GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Doug McCrae]

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.

Can't the module writer make an educated guess? Space is at a premium after all.

I'm sure we all know what the talk/fight axis revolves around for an NPC - attractiveness. The PCs are highly unlikely to negotiate with orcs, way more likely if the NPC is a beautiful woman (assuming typical players).

There was only one time in my last campaign where the PCs talked when I thought they would fight. Yep, you guessed it, the NPC was a sexy woman.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Can't the module writer make an educated guess? Space is at a premium after all.

I'm sure we all know what the talk/fight axis revolves around for an NPC - attractiveness. The PCs are highly unlikely to negotiate with orcs, way more likely if the NPC is a beautiful woman (assuming typical players).

There was only one time in my last campaign where the PCs talked when I thought they would fight. Yep, you guessed it, the NPC was a sexy woman.

LOL! I gotta spread some XP around. Hot chicks FTW!

Educated guesses are not a problem unless presented without alternatives. Certainly if the circumstances in the adventure point to extreme hostility then combat stats and tactics are logically going to be prominent parts of the write up. Likewise, some stats should be included
for an NPC that the party is likely to parley/bargain with beyond just skills and DC's.

Hey, the NPC could be ugly.

 

[Garthanos]

I had a hot chick were one PC identified her (relatively correctly) as a potentially dangerous dissident and the other identified her as a somebody who might be worth saving (relatively correctly) .. the latter decided his character fell in love with her and the other had her arrested after fighting her and her minions. The one was a justiciar and the other a high counciler of the same country.

 

[Scribble]

I think personally for some of the "Key" NPCs found in adventures and books, I would like to see the addition of something along the lines of the Role Playing Stat Block, Mearls suggested in the Skill Challenges article.

Obviously not for every single NPC or monster, but the main NPCs should all have this in its own little section.

This way, we have the combat stats at a glance when/if we need them, but we also know how the NPC acts outside of combat in a similar quick/easy fashion.

 

[Umbran]

Because when I buy a module, I buy it so I the DM don't have to do all the crap I'm supposed to be paying for.

"...all the cap I'm supposed to be paying for"?

I'm going to venture a guess that "all the crap" is not actually a well defined list of items.

The writers of an adventure could give you a 250+ page supplement for every adventure, and not fully cover everything that one could possibly imagine a GM might need. Giving you literally all the crap is not a practical goal, nor would you probably be willing to pay for it if it could be done.

So, somewhere you draw a line, and say, "this is enough crap". Somewhere you figure the GM will fill in the gaps.

Historically, gamers have not been in agreement, or consistent, about where they want that line drawn.

 

[Fifth Element]

Educated guesses are not a problem unless presented without alternatives.

There's always at least one alternative to using a skill challenge as presented: roleplay the thing out. You can even use the information contained in the skill challenge block to inform the roleplaying!

If a DM feels obligated to use a skill challenge just because it's there, and forces it upon the players regardless of what they wanted to do, that's not a system problem. That's a DM problem. That same DM, running a 1E module, sees the combat stats presented for a "good" monsters will probably have it attack the party - since the stats are there, they must be used.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

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.

Sorry, I think there are two slightly different, but related, conversations going in this thread.

One is about the stat blocks specifically. I don't have any particular issue with the shortened stat blocks, and while it can occassionally lead to a hiccup in consistency or require a DM handwave, I think the shorter blocks themselves are an improvement.

The other conversation is in regards to the idea that the opponents in D&D really only "exist" once the PCs encounter them and last for an average of five rounds of combat before they are killed by the PCs, therefore the only thing that matters is what they can and likely will do in those five rounds. Any deeper writeup including background, motivation and even other abilities is unncessary. That was what I was speaking to in my post where I agreed with Plane Sailing about uninteresting NPCs.

 

[Azgulor]

While the 4e philosophy of designing a monster for 5 rounds is a good technique, as a philosophy it's completely bankrupt. As pointed out above, without story and engagement, those five rounds might as well be spent fighting a pokemon. Monsters should be designed with loving detail, albeit with the understanding they might die in a few rounds, unmourned and forgotten.

That technique also assumes a foregone conclusion that the monsters will die. Not retreat, not return as a recurring villain - just 5 rounds and then loot the corpse.

Also, I DO think about what major villains (NPCs or monsters) are doing - what are their goals & objectives, etc. Maybe it comes out in play and maybe it doesn't. When it does, it's pure gaming gold. When it doesn't, it goes into the recycle bin to potentially be dusted off another day.

The reward far outweighs the risk. It's anything but wasted effort.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

"...all the cap I'm supposed to be paying for"?

I'm going to venture a guess that "all the crap" is not actually a well defined list of items.

The writers of an adventure could give you a 250+ page supplement for every adventure, and not fully cover everything that one could possibly imagine a GM might need. Giving you literally all the crap is not a practical goal, nor would you probably be willing to pay for it if it could be done.

So, somewhere you draw a line, and say, "this is enough crap". Somewhere you figure the GM will fill in the gaps.

Historically, gamers have not been in agreement, or consistent, about where they want that line drawn.

Come on Umbran, we aren't talking about weird and non-existant theoreticals. We're talking about an existing module. Keep on the Shadowfell.

