GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Piratecat]

I just wanted to thank everyone who is working their ass off to discuss this politely and with examples, even if you don't agree with other members. It's very much appreciated. You guys are great.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm going to arbitrarily look at ten CR 5 non-casters in the MM for both games. I'm going to ignore options coming from skill use or from basic functionality of the combat system. For 3rd Edition, I'm taking the first 10 monsters in the CR 5 listing and not listing any monsters with spells or spell-like abilities. (And I only did one elemental.) For 4th Edition I'm taking the top two creatures listed in each category for Level 5 creatures, except for controllers. (I also skipped the one Level 5 minion listed.)

3rd Edition
Achaeri (3): Claw/Bite, Black Cloud, Spring Attack
Animated Object, Huge (4): Slam, Blind, Constrict, Trample
Arrowhawk, Adult (3): Bite, Electricity Ray, Flyby Attack
Basilisk (2): Bite, Petrifying Gaze
Cloaker (4): Tail Slap, Moan, Engulf, Shadow Shift
Devil, Bearded (7): Claw, Infernal Wound, Beard, Battle Frenzy, Summon Baatezu, Telepathy, Power Attack
Dire Lion (3): Claw, Pounce, Rake
Elemental, Large Air (3): Slam, Whirlwind, Flyby Attack
Gibbering Mouther (7): Bite, Spittle, Gibbering, Improved Grab, Blood Drain, Engulf, Ground Manipulation

Average: 3.6 options

4th Edition
Blazing Skeleton (2): Blazing Claw, Flame Orb
Gnoll Huntmaster (3): Handaxe, Longbow, Pack Attack
Boneshard Skeleton (3): Scimitar, Boneshard, Boneshard Burst
Bugbear Warrior (Goblin) (3): Morningstar, Skullthumper, Predatory Eye
Greenscale Darter (Lizardfolk) (3): Club, Blowgun, Sniper
Slaad Tadpole (2): Bite, Chaos Shift
Dire Wolf (3): Bite, Combat Advantage, Pack Hunter
Fire Bat (2): Fiery Touch, Fiery Swoop
Dragonborn Soldier (4): Dragon Breath, Dragonborn Fury, Impetuous Spirit, Martial Recovery
Dwarf Hammerer (5): Warhammer, Shield Bash, Throwing Hammer, Stubborn, Stand Your Ground

Average: 3.0 options

This spot check would seem to confirm your suspicion, Imaro.

I must say I'm surprised.

I'm going to argue with three of your creatures although it will not change the overall conclusion:

The Bearded Devil has spell like abilities (Greater Teleport, Summon) and therefore should be discarded.

Blood Drain is a property of one of the Gibbering Mouther's attacks and should not be counted any more than Ongoing 5 is a separate thing in 4e.

Animated Object: What has hardness of 10, is like a rope, and like a carpet? Weird object you have there.

Interestingly, cut the devil and drop an ability off the carpet and the mouther and you're down to 3 exactly. I'm amazed it's a tie.

But there's a kicker. A 3e monster of CR5 is expected to challenge a party of 4 level 5 PCs. A 4e monster of CR5 is expected to challenge one PC of level 5. Which means that a CR5 monster in 3e is, in terms of use, much closer to a solo in 4e (and the only out of the book 5th level solos are Dragons and the "Fell Taint Thought Scourge" in one issue of Dragon). I was wrong to think that the complexity and depth I've noticed in play was from the number of powers. It's from the thematic and useful monsters in greater numbers. Thanks for the correction.

I think there are actually two divisions in play style being clumped together here:

(1) "All encounters should be perfectly balanced" vs. "a wide range of encounter difficulties makes for a dynamic play experience"

(2) "The DM is primarily responsible for the balance of play" vs. "The players control the balance of play"

And you're missing point 3:

(3) Balance in monster and encounter design is simply a measure of information for the PC. If the DM has this information then he can design his world more accurately and clearly than if he did not. vs Balance in monster and encounter design is a straightjacket. Without the balance being important there's more practical flexibility.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I read: "We wanted our presentation of monsters to reflect how they’re actually used in D&D gameplay." And I read that to mean "this is how monsters are used in D&D". You, on the other hand, are apparently choosing to simply ignore that statement for your own convenience.

And, as I have mentioned, there's very little monsters should be rolling for out of combat in 4e. Anything opposed can be handled by one die roll - which the players can make. Or by 2e style interaction with the DM.

