GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[I'm A Banana]

But out of curiossity, would you really make invisible rolls (which don´t touch whatever the PCs are doing) to find out what two NSC are doing inbetween themselves?

I don't think yer obtuse.

I like to know that when the PC's are facing challenges, they're using essentially the same mechanics to solve these challenges that creatures that aren't PC's would use to solve these challenges. It helps create a fair baseline and a sense of immersion for me. They also make it easier to improv, since I know what a basic peon can do, what a focused NPC can do, and what a famous world-reknown heroic NPC can do, and can better put the PC's actions in context. It gives the world a reality apart from the party, which is essential to enjoying the game for me, knowing that abilities are not subjective things.

I don't necessarily need to make rolls (I can assume 10 in a large portion of them anyway), but I do need to identify what is possible independent of what the PC's can do.

To be frank I don´t like either of the methods. Creating a queen with high enough level to be able to resist charm and dominate spells, as well as being a good stateswoman in terms of social skills seems cludgy to me, rule-zeroing her seems cludgy, too. Here´s one of the situations where I really only come up with a more or less approrpiate DC and nothing more. Or, to put it another way, for me a skill challange portraits interacting with her better than interacting with her stats (notice stats, not person).

I don't see how coming up with an appropriate DC is really any different from rule-zeroing: you're plucking numbers out of the aether whose only real purpose is to provide a fun challenge for the party at the table. I think that's fine, and useful, and great, but I'd also like some numbers to show me how the world is like when the PC's aren't around, so I can figure out what role the party serves in the world. I don't think that necessarily takes the detailed method of NPC creation that 3e has to achieve, but I really do think it takes more than any tool 4e uses at the moment. Which means there's room for improvement for 4e, at least.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If you rephrase that from game to simulation, I´d agree.
But tell me, why does D&D have to be a simulation?

It is simply a matter of the goals of play. Are you playing a game in which players explore a fantasy world (which needs to be simulated somewhat consistently) or are you telling a story in which the players portray the protagonists?

It can be either depending on what the group decides it wants.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If you rephrase that from game to simulation, I´d agree.
But tell me, why does D&D have to be a simulation?

Question seconded. And to add a second question, even if your D&D is a simulation, ExploderWizard, why does mine need to be? No one is forcing you to use minions...

 

[ExploderWizard]

Question seconded. And to add a second question, even if your D&D is a simulation, ExploderWizard, why does mine need to be? No one is forcing you to use minions...

It doesn't. See the post above yours.

 

[Nagol]

Question seconded. And to add a second question, even if your D&D is a simulation, ExploderWizard, why does mine need to be? No one is forcing you to use minions...

Of course, your game doesn't need to follow someone else's preferences.

However, players are informed about the design philosophy by the available game options. The more game options that do not appeal, the more likely it is that the wrong game is being used for what you are tryig to do with it.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't think yer obtuse.

I like to know that when the PC's are facing challenges, they're using essentially the same mechanics to solve these challenges that creatures that aren't PC's would use to solve these challenges. It helps create a fair baseline and a sense of immersion for me. They also make it easier to improv, since I know what a basic peon can do, what a focused NPC can do, and what a famous world-reknown heroic NPC can do, and can better put the PC's actions in context. It gives the world a reality apart from the party, which is essential to enjoying the game for me, knowing that abilities are not subjective things.

I don't necessarily need to make rolls (I can assume 10 in a large portion of them anyway), but I do need to identify what is possible independent of what the PC's can do.

This is an important point. I used to be on board with the idea of the rules only simulating how the PCs interact with the world, but over the past year or two I've begun to appreciate how useful it is to have an idea of how the world interacts with itself.

These days, I regard minions as actually having only one hit point. If this results in situations where minions would die in silly ways (e.g., a thornbush which inflicts 1d4 points of damage for plowing through it), I regard that as a reason to reconsider the hazard, not the minion. After all, an ancient red dragon could be slain by that thornbush under the right circumstances; the minion merely points up the silliness.

Anything that deals hit point damage can kill you. If the idea of dying from it seems dumb, it shouldn't be dealing hit point damage.

 

[Coldwyn]

I actually do that at times. Especially when in "game mode." When in "writer's mode," crafting the adventure, things happen the way I want them to. But if its happening near to the action (even social action) I will roll for NPCs interacting with other NPCs to maintain the random factor.

Ok, I´m impressed. That´s a level of detail I would more or less gloss over.

I like to know that when the PC's are facing challenges, they're using essentially the same mechanics to solve these challenges that creatures that aren't PC's would use to solve these challenges. It helps create a fair baseline and a sense of immersion for me. They also make it easier to improv, since I know what a basic peon can do, what a focused NPC can do, and what a famous world-reknown heroic NPC can do, and can better put the PC's actions in context. It gives the world a reality apart from the party, which is essential to enjoying the game for me, knowing that abilities are not subjective things.

