GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Lanefan]

Why should adventures be all that different? Would we be better off if those who produced adventures took the effort to specialize them to particular modes?

Quite the opposite, the mood I'm sensing here is that people would like to see effort taken to account for numerous different modes and write on that basis.

Let's say you're setting out to write a module. You've got a good story and background, a fine BBEG, a few excellent set-piece scenes, a map, and a bunch of bad guys.

So go ahead. Write it as if it's going to be all brawl, all the time; no quarter asked or given.

But don't stop there! Go back and write it again, this time as if the PCs are expected to try to talk their way past every encounter.

Then write it again assuming the PCs will try to sneak past or completely avoid every encounter and will never enter any room by its front door.

Then write it a fourth time, to account for anything missed in the first three passes, and you're done Step 1. You should by now have four - well, at least three - different written versions of every encounter and location.

Step 2 is to combine the different versions of each encounter or location into one coherent write-up which, if done right, now accounts for at least 3 significant modes of play and maybe catches quite a few more.

Tie 'em all together with a bit of story and you've got a module.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

There is no stat that represents how much wealth an NPC has.

Er...isn't it (in any edition) listed under "possessions" if carried or "treasure" in the write-up for the room in which it may be found if not carried?

One thing that really grabbed me first in 4e was very little things. "This is a magic pool of cool water. If you dunk yourself in the pool, it gives you Resist fire 5 until you take a short rest". "These statues are touched by the power of Piety; standing next to them gives you a +1 to your will defense". If I tried to do this in 3e, I would feel the need to Account for where this stuff is coming from, and players would be more likely to go "really? Wow, I want to make one of those. How do I do that?" and now it's a balance issue. With 4e, just saying "it's magic" is good enough for the design philosophy and I can move on.

Just like 1e. I completely agree with this as design philosophy.

Lan-"it's magic"-efan

 

[pemerton]

I would certainly put information about the NPC's personality and motivations, and some favored non-combat modus operandi so that if he escapes and the PCs encounter him again, they could have the opportunity to recognize him from the way he goes about achieving his goals.

<snip>

The other type of information is significant non-combat interactions. If the NPC has been brainwashed, and the PCs can remove that brainwashing with a skill challenge, that sort of information should go there, too.

stat blocks may need to contain more than basic combat information, if only to hint to a less experienced DM that the PCs can interact with at least some monsters or NPCs in ways other than direct combat.

<snip>

Certain types of non-combat information should be an integral part of the stat blocks in generic monster books if the very nature of the monster suggests certain non-combat interactions are likely, e.g. skill challenges to communicate with a slaad or to discover a doppleganger's true identity.

In a sense, the basics of this already exist - page 42 of the DMG gives us level-appropriate DCs. But it would be very helpful for the MM (in respect of the generic skill challenges) and the modules (in resepct of scenario-specific possibilities) to give some suggestions for particular skills, particular DCs (easy, medium, hard) etc.

And I certainly agree with your comments about motivation and methods. It is hard to frame a social or political skill challenge without knowing this sort of info. I'd go so far as to say that it is the failure to present this sort of information, and hence to properly support the framing of skill challenges, that leads to the perception that skill challenges are just meaningless dice rolling exercise.

 

[Rechan]

Er...isn't it (in any edition) listed under "possessions" if carried or "treasure" in the write-up for the room in which it may be found if not carried?

No.

1) The "Treasure" in a room writeup isn't in the statblock. I'm talking about The statblock. The adventure module doesn't matter for the purposes of discussing NOn-Combat Stuff In The Statblock.

2) In the MM2, there's a monster called a Human Insane Noble. He's a 23 elite. In the statblock, his listed Equipment: Scepter (mace).

How much land does this noble own? How much stock? What about the trade his family does? How many possessions in his house he could ransack? That's not represented by any stat, anything in the statblock. His wealth cannot be measured by what's in his pockets.

Granted, in 2e, statblocks had the treasure this monster had listed.

 

[pemerton]

The reason I think this is that the WOTC mods are primarily meant for very new gamers.

Maybe. Given that WotC have gone to the trouble to produce an edition that can do so much more, though, it's a pity that they don't have introductory modules promoting this. A properly written module should not be avoiding providing beginners with an awesome adventure story because it's too hard - it shoud be making it easy to produce that story. 4e has the tools - skill challenges, quests, etc, as well as a dramatic combat system that (in my experience) needn't produce grind. The modules just aren't using those tools.

