GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Rechan]

... and you explicitly made the game that way because you felt that monsters were only useful in combat, then it's probably unsurprising that your adventure modules are grind-happy combat fests.

You quoted me, but are you actually talking to me? Because you don't seem to actually be responding to me.

I didn't make 4e. And I don't feel monsters are only useful in combat. But I don't need their combat stats to use them outside of combat. In fact, I often run political games, but I don't use the monster's stats for those.

I also don't make (or use) modules, but my games are rarely grindy.

 

[billd91]

Heh, I love how you put it at "slightly" longer. Prepared for "some" contingencies. Hrm, 3e stat blocks aren't "slightly" longer. They can take pages, and yes, that's pages plural. You gave an example of something that had about as much likelihood of occurring as the PC's spontaneously combusting for no reason, but that's apparently only a minor contingency.

For some creatures like Demogorgon, the stat blocks got pretty long in 3.5, sure. But for most creatures, slightly longer is more accurate.

But here's the kicker. For gamers who like the extra detail of non-combat stats or stats relevant for other situations than just 5 rounds of combat, the detail was there. For gamers who don't like it, it can be cut out or ignored when prepping your adventures. For my money (and yes, if I'm going to shell out $ for the rules, I'm interested in what I'm getting for my money), supporting more detail and variety trumps 5 rounds of combat. I can use it high detail mode or low detail at my discretion, not Dave Noonan's.

EDIT: And if their module reviews are suffering compared to other companies, maybe it's because they put themselves in a box too confining and haven't figured out how to widen it yet.

 

[Beginning of the End]

You quoted me, but are you actually talking to me? Because you don't seem to actually be responding to me.

I didn't make 4e. And I don't feel monsters are only useful in combat. But I don't need their combat stats to use them outside of combat. In fact, I often run political games, but I don't use the monster's stats for those.

Admin note: Don't be rude. Please see my note below

My apologies for using rhetorical skills above your level of comprehension.

Perhaps the gentle reminder that we're talking about what David Noonan wrote will help to guide you out from your confusion. If that is insufficient, you might consider reviewing the content of the thread for the clarity it may provide.

 

[pemerton]

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

Centaur Cavalier

Great stuff - but I can't give you more XP at this time!

 

[pemerton]

that's what the designers said[/i]. So unless you're calling the designers a bunch of filthy liars, there's really nothing to argue about here.

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).

Designing Many monsters can be bargained with, or even used for other purposes by PC's rather than just being sword fodder.

A monster is part of the game world. As such, it should have a place and any abilities which aid it in attaining and maintaining that place.

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.

As written, the WotC modules don't make these sorts of skill challenges easy to run, but it's not due to a lack of monster stats but due to a lack of contex/motivation given to the monsters. And also due to some of the problems with the skill challenge rules themselves.

[At no point in time are any of the monsters given any fluff or thoughts or purpose outside of being blobs of combat.

<snip>

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

I agree, this is a big problem with WotC adventures. The solution is not more stats in the statblock. It's better adventure design, and (within the 4e paradigm) better development and then deployment of the skill challenge rules.

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.

I don't like the 4e modules very much as written (though they have some interesting maps and set pieces) but it has nothing to do with the 4e designers pragmatic approach to statblocks. It's because the modules are poor adventures. Bastion of Broken Souls, a high level 3E adventure by WotC, has super-long statblocks but exactly the same problems with its adventure design.

For a set of monsters that actually HAVE a place in the world check out the Monsternomicon by Privateer Press.

At least in my copy of the 4e monster manuals there's quite a bit in each monster description about general lifestyle, motivations, religious affiliations (where appropriate) and so on. There's also the Origin stat and a range of types and subtypes, which helps make sense of some of this. The MM and MM2 are actually much better than the modules in this respect, and when the sort of situation ExploderWizard describes comes up in a module encounter, I tend to turn to the relevant monster manual for guidance.

I also use Manual of the Planes, Open Grave, Underdark and The Plane Above to help with this (if I used a lot of dragons or elementals I guess I'd buy and use those books to).

 

[pemerton]

Is it easier to ignore powers that are spelled out, or to try and come up with something unique on your own (especially if your level of system mastery is relatively low)?

In my experience, this just isn't true. I've not GMed a lot of 3E, but I've converted 3E modules, including high level ones, to other game systems. Some of those statblocks are monstrosities, and are a lot of work for a GM to read through and understand even in the context of preparation, let along the context of play.