I don't necessarily need to make rolls (I can assume 10 in a large portion of them anyway), but I do need to identify what is possible independent of what the PC's can do.

Understood and accepted. Not my preferred method because it´s not relevant to the kind of games I run but interesting nonetheless.

Why does the queen need to be able to have a strong resistance to magic? Why does she need good at everything to be a successful ruler? If its a powerful nation, can't she hire magical guardians to protect her from evil magic? Or have the church working with her? It seems to me that a low level queen with high diplomacy skills perfectly models what most people would want in such a situation. Princesses and queens typically act, not as a protagonist, but as a macguffin, an object to spur the action. When she becomes a villain, as in the Curse oft he Crimson Throne, then you stat her up accordingly; likewise of she is a protagonist. But most often the queen will be neither; and low level, high charisma/diplomacy will work just fine for everything you need. All without rule 0.

I don't see how coming up with an appropriate DC is really any different from rule-zeroing: you're plucking numbers out of the aether whose only real purpose is to provide a fun challenge for the party at the table. I think that's fine, and useful, and great, but I'd also like some numbers to show me how the world is like when the PC's aren't around, so I can figure out what role the party serves in the world. I don't think that necessarily takes the detailed method of NPC creation that 3e has to achieve, but I really do think it takes more than any tool 4e uses at the moment. Which means there's room for improvement for 4e, at least.

I´ll answer these two together. Please have a bit of patience with me, directly translating my thoughts into English is not my strong point
So, I think neither stats nor rule0 should really be used, no matter what edition. I don´t think these can really portrait a complex person. Stats, no matter how they have been generated, should only come up in combat.
Having said this, IMO interacting with an important NPC like the queen should be broken down into tasks, with DCs tailored to the situation. Does she respond well to flattery? Is she the trusting kind? Does she have racist views towards a certain race or nation? That´s why I mentioned the skill challenge rules as an example. When I create stats for her and come up with a, let´s say, +12 Diplomacy as an end-result, it´s global. I could go on further and add or remove situational boni.
This can get messy real quick.

 

[Coldwyn]

It is simply a matter of the goals of play. Are you playing a game in which players explore a fantasy world (which needs to be simulated somewhat consistently) or are you telling a story in which the players portray the protagonists?

It can be either depending on what the group decides it wants.

Help me underestand this.
You´re talking about a sandbox kind of game here, right?

So, if I say: The hamlet you are in right now is attacked by orc raiders. The towns militia is present but handled as minions, four of the attacking orcs are minions as well. I chose this setup because of ease of gm´ing and the narration of quick deaths on both sides.

You say that everything I declared minion here must be minion all the time, right?

So to expand my example and with it the question, if I say whenever the PCs aren´t present or involved, the militia a lvl x warriors with appropiate equipment and hp, as well as the orcs, then this would be impossible for you because a thing can only be specified as one kind for the sake of simulation and can´t be situational nor different in a narrative context, right?

So you consistently handle background activities solely based on game mechanics, not on a narrative basis, if I understand it right.

But on what basis do you initiate background action then, if it´s not on a narrative on? Do you use random charts where you roll what happens on day x at location y and what parties are involved? If yes, on what basis have they been created?

 

[Mallus]

Minion status as a subjective state that shifts with perspective isn't something I want or need in a game, let it stay in stories where it belongs.

Here's a question for you, EW: should objects in the game always be described in the same way, using the same descriptive language? --ie, with single global-scope descriptor as opposed to potentially several local-scope ones.

My experience is that mechanical definitions are situational. The majority of people, places and things are simply <undefined> in terms of game mechanics . "Grod is a tall orc with greenish skin, a sturdy build, and a savage twinkle in this bloodshot eyes".

As the need arises, the DM switches to a more precise mechanical description. "Grod has an AC of 15, 12 HP, and a 16 STR". (you're not advocating we stat everything and everyone in the game world, right?)

And as the needs change, so too, does the descriptive language employed. "Grod has been conscripted in the Orc Army. He is now part of a squad of 20, with an Attack Value of 3, a Defense Value of 1, and Morale of 2".

Which reminds me, don't mass combat rules introduce the same kind of subjectivity? Creatures that are described one way in a dungeon corridor are described completely differently once they join the service (unless you play some kind of masochistic homebrew mass combat system where every soldier is individually statted).

But if its happening near to the action (even social action) I will roll for NPCs interacting with other NPCs to maintain the random factor.

This is a great way to keep social interactions lively, and surprising even to the DM. However, you don't gain much by using the actual game mechanics. Simple percentage rolls work fine.

 

[Mallus]

For me, what 3e also provided was a baseline world that implied that monsters were attacking NPC's, even when PC's weren't around.

Why wouldn't 1e or 4e provide the same thing? In all three systems monsters are described in terms of the their relative strength and provided with sufficient motivation for the doing of violence.