GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[ExploderWizard]

All right. I think I get it. Let me try to facilitate both sides.

Centaur Cavalier Level 18 Soldier
Large Fey Humanoid XP 2,000
Initiative +15, Senses Perception +16, low-light vision
Smell of the Barn; Aura 1 - the air around the centaur cavalier smells like hay. This has no effect.
HP 172; Bloodied 86
AC 34, Fortitude 31, Reflex 29, Will 30
Speed 8

I understand that you are a qualified soldier. The rest of the questions in this interview will be centaur questions..............

 

[Rechan]

it seems hard for some to admit that others might genuinely enjoy slighty longer, more detailed stat blocks.

I can admit that some like longer statblocks. Some like mayo on their sandwiches. Some like British humor in their cartoons.

The point is that currently, the 4e designers want short statblocks, 4e statblocks are short, and I like short statblocks. Therefore, I am getting what I want, and would like it to stay that way.

Do not confuse preference with inability to admit others have a different preference. It's impossible to be on the internet without realizing that people think and want different things from you.

Some people are adamant about making it known they don't like X. And some people are just as adamant about making it known they do like X. It has been said that many who say "I don't like X" are doing so that WotC sees and recognizes their dislike. By the same token, those who DO like X want WotC to see that they like X and don't want it to go away.

Or do you think that just because I know you prefer something different than I, that I should believe your preference is more important than mine?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Keep had a whole lot of problems other then just Kalarel being an uninteresting blob of combat, to be fair - but Kalarel was one of the bigger problems. The actual plot was more or less Kalarel attacking the village for...erm, no particular reason. Writing love letters to his minions explaining his plans for...erm, no particular reason. His plan is to open a portal to the Shadowfell where Orcus doesn't have a temple, and even then, the 4e books make it clear that portals to the Shadowfell aren't exactly rare. Mix in a lot of terrible encounters, some horrendously bad DM advice, and what few good nuggets are there accidentally and hidden, and there you have it - the leading argument I've seen against playing 4e in others.

Incidentally, the actual keep in Keep on the Shadowfell? You're there for like a minute until you leave. Yes, there's no keep in the module named after a keep.

But how does this apply to the topic?

At no point in time are any of the monsters given any fluff or thoughts or purpose outside of being blobs of combat. There's a tribe of goblins there to guard against...well, what? A tribe of hobgoblins? Who then guard against undead. Who are guarding against...the goblins, I suppose? Winterhaven itself has exactly zero interesting NPCs. Seriously, the NPCs in Winterhaven are the intellectual equivilant of "Welcome to Corneria."

So what's the point of this?

Namely, that if NPCs are written to be nothing more then combat blobs, they're going to be nothing more then combat blobs. Certainly, the ride skill isn't very useful in an NPC. But daylight or turn undead? Daylight alone can be helpful in establishing a mood - right before the PCs attack, she casts it on herself, highlighting her armor in a beautiful shining light. The five rounds thing hurts Kalarel because the assumption is "The players won't give a damn about Kalarel at all, because they're just going to find and kill him in five rounds." The five rounds assumption works in combat, but it's carried far beyond that. When you actually reach Kalarel, you don't even know who here is - some evil guy opening a bad portal, for some reason? Whatever, INITIATIVE COMBAT!

Ugh.

 

[Wicht]

Rechan, I have not said anyones preference is better. Nor have I advocated for a change in your prefered edition. I have...

1) Tried to explain that there are valid reasons someone (not necessarily you) might like longer stat blocks.
2) Tried to say that some of us (not necessarily you granted) like the stat block to explain the way the NPC interacts with the world when the NPC is not around the PC
2) Argued that there are in fact games (though I'm not saying yours) where the PCs behave unexpectedly and a little extra information helps out the DM
3) Stated that it is simply wrong to say there is nothing in Burnt Offerings that would clue a PC into the backstory of Nualia.

I'm not sure how any of that has any bearing on your way or my way being better. They simply are what they are. AS to the original post - the attitude of the 4e designers steered the game a certain way and its likely that attitude is the reason some people (not you) have difficulty liking 4e modules.

 

[ExploderWizard]

4e caters to one style and assumption, and not to another. That's it at the end of the day. And it's not going to change. It's designed from the ground up, by the people who run it, to facilitate one style and not another.

The heart and soul of everything wrong with it. Nice succinct summary.

 

[Rechan]

Rechan, I have not said anyones preference is better. Nor have I advocated for a change in your prefered edition. I have...

Then explain what you mean by this?

I find it semi amusing that despite the general agreement that there are different play styles and thus different desires when it comes to stat blocks, it seems hard for some to admit that others might genuinely enjoy slighty longer, more detailed stat blocks.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Why do you think others here are having a hard time admitting some like something different?

If you're not trying to say something else, then what are you trying to say?

You've explained multiple reasons For longer stat blocks and how other people's games go. Others have given reasons Against. It's clear people like and think differently. The points have been made.

Now what?

 

[Fifth Element]

The problem here is that at least some players (myself included) demand consistency.

That's not a problem, in the sense that you can't please everyone. Pleasing some players will almost always displease others. But at some point you have to make a decision.

 

[Wicht]

Then explain what you mean by this?

I think I was trying to suggest that mocking the opinions of others was a poor way to concede that their opinions are valid.

 

[Umbran]

Namely, that if NPCs are written to be nothing more then combat blobs, they're going to be nothing more then combat blobs.

Because, as we all know, GMs stick strictly to things as written, and don't step outside the box of what designers hand us?

Way back when, we had games that didn't have rules (or stats) for everything, and the GM made them up when the players went beyond the expected. We complained because there was little enforced consistency or predictability.

Then, we had games which had rules (and stats) for almost everything under the sun, and we complained how bloody long it took to stat up the NPCs and monsters so fully.

So, now they give us a bit of a mix - all the combat stuff is statted out for NPCs, but the non-combat stuff is left to the DMs imagination. And still we complain.

It seems to me that satisfying us is an impossible task.

 

[Rechan]

I think I was trying to suggest that mocking the opinions of others was a poor way to concede that their opinions are valid.

I was trying to get a laugh because it was intentionally absurd. And to satirize it to a point.

I'm not sure how validity enters the equation when we talk about preference. An individual's tastes and wants can't be invalid.