In the last two sessions, my PCs have ended two combats in one case by convincing the other side to turn, and in the other by giving them a dressing down then ideas about how to do what they were trying to - but less stupidly. Both took PC skills. And there have been about as many non-combat encounters as combat encounters (I think we had four non combat and three combat last session - although the combats took longer). We had a little more than half hour RP/Skill Challenge to convince one guy to help in the last session (I was the DM) - the guy in question neither had nor needed a single stat even when the PCs were rolling Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Insight, History, and Streetwise. Possibly also Nature, Perception, or Religion. And I was running things by the book.

Because that statement is irrelevant to what I'm saying. If you kept saying, "Apples are red." I would similarly ignore that. I have nothing to say to it. Yes, apples are red. So what? WotC's designers are still espousing a design philosophy that NPCs only exist in the context of combat; and that design philosophy still has an impact on how their modules are being written.

NPCs only have freedom of action in the context of encounters. And the most common form of encounter is combat.

But I wish the WoTC writers would read the DMG II and take it to heart.

Let's see if this can make it clearer: Even in a world where 4th Edition had never been designed or published, the design philosophy espoused by Noonan would still produce combat-happy grind-fest modules. It doesn't matter what edition you're designing for: If your attitude is that NPCs only exist in combat, then you're going to be designing combat-happy grind-fest modules.

They only need to act in encounters. And only actually need personal stats in combat.

Unfortunately, the rest of Noonan's statement goes on to say that we don't need mechanics detailing how NPCs interact with PCs outside of combat. Which is, of course, complete poppycock.

If Noonan meant the way I run 4e, it's perfectly true to say that monsters don't need detailed stats (other than for the odd ritual) to detail how they interact with PCs outside of combat. You can do it all effectively using the Skill Challenge rules. On the other hand, he was talking about the 3e MMV I think. Running 3e without stats for the NPCs outside combat isn't so good. (Unless he had a prototype Skill Challenge system).

 

[Imaro]

But there's a kicker. A 3e monster of CR5 is expected to challenge a party of 4 level 5 PCs. A 4e monster of CR5 is expected to challenge one PC of level 5. Which means that a CR5 monster in 3e is, in terms of use, much closer to a solo in 4e (and the only out of the book 5th level solos are Dragons and the "Fell Taint Thought Scourge" in one issue of Dragon). I was wrong to think that the complexity and depth I've noticed in play was from the number of powers. It's from the thematic and useful monsters in greater numbers. Thanks for the correction.

Okay, earlier in this thread you asked me if I custom made every monster in 3e... so now I'm going to ask you a question... did you really only use every monster as a solo for the particular level it's CR matched?

I think your really reaching here to justify your opinions about 4e and 3e. I mean honestly I can use 4 CR 5 monsters to make an encounter with an EL of 9... Thus a 9th level party which is roughly equivalent (taking the disparity between 30 levels vs. 20 levels) to a 4th/5th level party in 4e. These selected monsters can have the same type of tactical synergy one finds in 4e... though admittedly in 3e it is not spelled out for you. Maybe it was there all along and, in the same vein some 4e supporters claim some people don't get 4e... some people didn't know how to use 3e to achieve this. Personally my primary goal was never creating tactically rich encounters in 3e... it was at best a secondary goal to creating an encounter that made sense and served a purpose in the game as well as the narrative I and my players were playing/creating.

How about this then (and this is all just me musing on things)... there was tactical depth in properly constructed 3e encounters (where "properly" is used to mean this was one's primary goal), though nowhere near as transparent or as primary to encounters as it became in 4e. So the tools were there... some people just had a harder time using them than others. Perhaps, for these people, 4e feels like it offers a better tacical gameplay experience.

 

[Primal]

I had the same sorts of thoughts when I started running 4e, but I can say from my own experience that actually running 4e and using the monsters is the best way to know the answers to these questions.

Plus, the whole thing about the expected 5 round lifespan of a monster means it's unlikely a mistake will be too costly.

Again, just my experience, but as someone who played 3.0/3.5 regularly for basically the entire time it was in print, and now has been playing 4e for several years, I find 4e monster design easier. My 4e monsters generally take less time to create, and when I use them I find they are more consistently a balanced challenge to my players (if that is what I intend ).

You're probably right; I think the best way for me would not be to to start with my own critters. After all, there are (soon) three MMs out. But I'd still like to have more cohesive rules for applying monster powers. Maybe the new boxed sets will contain a more "codified" system?