The damned thing constantly says things like, to quote direct: "An easy way to set a scene is to describe the weather - is it overcast and damp with a slight hair-ruffling wind? Is the sun blazing down with scarcely a cloud in the sky? Is the night open to the vault of a million stars, or does bone chilling rain cut through the darkness?"

I dunno. Does the bone chilling rain cut through the darkness, module?

4e modules have all been nothing more then combat slugfests with what little plot there is acting as plot spackle to keep the combat sessions vaguely connected, and one of the reasons why is because it's so terrified of trying to, I don't know, set a scene for itself. The module writers seem scared out of their skulls to even think about making a statement on what the atmosphere is like, or what an NPC does if you don't immidiately reach for your weapon, or if there should be any kind of flavor text at all. I've been reading through some Paizo modules, and they all have a small section for morale on what the enemy does when low on health. What do monsters in Keep on the Shadowfell do when low on health? Nothing! They're there to die, and nothing more. The only time they'd ever run away is if there's a second encounter you need to meet them at, or they need to grab more enemies to throw at you. There's no surrendering, no running away, no pleading for mercy.

Here's the problem, and it's the direct opposite of the hammer/nail. When everything is a nail, the only tool players will use is a hammer. When every monster in every 4e module exists only as a combat blob, yes, the players are always going to do nothing more then "Initiative, attack!" When monsters are written to be incapable of doing anything but dying on the players' sword, then the players will - rightfully so - assume that's the entire purpose of all the monsters.

Kalarel has a spy in Winterhaven. Ignoring how hilariously obvious that spy is, what can the players do with her? Well, they can kill her. That's it. There's no convincing her to switch sides. There's no talking to her. You can't trick her out of giving more information then she meant to. You can't spy on her and watch for her communicating with Kalarel. We don't even know why she serves Kalarel in the first place. Her entire purpose, despite potentially being a great big plot device to help shape the module and give Kalarel flavor, is to be really obviously suspicious, and then bite it in a graveyard. There's so much potential there, and it's flat out gone. That's how it is with all the NPCs - they're either two or three lines of exposition and a quest line, or they go "Rargh!" and attack you, and then you kill them. There aren't any cunning double crosses or intriguing non-combat moments with NPCs, there's no setting two enemies against each other, no making backhand deals or sneaking through side doors and evading the enemy. Just one linear line and a bunch of combat blobs between you and the unexplained goal.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hrm, 3e stat blocks aren't "slightly" longer. They can take pages, and yes, that's pages plural.

I certainly agree with this. One of the things I was struck by when writing 3e adventures was the length and mathematical pickiness of the statblocks. The Monsternomicon "Quickplates" were ideal; in many cases, though, adding a template was more work than the outcome was probably worth.

Something worth considering is the TSR-D&D approach, which allows for a longer, more detailed monster write-up, and a shorter statblock that contains the information that the DM will probably need. The 3e approach, AFAICT, was to contain relatively complete information in the statblock, which led to its bloat.

If I were going to play 4e, or make a new monster book for 4e, I would want to include more information in the book that isn't necessarily reflected in the statblock....but which is called out to the DM for attention, because the DM can use that information both to plan encounters, and to enhance the RP potential of existing encounters.

If the writing isn't enough to make a largish group (but not all) of the WotC adventure designers to think in terms other than simply "combat slog", then what chance does the average DM have?

I mean, for much of D&D's history, OD&D, AD&D, 2e D&D and now 4e, monster stat blocks could be reduced to a single typed line. And, yet, somehow, we managed to muddle through for about twenty years or so of gaming.

What were we doing differently?

I agree here, too. I don't believe that a larger statblock is needed, so much as a better initial write-up. And that is, I think, what we were doing differently.

And that is why not every single 1e module is grind happy combat fests. Well, that and the faster combat system.

Yet, OTOH, examine fey creatures. In 1e, it is clear that fey creatures are supposed to be representative of how fey appear in fairy tales and folklore. Yet, overwhelmingly, they seem geared to combat (IMHO and IME, at least). Why is that? The system is not designed to codify the type of "action" these creatures represent.

Suddenly, in 3e, it is possible to have fey creatures that actually seem like fey creatures. Why? Both WotC and 3pp codified the necessary types of "action" in the game rules. There is an example of something that WotC got absolutely right, IMHO.

Shorter statblocks I am all for. But those shorter statblocks should be memory aids for a longer reference. The 4e MM is too dry in this regard; perhaps later monster books have done better?

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.

This is, I think, a real issue. Not shorter stat blocks, per se, but stat blocks that seem to predefine outcome. It is another area where I think better text could overcome the problem, though. I.e., the statblock is devised on the basis of the expected outcome, but the text that the statblock is a reminder for should not only explicate the expected outcome, but give enough information to deal with unexpected outcomes.

The moment the DM tells them when to fight, when to bargain, etc, is the point at which player decisions stop mattering.

Again, this is certainly a problem with WotC module design, and I think with the 4e design philosophy in general. From posts on EN World, however, I believe it is a problem one can play 4e without experiencing. The modules, however, are no help in this regard, AFAICT and IMHO.



RC