GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Wicht]

I understand how these mechanics work.

But still we´re not talking about the same things. What about sense motive and bluff, for example? Or Innuendo when it still was around? These skills are more or less all level-based and we´re using comparing rolls here.

So if I flat-out lie to the queen that the endeavor I aks from her is purely positiv to her (bluff vs sense motive) it should influence the situation in any way, for example modifying the reaction test for the request from complicated aid to normal request. Else, diplomacy would be king and the other social skills a waste of skill points and space in the PHB.

If these skills matter, we´re in stat-country again.

Sure a PC can lie to the queen and get away with it. I don't see your point. Once she finds out it will then affect further interactions. For long term relationships, diplomacy is king. Lying to people is not the way to make long term friends. And bluff only works if the people don't have reason to think you are a liar who has cheated them before.

And I never said stats shouldn't be important. A queen's sense motive is absolutely going to determine how well she knows who to trust. But wouldn't a more experienced queen be better at this than an inexperienced princess? I don't see the problem here.

 

[LostSoul]

The Alexandrian wrote a pretty good essay on the stats issue here: The Alexandrian - Misc Creations

The key point for me was that 5th level is the upper limit of the "mundane" world. That ties into what KM is talking about with genre expectations. Your 80-year-old Queen with 10 levels of Aristocrat can beat up a lot of 18-year-old men, but she's no longer really "human".

As for stats staying constant, I think they help players make decisions at a higher level than the encounter.

 

[Mallus]

How is "Grod is a tall orc with greenish skin, a sturdy build, and a savage twinkle in this bloodshot eyes" a mechanical definition?

It's not. That's why I used the description of Grod you quoted as an example of an NPC who's <undefined> in terms of game mechanics. At that point, Grod is only defined by exposition.

How does "Grod has an AC of 15, 12 HP, and a 16 STR" change "Grod is a tall orc with greenish skin, a sturdy build, and a savage twinkle in this bloodshot eyes"?

It doesn't. I was pointing out things in the game world are typically described using different methods, depending on the circumstances.

I was trying to set up a sort of descriptive hierarchy, using Grod the Orc as an example. He start's off unstatted, like the bulk of the objects in the game world, described only using plain language. Next, he's presented with a simple mechanical description -- perhaps because he's guarding a pie in a dungeon room. Finally he's described using a different form of mechanical description, because he's now part of an orc army and a mass battle (apparently he survived the pie encounter).

Inside or outside the unit, his statistics are representative of the same base "reality".

Sure. But he can be represented in different ways. Much like Minions are, in fact. All I'm getting at is that it's par for the course in D&D to represent the same (or like) in-game objects using different methods. So long as the objects basic relationship with the other game objects remains the same (ie, a Minion Ogre is still a lot stronger than a Minion farmer, and are described as such when they're both just box text), then the game's 'base reality' is being depicted well enough.

 

[Fifth Element]

Next, he's presented with a simple mechanical description -- perhaps because he's guarding a pie in a dungeon room. Finally he's described using a different form of mechanical description, because he's now part of an orc army and a mass battle (apparently he survived the pie encounter).

Or perhaps he was smart about it, ate the pie himself and blamed it on adventurers?

 

[Raven Crowking]

All I'm getting at is that it's par for the course in D&D to represent the same (or like) in-game objects using different methods.

Sure, but I would argue that the object's "basic relationship with the other game objects" does not remain the same in the case of minions (again, if and only if their minionhood is quantum).

Please note that I am not arguing that this is a bad practice, or that it does not work for some playstyles; I am only arguing that it is a poor choice for all playstyles.


RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I am fond of this guideline, actually. Hadn't thought of it before. It does bring up the question of "what should it be doing, then?", but I like the idea that just because something makes you bleed or loose morale doesn't mean it deals HP damage, because HP damage kills you.

Stats, no matter how they have been generated, should only come up in combat.
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.

I think that stats are useful in a variety of contexts. To my mind, the idea that "only combat needs stats" is a sort of absurd D&Dism. I think you need stats for anything you want to spend significant game time on. If the PC's only have to talk to the queen once, a skill challenge (or other DM fiat) might work fine, but if the party needs to do that, and similar things, over and over again, in the course of a highly political campaign, raw fiat isn't interesting, consistent, or variable enough. Messiness is a *virtue* in things you're going to be doing a lot of, because messiness is also the same as "variation." Messiness is just variation you don't want.

But that's kind of an orthogonal convo, I think.

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.

They could provide the same thing, but 4e, and, as far as I'm aware, 1e, don't.

This is because they don't present NPC's in terms of their relative strength.

So whether or not a town can marshall some militia members and go clear out a local goblin warren boils down to "I dunno, does the DM want that to happen?" Same thing with our theoretical mythical Queen Victoria seeing through the Incubus in her court.

As a DM, I don't want to answer that question -- I want the rules to tell me: can they do it? How, specifically, might the PC's unique skills aid them? What can do it handily, without any help, and what might struggle a bit, and what would be totally out classed? What's the context, here?

I get that rules like that are way too sim for some people, and I do absolutely think they should be able to be ignored, but I think they should exist for people who want them. I won't even always want them, but a player or DM like Wicht (who seems to go farther into sim territory than I go) really might. And someone who might develop a little Java program for rolling those dice for me along the lines of some of the 3e town or dungeon generators? Yes, please, absolutely.

