand-axe attacks, 5 Killer's Eye Handaxe attacks, and 5 Warrior's Surges. And amidst all that, changing conditions as the field moves around, and combat moves into and out of the terrain, and switches back and forth between ranged and melee combat. All of that from a natural set of tactics encouraged and supported by their basic features.

And keep in mind - this is a pretty basic level 3 orc. Most fights will have a broader range of enemies, often with more abilities and more synergy.

Will enemies get reused? Sure, in certain environments. But fights tend to be pretty distinct. And... checking the compendium, there are 62 results for orcs. Ignoring simple variations, named enemies from adventures, etc, I count 23 distinct types of orcs available from the Monster Manual and 2 DDI articles. Assume each fight has 2-3 types of enemies, and that should give you enough to fill an entire orc dungeon with different and distinct fights.

Now, not every creature type will have such variation. But most will have a decent amount, you can get a ton more through customizing monsters and using templates, and how often do you need to populate entire dungeons with a single type of monster?

Which brings us to the next point...

4) How does this compare to earlier editions? How much variation was there among melee monsters in 3.5? Isn't a specific criticism the fact that most melee combats descended into "5' step, full round" until someone dropped? Casters were exciting, sure. But you were much more likely to see rooms filled with a half-dozen identical orcs in 3.5. Filling an entire dungeon with them while avoiding repetition? Yeah, good luck with that.

This isn't to say fights were inherently dull and disappointing. But this really is the first time I've heard 4E accused of dull and stale statblocks leading to mindlessly repetitive encounters. It certainly doesn't match my own experience with the game.

 

[billd91]

1) An encounter with 5 copies of the same monster is completely against the encounter design of 4E. It is a badly designed encounter to begin with - of course it will have flaws!

Man, I find I dislike 4e more and more and it's precisely because of things like this.