GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Sir Wulf]

The statblock is the part of an NPC writeup relevant for combat.

You don't have "Unrepentant Rapist" and "Loves Croissants" or "Talks in the Third Person" in the statblock; those are certainly parts of the NPC, they are personality quirks and important details. But they aren't relevant to the numbers, and they're not going to show up in the 5 round lifespan.

And this is where our experiences parted company. I find that the most unusual things sometimes become relevant.

To drive home my point, let's compare two modules. Paizo's Burnt Offerings and WotC's Keep on the Shadowfell. The first, most think is a good module, the second most think is a bad module. Let's look at the villains, and the amount of effort put into them.

(snip, snip...)

The PCs in Burnt Offerings don't get to appreciate how much everything hinges on the villain's background story. They don't get to experience her. They just kill her. Same with Kalarel - the PCs don't know him, and only know his name mentioned here or there, and they just show up and shoot him in the face with their swords.

Except my players frequently surprised me with their reactions to the various NPCs in Burnt Offerings. One party ended up releasing the villain's mercenary henchman, encouraging me to include him as a source of information in a later scenario. Inspired diplomacy and deception turned an evil mage into an ally for the party.

If all I'd been given to work with was the foes' combat stats, I'd have been on my own when developing these unexpected twists. Instead, they followed easily from the interaction between the party and the scenario.

Burnt Offerings gives great affection to the villain. Details her background, her motivations, her personality. And none of those matter to the PCs, who don't really find them out and end up walking into her room and kicking her ass at the end of the dungeon without any meaningful interaction. Just like Kalarel. The only difference is that the DM gets to read about the former.

The problem I have is that 4e stats assume the DM knows exactly how things will play out ahead of time. One guy is a villain, and the PCs will try to kill him. Another is an ally, and his stats are built differently.

By instead adding peripheral information, the DM has the tools to deal with factors not anticipated by the scenario authors. For example, you claim that Daylight and turning undead aren't relevant, so they're just dead weight for the stat block: Since one of my groups featured a drow PC and a necromancer, that wasn't the case. Both those powers became potentally significant.

If stats don't clearly address other interactions the party may have, the DM is forced to wing it without direction. Suppose your group plans to trick the villain, claiming to be fellow cultists sent to help the villain's schemes? Suppose the PCs decide to investigate the villains' motivations and background in detail? (Mine sometimes do) Do your "5 round only" statblocks allow your villain to adapt to these types of encounter? My experience has been that they do not.

EDIT: I understand that some such interactions can be handled as skill challenges. My point is that peripheral powers such as summon wallaby or light might be insignificant in many situations, then utterly bedevil PC plans another time.

 

[pemerton]

The problem I have is that 4e stats assume the DM knows exactly how things will play out ahead of time. One guy is a villain, and the PCs will try to kill him. Another is an ally, and his stats are built differently.

Can you provide an example of this? I've not encountered it in the 4e modules I'm familiar with (except that some NPCs who are expected to be allies aren't statted out at all, or have only abbreviated stats, such as a few rituals known or bonuses in a couple of skills).

 

[Plane Sailing]

Now here's the thing: how does this sentiment--largely echoed in critiques of WotC's 4e adventure modules in numerous circles--square with the following quote by WotC designer David Noonan? (You can find the quote here.)

[talking about 4e monster design] "We wanted our presentation of monsters to reflect how they’re actually used in D&D gameplay. A typical monster has a lifespan of five rounds. That means it basically does five things, ever, period, the end . . . Too often, we designers want to give our intelligent, high-level monsters a bunch of spell-like abilities—if not a bunch of actual spellcaster levels. Giving a monster detect thoughts or telekinesis, for example, makes us feel like those monsters are magically in the minds of their minions and are making objects float across the room all the time. But they aren’t! Until the moment they interact with the PCs, they’re in a state of stasis. And five rounds later, they’re done."

And I'm wondering what to make of these two seemingly diametrically opposed ideas.

I think that one of the problems with Dave Noonans comment is that it is far too shallow. While it might be true for goblins or orcs who are due to die in hordes, the end result of this philosophy is monsters at all levels that can only do 5 things before they die. The same 5 things.

I much prefer the 3.0e demons and devils (for example), where although in each situation they might only do 5 things before they die, they can do a different selection of 5 things each time. In one encounter a 3.0 devils 'Animate Dead' power might be fundamental to the encounter, in another encounter it might not be used, and on a third occasion there might be an on-the-fly opportunity where it makes a lot of sense.

They focussed on how a monster might be used in one single combat, without considering how they might be used in an adventure or even a campaign.

Like so much in 4e, the 'combat' is the fundamental unit of play, and most things were designed to fit around that.

(If there is ever a 5e, I hope that they take up Kamikaze Midgets suggestion and make "the adventure" the fundamental unit of gameplay - but that discussion is happening elsewhere!).



Back to the original question, Ydars is speaking about Adventure Design, and Noonan is speaking about Monster design. As a result, the two are not necessarily in conflict. I think that Kalarels stat block made him a spectacularly uninteresting combatant, but the faults in the module regarding him were not about his stat block, it was about the lack of any sense in the plotting of the adventure (as Prof Cirno points out quite comprehensively)

Cheers

 

[bagger245]

Ultimately, this strikes me as just two polarized views on how the game works.

To illustrate, I'll give an example. I ran a single session for what I thought would be a new group. During the session, the PCs were on a ship and attacked by a giant sea monster.

I described the monster's head, when it emerged, simply biting a nameless NPC in half.

