GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Dannager]

Someone should tell WotC's designers.

Let's take Keep on the Shadowfell. There are 14 encounters 5+ copies of the same monster (On the Road, A2, A3, Area 4, Area 5, Area 7, Area 9, Area 10, Interlude 3, Area 12, Area 13, Area 17, Area 18, Area 19);

No. Stop.

Of these 14 encounters you highlight, precisely one involves 5 or more (exactly 5, actually) of the same non-minion stat block. All of the other instances of 5+ duplicates in the same encounter are fights involving minions.

You cannot use minions to support your "25 actions" argument, because a minion is not designed to stick around for 5 rounds like any other monster is. Where a standard monster is designed to go down in roughly 5 attacks, a minion is designed to go down in 1. That means that your typical minion will only have time for one or two attacks before his time is up. They represent 1/4th of a monster in terms of xp budget, and that is reflected in the variety of powers they possess. Minions are designed to be very simple to run - they even forgo damage dice for static damage values.

Were you unaware of how minions work? If you were, I'd suggest becoming a little more familiar with 4e combat and its assumptions before deciding you're capable of passing judgment on its merits. There are people with a lot of experience with the system, and 4e's brilliant combat system is one aspect of the system that receives pretty consistent praise.

If you were aware of how minions work, why did you raise this argument? It should be obvious to you, then, that minions fall very far short of the 5-actions-per-monster framework you're trying to establish, and you clearly went through a significant amount of effort to scan every encounter in KotS, E3 and a Dungeon article for encounters that fit your criteria. In fact, it's quite obvious from an honest look at those adventures that having 5+ duplicates of the same standard monster in an encounter is a rarity in 4e encounter design. So let's not play games like this, hm? If your argument has merit, a disingenuous tangent - like scanning multiple adventures for lopsided encounters and neglecting to mention that they are lopsided because they contain lots of minions who do not function as your framework assumes - shouldn't be necessary.

 

[BryonD]

OK, but I wouldn't share the view that 3E or PF is that better game.

It is not at all necessary to presume PF or 3E as that game.

Certainly, that's not the experience at my gaming table - features of 4e (which include as a minor contributer, but are cetaily not limited to, its stat blocks) make it a much better vehicle for achieving tactical flexibility and interesting tactical play in a fantasy RPG.

A lot of people praise 4E for being a great tactical mini game.

 

[Dannager]

When Perseus fought Medusa the math didn’t work and the combat was really swingy.
Perseus was a hero.

The great stories are never about balanced encounters.

I'm going to tackle your signature here for a moment, BryonD, because it's actually topical.

No, the great stories are never about balanced encounters (even though, sometimes, they actually might be). That doesn't mean that balanced encounters don't play a huge role in facilitating the cooperative telling of a story that involves combat encounters, nor does it mean that a balanced encounter is going to make a great story more difficult to tell. Your signature engages in the clear implication that balanced encounters are unimportant to a roleplaying game, and I think that's an implication that deserves one heck of a challenge.

 

[Wicht]

I think the signature is more meant to point out that the truly memorable stories are those in which the odds are stacked against you and you still win. And to be honest, he is right, that's what makes a great story.

Now granted, you fight the odds too often and your going to eventually lose, but even then, it can still make a good story.

That is, the game is not the story in question in the quote, telling the story is what you do after the game is over. At least that's always been my take on his sig. For what its worth, I've always enjoyed the thought/reminder.

 

[Imaro]

Sure, I could add extra levels, feats and classes to a 1st-level orc warrior in 3E, but I could also add extra powers and abilities to a 4E orc if I wanted to. In particular, by applying a class template, I could add a minimum of three powers, and more at higher levels. The difference between editions (at least, with respect to the number of combat options) is probably more stark in the "normal" monsters - NPC classed humanoids and animals.