Anyway, I might give it a try in the summer... I'd be more than glad to play, but the only local 4E group I know does not accept "new" players (I know them but they currently have a full roster of players).

 

[Lanefan]

False. A good encounter takes into account the expected capabilities of the participants. And those capabilities are different edition to edition. You don't need to protect against Scry and Fry in low level 3e or in 4e.

Assume there's a wizard with the party in both editions and a combat encounter. In 3e the wizard is either not going to do much other than plinking with a crossbow or he's probably going to eliminate almost the entire fight with Sleep if the PCs sneak up on the orcs. In 4e he's probably going to Thunderwave the orcs into the fire (which means the fire is part of the encounter rather than mostly scenery).

And to me the writer that should make *no* difference whatsoever. All my job consists of is to write some interesting encounters tied together with some sort of coherent story. How those encounters get met and dealt with is up to each individual play group that uses my (hypothetical) module.

Unless I'm a complete idiot, I'm writing my module for a range of PC levels: 1-3, 5-8, whatever. Given that, I as writer should have at least a vague idea of what a party at that level can do, and keep that in mind while writing. But at that point my assumptions have to end if I'm writing my module for mass consumption, as every group that plays it will play it somewhat differently.

As writer, it's part of my job to at least try and nod to some of those differences in my writing, rather than just say "here's a combat module, if anything happens other than combat you're on your own".

I'd go on but I've a session to run.

Lanefan

 

[MrMyth]

I don't think anyone is confused how to calculate attack bonuses, AC or HPs -- however, as I said a couple of pages ago, I find the *powers* to be the problem. For example, as I posted, the exact "recharge number" is a problem for me; should a "stun (save ends)"-type of power recharge only on a 6? Or should it only last for one round? How about daze? Can I give a 4th level brute monster a daze/stun-power? Etcetera, etcetera.

I definitely understand where you are coming from, and can see how valuable more detailed guidelines would be.

But, honestly, my advice? Just dive right in. Make those changes, and see how it plays out. As long as all the core stats are on par, there is decent leeway to hand out abilities. And the big offenders on powers are typically obvious - make stuns rare. Whereas dazes less so - don't have an at-will inflicting daze (save ends), but you can put it where appropriate.

And I know that might sound like I'm providing the guidelines anyway, but I really found 4E forgiving of letting the DM just have at it without needing to fear they would break the system. The big guidelines involve action economy, and they give some advice on those in the sections on Elites and Solos. You don't want an ordinary monster to be able to take a ton of attacks on one PC - but an Elite? Giving them a double attack or minor actions or the like becomes more reasonable.

Outside of that, I would just get your hands dirty with a couple - simply guessing what you feel is appropriate for the conditions and recharges. And once you've done that, go ahead and compare them to monsters of that level - see how close it looks. If you don't see any major discrepancies, that is a good sign for being able to make future attempts without as much double-checking.

The freeform design may well not be for everyone, I admit. And I could be entirely wrong, and your PCs may pay the price and have to face some horrific aquatic dragon who breaths out swarms of acidic sharks - as a minor action! I can't say for sure. But I really would encourage just giving it a go - the system balance might not be quite as fragile as you fear.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Unfortunately, the rest of Noonan's statement goes on to say that we don't need mechanics detailing how NPCs interact with PCs outside of combat. Which is, of course, complete poppycock.

No, sir, I'm afraid this is complete poppycock.

But as to the thrust of the statement, further echoed here...

They only need to act in encounters. And only actually need personal stats in combat.

I am going to disagree intensely.

Well, perhaps not intensely. But even if you're taking an absolutist position, NPC's in encounters don't need to act, and they don't need personal stats (this Skill Challenge will use skill checks vs. a DC of the formula used for monster AC, and require 5 successes before 3 failures. Then, you win the combat! Attack rolls count as skill checks).

Most people probably wouldn't find that very satisfying for very long. It might be fine for a combat or two, in a game that didn't revolve around them, but it can't well support your entire session. It's just not varied or interesting enough.

You need stats for things that you want to be varied and interesting.

IMO, that absolutely includes combat. Combat sits at the very head of that table.

But in D&D, at least, in a game inspired by heroic fantasy, I'd expect Exploration (for dungeons) to sit to his Right, and Interaction (for NPC's) to sit to his Left, and little Reaction (for sudden things like traps and hiding) is on someone's lap. And you might even have a bit of Simulation (for world building and Gygaxian homage) down at the foot of the table, quiet and unobtrusive, but full of awesome stories if you want to talk to them.

