GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Theo R Cwithin]

For me longer, detailed statblocks are nice because they provide an explicit starting point for tinkering while maintaining a stated power level.

I'm not one of those people who can look at a given statblock and know exactly how it stacks up power-wise (though I understand this is much easier in 4e). With a more detailed statblock, I can tinker with a given pre-published NPC/monster to suit my own game's needs in and out of combat, yet still be fairly confident that the resulting modified NPC won't be terribly out of whack with what the author intended.

That said, reducing "extraneous" info from full out numerical stats, down to "DM notes" would be fine with me, as long as mechanically it doesn;t make a difference to the system. Heck, that's more or less how I stat things out, anyway. In a fully electronic world, a statblock would have a few of "resolutions" driven by collapse buttons: things like "show all info (hi-res)"; "show only major combat info (lo-res)"; "collapse limited-use combat info"; "collapse social stats"; Etc.

 

[Mallus]

I like the 4e approach to monster design, which is to say it meets my consumer needs. Which are the briefest of descriptions followed by combat-relevant stats and, hopefully, some advice re: tactics.

Everything else I can make up myself. In fact, I enjoy doing so. Really, the idea that fatter stat blocs yield deeper or more interesting antagonists is hard for me to understand. The system cannot yield well-written and compelling opposition, only a skilled and/or creative DM can. Moreover, looking to the system to provide that leads you down a dead end.

Adding more spell-like abilities to a demon's right-up only makes him more complicated to play, it doesn't necessarily make him any more malevolent or memorable. Give me a manageable list of abilities and my own ham-acting skills any day.

The new bare-bones approach hearkens back to the old bare-bones approach. I dig that. I might be amused by an entry detailing how much copper an efreet can smelt per hour, or how a certain kind of troll eats only goats and prefer Impressionist artwork... but that's the kind of material I like to create myself (in fact, it's exactly the kind of detail I create for my own games).

 

[Scribble]

I can give you an example of the kinds of things I did for RCFG. If it is really important, I could borrow a 4e MM (mine being given away) and try to bring up specific issues on a monster-by-monster basis.

Well, up to you. I'm not outright disagreeing with you or anything, honestly curious.

Do you have MM2 per chance or just the first one?

I have a whole thread devoted to it, around here somewhere.

Ah, here the thing is: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-house-rules/86637-faerie-encounters.html

Largely, I would say that 3e's introduction of a working skill system meant that you could create creatures that were dealt with using game mechanical requirements, but without requiring combat. In fact, I would suggest that some of the encounters in the thread could be easily reworked into 4e terms as Skill Challenges.


RC

When I get a chance I'll check out that thread.

 

[Dausuul]

The way I see it is, a statblock should be trimmed down to showcase only significant, interesting abilities which the creature possesses.

Let's look at a 3E balor's statblock. It has a list of SLAs as long as your arm. Some of those SLAs are interesting; for example, it can drive people permanently insane, take control of their actions, and teleport at will. On the other hand, blasphemy, implosion, power word stun, and fire storm are just different flavors of "beat you over the head."

4E's designers noticed the latter and decided that statblocks ought to be leaner and more economical. With that, I agree. And for a typical mook, a 4E statblock is perfectly sufficient. I really don't give a damn if Goblin #45 is an exceptionally good wolf-rider. If he ain't on a wolf when the PCs are slated to fight him, it doesn't matter. He's just a sack of hit points. (Or, since he's probably a minion in 4E, a sack of hit point.) There is only so much space on the page, and there is only so much space in the DM's head. Neither should be wasted on trivialities.

But for the big-name monsters and NPCs... a little more detail is warranted. Balors aren't mooks. No, they don't need a million subtle variations on "beat you over the head." But driving people permanently insane? The narrative power of that effect is tremendous. It changes the balor from a mere combat-monster to a demon, a fiend capable of shattering mortal minds with the merest glance of its burning eyes.

It's inspiration fodder. I read something like that and it suggests all kinds of possibilities... a trail of raving lunatics and broken minds, building tension and hinting at the big reveal to come. 4E monsters, by and large, don't offer that kind of inspiration. (At least they didn't in MM1. I haven't got around to picking up the more recent MMs; I've heard rumors things have improved.)

 

[Starman]

For adventures, what would be wrong with having small, combat-specific stat-blocks embedded in the adventure, but also having an index that fleshes things out a little more? The people who only need the NPC for combat get just what they want right there. The people needing more info have it, too, but it's not in the middle of the adventure. I suppose you could run into page count issues, but I don't know what other downsides there might be.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, up to you. I'm not outright disagreeing with you or anything, honestly curious.

Do you have MM2 per chance or just the first one?

I don't even have the first one anymore; the second I've barely glanced through. As I said earlier, they may have improved.

Examples of monster write-ups intended to inspire: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4757840-post167.html & http://www.enworld.org/forum/4816085-post179.html . Far from perfect, I know.

When I get a chance I'll check out that thread.

I don't know why that got moved to 3e.....There was a lot of "General" stuff in there, and a lot that would be easy to use in 4e.

The way I see it is, a statblock should be trimmed down to showcase only significant, interesting abilities which the creature possesses.

This I agree with. The statblock is just a "memo"; the full write-up should contain what the statblock does not.


RC

 

[Barastrondo]

Long years of Champions and pre-3e have forged me into one of those GMs who's clearly in the "keep it simple, keep it lean, make it something you can reskin with as few keystrokes as possible" camp -- at least for villains that are supposed to be disposable. And that's the thing about D&D for me, anyhow: it's the kind of game where the players frequently don't want villains to recur. They want to kill them.

If an enemy takes little enough time to create, then you theoretically run the risk of not investing as much effort into his personality when you create him. On the other hand, if an enemy takes a good long while to stat out (or even to get a handle on all the things he can do, if it involves a lot of looking up different spells and such), then you theoretically run the risk of wanting to get the time invested out of him -- which can lead to seeing "killing the bad guy" as an undesirable outcome, at least until you feel satisfied with your investment. I think we've all known, at some point or another, a GM who's been a little too attached to a given villain and who didn't want the players to take him out "prematurely."

A good GM isn't going to fall into either trap, but I don't think it's unfair to say that they're both potential pitfalls. Wouldn't surprise me if that's part of the philosophy of the "only stat stuff that it's questionable to fudge" approach.

 

[Scribble]

I don't even have the first one anymore; the second I've barely glanced through. As I said earlier, they may have improved.

I think they did actually (at least in my opinion.) The stuff they're putting into the knowledge checks is pretty neat, and not always related to combat. I think they could use a little more (and in some cases it's still outright bland) but it's decent. Much better then MMI in my opinion.

 

[Plane Sailing]

"...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.

I don't think you are being fair to Professor Cirno here; you are venturing a guess at something that he actually described quite fairly and comprehensively in an earlier post in the thread http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...issonance-encounter-design-3.html#post5183974

I think that it is reasonable to expect that a module has cohesive plot and relationships, and at least allows for the possibility that there might be some approaches other than fight your way through!

Cheers

 

[Scribble]

I think that it is reasonable to expect that a module has cohesive plot and relationships, and at least allows for the possibility that there might be some approaches other than fight your way through!

I think in a normal module this would be true, but in the case of KoTS it was designed to preview the new rules, and D&Ds rules are largely combat based rules...

So in order to showcase them, I would expect it to be mainly pushing combat.