Again, this is bull... you're creating arbitrary restrictions (only classed humanoids, which 4e doesn't even really have... and animals) upon the game rules in 3e to reinforce a false point. 4e has very limited (yet admittedly very balanced) ways, in comparison to 3.x, of adding options to monsters and NPC's... this is true for melee and even more true for spellcasters. I could just as easily compare a classed Orc in 3e vs. a minion in 4e... Instead I am looking at the overall picture and 3.x has more options that can be applied to a creature than 4e.

 

[Dannager]

Again, this is bull... you're creating arbitrary restrictions (only classed humanoids, which 4e doesn't even really have... and animals) upon the game rules in 3e to reinforce a false point. 4e has very limited (yet admittedly very balanced) ways, in comparison to 3.x, of adding options to monsters and NPC's... this is true for melee and even more true for spellcasters. I could just as easily compare a classed Orc in 3e vs. a minion in 4e... Instead I am looking at the overall picture and 3.x has more options that can be applied to a creature than 4e.

I'd love for you to give me an example of something that you could give an orc in 3.5 that I couldn't give an orc in 4e. Or any other monster.

Now, the ways you add things to monsters might be more codified in 3.5 (since all monsters must follow the hit dice/level progression scheme), but that's only because 4e provides a rough but accurate framework by which you can pretty much endlessly customize a monster to your liking.

 

[Dannager]

I think the signature is more meant to point out that the truly memorable stories are those in which the odds are stacked against you and you still win. And to be honest, he is right, that's what makes a great story.

I'm not sure. The line about the math not working and the combat being swingy seem like pretty standard digs about the nature of 3.5 vs. 4e combats, but I'd be happy to let him clarify it, and if I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

 

[Imaro]

I'd love for you to give me an example of something that you could give an orc in 3.5 that I couldn't give an orc in 4e. Or any other monster.

Now, the ways you add things to monsters might be more codified in 3.5 (since all monsters must follow the hit dice/level progression scheme), but that's only because 4e provides a rough but accurate framework by which you can pretty much endlessly customize a monster to your liking.

Here's a better proposition, since I have the 4e rulebooks. Tell me where the rules for customizing these monsters in the way you claim are? Not Danager's houserules or DM fiat, but real rules that would allow a module writer or myself to custiomize monsters in 4e to our liking. If we are talking about DM fiat well that's a moot point and a cop out.

 

[Wicht]

I'm not sure. The line about the math not working and the combat being swingy seem like pretty standard digs about the nature of 3.5 vs. 4e combats, but I'd be happy to let him clarify it, and if I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

No doubt its a dig at a certain design philosophy, but I still think its talking about overcoming challenges gives you something to talk about after the game. But he can explain it himself.

 

[MrMyth]

Again, this is bull... you're creating arbitrary restrictions (only classed humanoids, which 4e doesn't even really have... and animals) upon the game rules in 3e to reinforce a false point. 4e has very limited (yet admittedly very balanced) ways, in comparison to 3.x, of adding options to monsters and NPC's... this is true for melee and even more true for spellcasters. I could just as easily compare a classed Orc in 3e vs. a minion in 4e... Instead I am looking at the overall picture and 3.x has more options that can be applied to a creature than 4e.

I am not so sure about that.

4E has rules for creating classes NPCs of standard humanoid races. It also has rules for using class templates to add a class to an existing monster. It also has rules for adding other templates to a monster. It has rules for adding monster themes to monsters. And it probably has the best rules for easily leveling monsters up and down. Finally, it has decent guidelines for directly altering and creating new monsters.

I'm not going to claim it has more options - but I will disagree that it is 'very limited'.

More than that, I think a lot of the claims about 4E monsters is that you tend to have more variety out of the book. A DM in 4E can easily grab a half-dozen varieties of orcs, directly from the books, and populate a few encounters with them. He can level them up and down in a matter of seconds. That is significantly less time investment than required to create several encounters with a diverse group of orcs in 3.5.

A DM could certainly create a vast array of different creatures to fill an encounter, but it was much more difficult to get the same variety instantaneously. I think that is the argument, rather than 4E having inherently more potential variety than 3.5 did.