You want those to be varied and interesting.

Well, I want those to be varied and interesting.

Which means I need stats for them. And I need actions to happen.

I also need room to breathe, rules for reactions, cascading effects I can just roll for, and other noncombat accoutrement that governs pacing, feel, and genre.

The argument "you mainly need stats for combat" is true only inasmuch as the main thing you do that you are interested in is combat. Anything you want to be interesting at the table, you need stats for. Combat, yes. But, in my mind, so many other things as well.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Okay, earlier in this thread you asked me if I custom made every monster in 3e... so now I'm going to ask you a question... did you really only use every monster as a solo for the particular level it's CR matched?

I think your really reaching here to justify your opinions about 4e and 3e. I mean honestly I can use 4 CR 5 monsters to make an encounter with an EL of 9... Thus a 9th level party which is roughly equivalent (taking the disparity between 30 levels vs. 20 levels) to a 4th/5th level party in 4e.

Huh? By my estimates a 9th level party is definitely up into Paragon tier. Even Epic tier doesn't have anything like Wish, Shapechange, Gate, Mordaniken's Disjunction, Implosion, or Storm of Vengenace (although the latter might work) - meaning it caps out before level 17 (spellcaster equivalent). 9th is almost half way between 3rd (roughly equivalent to Level 1) and 16th (roughly equivalent to Level 30). Putting it firmly in the middle.

And yes, I did use multiple monsters in 3e. (Although not as many; minions are easy to run and the explicit assumptions were different, and I trust the CR system about as far as I can throw it - any system like that breaks near the edges).

These selected monsters can have the same type of tactical synergy one finds in 4e...

Tell me when they get (a) Marks and (b) Forced Movement powers.

Personally my primary goal was never creating tactically rich encounters in 3e... it was at best a secondary goal to creating an encounter that made sense and served a purpose in the game as well as the narrative I and my players were playing/creating.

Of course. (At least if you don't want to model your game on Feng Shui - not that there's anything actually wrong with that). But once there is a combat encounter there, not making it tactically as well as narratively interesting is simply poor craftsmanship.

How about this then (and this is all just me musing on things)... there was tactical depth in properly constructed 3e encounters (where "properly" is used to mean this was one's primary goal), though nowhere near as transparent or as primary to encounters as it became in 4e. So the tools were there... some people just had a harder time using them than others. Perhaps, for these people, 4e feels like it offers a better tacical gameplay experience.

Again, I say 4e has tools like marks, forced movement, and an assumption of and balance for multiple foes. Now you can argue that at a strategic level 3e wins - but tactically it's hard.

And to me the writer that should make *no* difference whatsoever. All my job consists of is to write some interesting encounters tied together with some sort of coherent story. How those encounters get met and dealt with is up to each individual play group that uses my (hypothetical) module.

An encounter that's simply taken down by one spell (Sleep) is not interesting. And what makes things interesting at a tactical level is different between modules. For instance interactive scenery and pushing people down their own pit traps is huge in 4e.

Unless I'm a complete idiot, I'm writing my module for a range of PC levels: 1-3, 5-8, whatever. Given that, I as writer should have at least a vague idea of what a party at that level can do, and keep that in mind while writing. But at that point my assumptions have to end if I'm writing my module for mass consumption, as every group that plays it will play it somewhat differently.

System matters as much as level.

As writer, it's part of my job to at least try and nod to some of those differences in my writing, rather than just say "here's a combat module, if anything happens other than combat you're on your own".

And to nod to those differences within the combat if you're running different systems with different approaches to combat.

I'd go on but I've a session to run.

Have fun (My next session is tomorrow).

Well, perhaps not intensely. But even if you're taking an absolutist position, NPC's in encounters don't need to act, and they don't need personal stats (this Skill Challenge will use skill checks vs. a DC of the formula used for monster AC, and require 5 successes before 3 failures. Then, you win the combat! Attack rolls count as skill checks).

Using them that way is one of the big reasons 4e modules clunk.

Most people probably wouldn't find that very satisfying for very long. It might be fine for a combat or two, in a game that didn't revolve around them, but it can't well support your entire session. It's just not varied or interesting enough.

That's assuming you consider the rolling dice to be the highlight of your social resolution mechanic. I don't. I see it merely as a way of keeping score and providing hooks.

You need stats for things that you want to be varied and interesting.