The players were upset that I did not roll an attack roll for the monster to kill the nameless NPC, and suddenly the monster had developed the power to bite people in half.

To them, I was just changing the rules and exerting DM power without following The Rules, I was just cheating because I wanted something to happen.

To me, it was flavor text and I was doing it for narrative purposes, to emphasize how dangerous and nasty this thing was, to emphasize how powerful the PCs were in comparison to some nameless NPC, and for again, story purposes. I was waving my hand because the NPC wasn't important, but anything that is important (namely the PCs) deserves some sort of roll.

The issue is not who is right. And no matter what, even after we argued over this, neither of us had convinced one another. Because it's indicative of the style, the assumptions of How a Game is Ran that we bring to the table. It's preference.

This thread (and many like it) are an indication that different styles and Beliefs about how the Game is Ran, how it Works. None of us are going to budge on our style. We can argue until we're blue in the face whether it should be or it shouldn't be, but it's moot.

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.

Well, as the DM we could easily add "Eat NPC" power like how we add themes to monsters. But I do understand your point. Monster stats are codified now, as in "pre-programmed" just before the fight and players might feel it's unfair that the DM just "adds" more attacks or abilities for monsters on the fly eventhough used only for narrative purpose.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't agree. Non-combat encounter resolution in 4e turns on the skil challenge rules, which don't require anything in monster statblocks (because in a skill challenge the monsters and NPCs do not do anything mechanically, only narratively - the mechanics are all in the players' hands).

In 4e as written (perhaps not as played at all tables) this sort of bargaining is a skill challenge. Therefore, it doesn't depend on monster stats but rather on the GM's assignment of level-appropriate DCs.

Here we have another part of the problem. Skill challenge mechanics issues tend to mask the skill challenge concept issues.

I don't know if any interaction between the players and an NPC/monster will involve skill use, combat, neither, or both. As DM I do not dictate how the PC's interact with elements of the game world, that is the player's job.

I can make notes on the relative difficulty of certain courses of action, such as an overly paranoid and suspicious guard being very hard to bluff but writing out a lengthly encounter on the premise that the players will attempt this tactic is a waste of time.

 

[Fifth Element]

I can make notes on the relative difficulty of certain courses of action, such as an overly paranoid and suspicious guard being very hard to bluff but writing out a lengthly encounter on the premise that the players will attempt this tactic is a waste of time.

So are you saying that things that are unlikely to occur should be omitted from a written adventure?

 

[Fifth Element]

Well, as the DM we could easily add "Eat NPC" power like how we add themes to monsters. But I do understand your point. Monster stats are codified now, as in "pre-programmed" just before the fight and players might feel it's unfair that the DM just "adds" more attacks or abilities for monsters on the fly eventhough used only for narrative purpose.

That's one nice thing about 4E's designed as compared to 3E. 4E is exception-based, and you could add a monster power called "Eat NPC" that automatically hits an NPC.

But if that sort of thing annoys your players, you probably shouldn't do it. Or you could get new players.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So are you saying that things that are unlikely to occur should be omitted from a written adventure?

Nope. I'm saying that certain approaches shouldn't be expanded upon to the exclusion of all others.
Pre-defined encounter types are the antithesis of meaningful choice. If an encounter involves an NPC that the players may come into conflict with, then combat stats as well as some notes about how the NPC behaves
in non-combat interaction are both needed.

Any attempt to "pace" an adventure by dictating encounter type is simply too much DM steering IMHO.
So what if the party just fought through six combat encounters. Perhaps they were just feeling homicidal. Whatever decisions the party makes regarding the approach to an encounter should have meaning and
consequences. The moment the DM tells them when to fight, when to bargain, etc, is the point at which player decisions stop mattering.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Back to the original question, Ydars is speaking about Adventure Design, and Noonan is speaking about Monster design. As a result, the two are not necessarily in conflict. I think that Kalarels stat block made him a spectacularly uninteresting combatant, but the faults in the module regarding him were not about his stat block, it was about the lack of any sense in the plotting of the adventure (as Prof Cirno points out quite comprehensively)

Cheers

I think this sums up my feelings perfectly. I have no desire to return to the page long statblock, but in modules I purchase, I would like to see some depth given to NPCs and BBEGs beyond their combat stats. It isn't really needed for the 35 orc guards scattered around the stonghold, but for the chieftain and his shamen, a litle more information would be great to give me ideas about how to use them other than as a tool for beating on the PCs.

And no, I'm not talking about wanting to know whether they have allergies to strawberries or use their left hand.

 

[AllisterH]

I think this sums up my feelings perfectly. I have no desire to return to the page long statblock, but in modules I purchase, I would like to see some depth given to NPCs and BBEGs beyond their combat stats. It isn't really needed for the 35 orc guards scattered around the stonghold, but for the chieftain and his shamen, a litle more information would be great to give me ideas about how to use them other than as a tool for beating on the PCs.

And no, I'm not talking about wanting to know whether they have allergies to strawberries or use their left hand.

ER..but if things like allergies et al are NOT what are you talking about, the 4e stat block ALREADY includes the Monster's skill levels.

I thought THIS was what people were talking about since the 4e stat block incorpoates the skills both explictly and implicitly and the ritual system means that you dont NEED to list every non-combat spell since non-combat magic isn/t restricted.

This might be a case of two different assumptions.

If I'm reading this correctly, you're implying that unless the monster has say the spell "Raise Dead" on its writeup, it can't use that effect as it is a spell restricted to a certain class.

This doesn't hold true for 4e where again, anyone can use the ritual system and have the "Raise Dead" ritual.