And it's totally possible that 4e can provide this. The exception-based design means you can tack on a complex NPC and Town Generation schema pretty well, I'd bet. Hell, one might me coming in the DMG4 (or so) for all I know.

The key point for me was that 5th level is the upper limit of the "mundane" world. That ties into what KM is talking about with genre expectations. Your 80-year-old Queen with 10 levels of Aristocrat can beat up a lot of 18-year-old men, but she's no longer really "human".

As for stats staying constant, I think they help players make decisions at a higher level than the encounter.

That's the idea behind E6, too, and it's really solid. It also, I think, explains part of why some DM's take issue with the things high level D&D characters are typically capable of (like teleportation, scrying, death magic, etc.): they believe the party never leaves that 1-5 level range, even after they do, so the DMs who don't change their game are caught by surprise by game-changing abilities.

 

[Hussar]

For me, at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is the results. How I got there I don't really care. So, the idea of "quantum minions" doesn't bother me in the least. Now, I could see how it might bug people, and that's fair enough. Different strokes and all that.

Grod is big and green and tall could be represented by ANY stats, from standard MM orc, to a 20th level barbarian orc. If I, as DM, need Grod to be any of those things, then, *poof* that's what he'll be.

My problem with the Queen example, is that sure, I can build the Queen to have these uber skills - possibly not at 1st level since I'm going to run out of feats - but at relatively low level. Fair enough. It's been a while since I've run 3e and I'd kinda forgotten just how many bonuses you can actually get.

But, all that takes time. I know what I want her to have. The rules however, force me to build her in a certain way. And, all the advice here presumes a fairly high degree of rules proficiency - that I know which skills synergize, which feats to take, and whatnot. Again, this is a big time sink.

Why bother with all that? I know what end result I want is. Why not have rules that facilitate, instead of impede that?

BTW, just because I can't resist, Wicht, why is our blacksmith a 3rd level expert? I mean, you JUST got through telling me how I can make this amazing skill monkey with a 1st level character, but, a blacksmith, whose only skill requirement is Craft Metal Stuff (not weapons or armor, that's not a blacksmith) suddenly needs to be a 3rd level expert?

Methinks your counter examples are a tad self serving.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But, all that takes time. I know what I want her to have. The rules however, force me to build her in a certain way. And, all the advice here presumes a fairly high degree of rules proficiency - that I know which skills synergize, which feats to take, and whatnot. Again, this is a big time sink.

Why bother with all that? I know what end result I want is. Why not have rules that facilitate, instead of impede that?

I know the thread kind of exploded between your last post and this one, but did you miss where I pointed out Rule 0 and the all-powerful circumstance bonus? Honestly, these are the most likely for me to use in-game.

I do like the designers to bother with it in the first place, just so I vaguely know what a Diplomacy +10 means in context, with regards to other NPC's and the world, but you certainly don't have to do that work at the table in the thick of things.

It's there for background info and for statmonkey gearheads who love such things (stats are fun, as any baseball statmonkey would tell you). This becomes important at the table, even if it doesn't directly affect the die roll I make at the table (because it provides contextual info for that die roll).

 

[Wicht]

BTW, just because I can't resist, Wicht, why is our blacksmith a 3rd level expert? I mean, you JUST got through telling me how I can make this amazing skill monkey with a 1st level character, but, a blacksmith, whose only skill requirement is Craft Metal Stuff (not weapons or armor, that's not a blacksmith) suddenly needs to be a 3rd level expert?

Its what the expert class is for, firstly. Just like the aristocrat class is to model those that are born into wealth, the expert class is there to model true professionals. As for the level, I almost always make any man of practiced skill about third level. It just feels about right to me and I don't buy into the theory that 3rd level is that special.

I only ever use 1st level commoners for those that don't do a lot of work, aren't especially trained in anything or are just out of their teens. I even make a typical farmer an expert as there's a lot of things your average farmer knows how to do. Commoners are good for modeling a serf class but, honestly, most D&D worlds don't have a large serf class.

As for demonstrating the ability achievable at first level, its possible for any character to be really good at one thing at 1st level, but other skills will be less stellar. But if thats what you want in a character (a really diplomatic queen for instance) then its pretty easy to model that without getting into high levels.

 

[billd91]

Its what the expert class is for, firstly. Just like the aristocrat class is to model those that are born into wealth, the expert class is there to model true professionals. As for the level, I almost always make any man of practiced skill about third level. It just feels about right to me and I don't buy into the theory that 3rd level is that special.

I only ever use 1st level commoners for those that don't do a lot of work, aren't especially trained in anything or are just out of their teens. I even make a typical farmer an expert as there's a lot of things your average farmer knows how to do. Commoners are good for modeling a serf class but, honestly, most D&D worlds don't have a large serf class.

Yeah, I pretty much see the 1st level NPC character as the greenhorn. The 1st level expert craftsman - he's just the kid finishing up his apprenticeship. Journeyman at 2nd. Master at 3rd or so. I usually level up my NPCs based on being out and doing their thing for a few years.