No. I need information for things I want to be varied and interesting. Stats are simply one form of information. What I need in 4e for social interaction are motivations, habits, nervous tics, level of influence on the world, principles, religion. All the stuff you normally can't find in stat blocks. Rolling the dice is just a means of keeping score - and the difference between DC17 and DC20 is fundamentally not very interesting.

It's ironic I'm getting this response when in a thread a couple of weeks ago (on RPG.net) I was told that if I rolled dice for social interaction I couldn't be roleplaying.

IMO, that absolutely includes combat. Combat sits at the very head of that table.

Combat is something I want tight mechanics for. That's because every last second matters, it's life or death, and a quarter of an inch can make all the difference. Social can kill you just as dead but it either takes longer or requires more monumental mistakes.

But in D&D, at least, in a game inspired by heroic fantasy, I'd expect Exploration (for dungeons) to sit to his Right,

Can the dungeons. Explore the world!

and Interaction (for NPC's) to sit to his Left, and little Reaction (for sudden things like traps and hiding) is on someone's lap. And you might even have a bit of Simulation (for world building and Gygaxian homage) down at the foot of the table, quiet and unobtrusive, but full of awesome stories if you want to talk to them.

World building helps, certainly.

You want those to be varied and interesting.

And none of that is on the difference between +5 and +7.

Well, I want those to be varied and interesting.

Which means I need stats for them. And I need actions to happen.

I don't need stats to make most of them varied and interesting. I need fluff - then to match the resolution to the fluff. I don't need my social interactions to snap in the way combat does. (Yes, the dialogue might snap to good effect - but that's not on the dice rolls).

 

[MrMyth]

I think your really reaching here to justify your opinions about 4e and 3e. I mean honestly I can use 4 CR 5 monsters to make an encounter with an EL of 9... Thus a 9th level party which is roughly equivalent (taking the disparity between 30 levels vs. 20 levels) to a 4th/5th level party in 4e.

I'm not even disagreeing with your main point here, but did think it worth correcting that you've got the levels backwards here. If 30 levels in 4E is equivalent to 20 levels in 3.5, than a 9th level 4E party is equivalent to a 5th level 3.5 party, not the other way around.

 

[Imaro]

Huh? By my estimates a 9th level party is definitely up into Paragon tier. Even Epic tier doesn't have anything like Wish, Shapechange, Gate, Mordaniken's Disjunction, Implosion, or Storm of Vengenace (although the latter might work) - meaning it caps out before level 17 (spellcaster equivalent). 9th is almost half way between 3rd (roughly equivalent to Level 1) and 16th (roughly equivalent to Level 30). Putting it firmly in the middle

D'oh, I did mix the equivalencies up o Thanks MrMyth).

And yes, I did use multiple monsters in 3e. (Although not as many; minions are easy to run and the explicit assumptions were different, and I trust the CR system about as far as I can throw it - any system like that breaks near the edges).

I am not arguing for or against the "brokeness" of the CR system so this is irrelevant to my point, you keep bringing up how "broken" the CR system was but this has nothing to do with whether most DM's used multiple monsters in 3e or whether the encounters couls be created with tactical synergy between those monsters.

Tell me when they get (a) Marks and (b) Forced Movement powers.

How does this in any way determine whether encounters can be created with tactiucal synergy? You might prefer a game have these particular attributes but the lack of them does not mean a game can't have tactical synergy.

For the record I think the Knight in PHB 2 had a mark and I am almost positive there were at least a few, admittedly rare, feats that allowed one to use forced movement.

Of course. (At least if you don't want to model your game on Feng Shui - not that there's anything actually wrong with that). But once there is a combat encounter there, not making it tactically as well as narratively interesting is simply poor craftsmanship.

Eh, I would disagree with your final blanket sentence and instead say play to the desires of one's players. It can be hard to believe but some players could care less, or even dislike tactically intense combat when roleplaying, it truly does have it's advantages and disadvantages in it's current incarnation (and honestly I can't say I'm sold on every single combat having to be tactically interesting). Some would rather have the combat be more narrative or simulationist in how it happens. So while I am not saying you are always wrong in your generalization... you aren't always right either.

Again, I say 4e has tools like marks, forced movement, and an assumption of and balance for multiple foes. Now you can argue that at a strategic level 3e wins - but tactically it's hard.

I'm not arguing for a win over 4e. I'm saying one can create tactically interesting combat in 3e if they want. That is all.