If the players love the adventure, but the DM finds it difficult to run because they are lacking information they need or want, that DM is less likely to purchase another. If the players love the adventure and it has stuff the players never see, but makes the DM's time simpler and more interesting, the DM is likely to become a loyal customer.

This sounds plausible enough. But, as a GM, I don't see it as a reason to clutter my stablocks with stuff that I don't need, even if X% of other purchasers want them.

Now, if X is high enough, than WotC should ignore me and satisfy that X%. But if X% is on the small side, then WotC are better off trimming to satisfy me and my "slim stablocks" majority.

Or, as a fair DM I'm going to be forced to say...

"The cleric gives a command to his kobold minion... Kill!" The kobold just stares at him with a stupid expression on his face. What do you do?

I find this weird, for two reasons: (i) 4e stablocks list languages spoken, and so both designer and GM can see at a glance if communication is meant to be an issue or not; (ii) I can't really imagine someone running a module like this - instead of the above, why would you not just add Draconic to the NPC's language list on the fly?

 

[AllisterH]

Given that 4e statblocks ALREADY include the various skills implictly, you already KNOW what the monster's skill levels are even if they aren't trained in it.

 

[Hussar]

Given that 4e statblocks ALREADY include the various skills implictly, you already KNOW what the monster's skill levels are even if they aren't trained in it.

Shhh, don't let facts get in the way of a good edition bash.

... and you explicitly made the game that way because you felt that monsters were only useful in combat, then it's probably unsurprising that your adventure modules are grind-happy combat fests.

Possibly true that they are grind happy combat fests. Reason doesn't follow. If that were true, then every single 1e module would be nothing but grind happy combat fests. Yet they aren't. Funny that.

You can ridicule whatever particular example you like. You can say that it's absurd that the PCs would ever be able to lure her out of her lair; or that she would be able to escape their initial attack; or that they delayed long enough that she rides out for an open assault on the village; or any of a dozen other possibilities.

But the reality is that by providing a well-rounded picture of the gaming environment you are giving hooks that the players and DM can both access, manipulate, and use.

Now we've put the goalposts on rollerskates. How does adding a skill to an NPC or a SLA suddenly become a "well rounded picture of the gaming environment"?

When the only thing you support is hitting things with sticks, then lots of things are going to get hit with sticks.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And WotC's design team actually said, "We think the only thing you want are 5 rounds of nails, so we're only going to give you hammers."

This really is a meme that needs to have a stake put in it. First off, every single NPC has a full array of skills, although only the exceptional ones are noted in the stat block. But, even ignoring that, there are a number of things you can do that have nothing to do with combat.

As was said in the Robot Chicken DM commentaries - "To those of you who say 4e is all about combat - you are dumb"

I'm not saying that you HAVE to run 4th Edition as nothing more than an endless slog of 5 round bouts of combat. But I am saying that's the design ethos that gave us both the core rulebooks and the grind-tastic adventures.

Wow, do you have a licence to fly that leap of logic?

And you can't really argue with that, because that's what the designers said. So unless you're calling the designers a bunch of filthy liars, there's really nothing to argue about here.

Well, I think I'd be calling someone a filthy liar, but, it wouldn't be the designer. It would be nice if people actually took the time to read what's being said, rather than what they think is being said.

But, you know what? I've had this conversation way, WAY too many times. I know this isn't going to change any minds. You've decided that they've said something they really haven't and there's nothing I can say that will change that.

Good gaming. One wonders though, why you would bother getting involved in a thread about a game you don't play and don't like. Other than to edition bash that is.

 

[Stalker0]

My take on this:

For major monsters (aka the villians), I would like some background work and motivation written about them. After all, its a story not a grindfest.


That said though, to me the statblock has little to do with that. I don't need noncombat things for a villian to be a villian. NPCs can have whatever abilities I need them to have for the story.

If an npcs had mindcontrolled minions....well that's because he learned a secret mindcontrol ritual. Maybe I have it written somewhere the players could find and learn it, maybe I don't.

So its not the how that's important to me, simply the what. The fact that the NPC used mindcontrolled minions is what I need to know. The rest I'll figure out.

 

[Plane Sailing]

My apologies for using rhetorical skills above your level of comprehension.

As was said in the Robot Chicken DM commentaries - "To those of you who say 4e is all about combat - you are dumb"

...

Wow, do you have a licence to fly that leap of logic?

OK guys, enough with the insults.

Anyone after this point gets threadbanned.

Thanks