It's almost as if the designers - all very experienced roleplayers with experience of a lot of systems other than D&D in its various iterations - have designed a game that would be fun for them to play, but then can't quite imagine that their module purchasers are looking for the same sort of fun.

 

[pemerton]

I think that the reason modules tend to put the BBEG in a room at the end is to avoid having the PCs slay the BBEG earlier, thus ending the "plot". Thus the general reveal through secondary artifacts of the BBEG/leaving it up to the GM to determine how the reveal is arranged.

The point, though, is that the GM needs to have something to reveal in order to arrange any reveal at all.

I personally prefer a game to have a number of divination abilities, which allow the players to gain access to information.

<snip>

Players like meaningful information, for the obvious reason that it allows them to make meaningful choices. I say, give it to them.

I agree with this - both your diagnosis, and your admonition to "give the players the information".

Interesting, DMG 2 tackles this head on - it has suggestions for vignettes, and it has suggestions about using GM fiat to prevent the villain being killed in early presentations (this latter approach I think would have to be handled with care among traditional D&D players!). I doubt that you (ie Raven Crowking) would want to use these particular techniques, but they add to the repertoire, which includes the divination methods you mention.

Why are the module designers not following the advice in their own rulebooks?

 

[Lanefan]

1) The "Treasure" in a room writeup isn't in the statblock. I'm talking about The statblock. The adventure module doesn't matter for the purposes of discussing NOn-Combat Stuff In The Statblock.

I'm looking at it on a slightly more wholistic level, with the room write-up as the primary "unit" and the statblocks of its occupants as a subset of that. The non-combat info doesn't have to be in the statblock but it had better be on the same page in the room write-up so I can find it. (3e's idea of putting the statblocks on a separate page at the back of the module was *very* annoying)

2) In the MM2, there's a monster called a Human Insane Noble. He's a 23 elite. In the statblock, his listed Equipment: Scepter (mace).

How much land does this noble own? How much stock? What about the trade his family does? How many possessions in his house he could ransack? That's not represented by any stat, anything in the statblock. His wealth cannot be measured by what's in his pockets.

Granted, in 2e, statblocks had the treasure this monster had listed.

I haven't bought or read the (I assume you mean 4e) MM2, but if they're reduced to writing up Insane Noble Humans as monsters I don't think I'm missing much.

Of course, it's possible to assume the noble is insane enough to have had her lands and titles placed in regency; and thus she in effect owns nothing other than what she carries. But yes, even noting this as a baseline assumption would be helpful.

Lan-"landless *and* insane lord"-efan

 

[Beginning of the End]

It is perhaps a legacy of 3E's comprehensive stat blocks, but I think that many DMs have come to look to a monster or NPC's stat block for information on how it interacts with the PCs and with the rest of the game world. This has led to an attitude of "if it isn't in the stat block, it doesn't exist," which was arguably absent from 2E and earlier editions.

I was recently chatting with somebody about this, and the truth is: System Does Matter.

The simple example we were talking about is torches being blown out by gusts of wind. If you read older modules, you find this kind of thing being referenced all the time. Why? Because the OD&D rulebooks prominently featured this mechanic. When the rule got shuffled off to an obscure corner of the rulebook, references to gusts of winds that would blow out torches disappeared from the published modules (and I'm guessing they similarly disappeared from most people's games).

They're roleplaying games, and they have been since 1974. The mechanics are, and always have been, an important part of the interface between the players and the game world. And they have a particularly potent effect on shaping the core elements that define a game in the mind of its players.

OTOH, I would agree that 4th Edition's dissociated mechanics do make it inherently more difficult to use the mechanics to interface with the game world instead of using the mechanics in order to interact with the mechanics: When the mechanics no longer exist to model the game world, but are merely there to create hypothetically interesting mathematical exercises, you are in fact forced to interface with the mechanics instead of interfacing with the game world and then figuring out how to model that mechanically.

 

[FireLance]

2) In the MM2, there's a monster called a Human Insane Noble. He's a 23 elite. In the statblock, his listed Equipment: Scepter (mace).

How much land does this noble own? How much stock? What about the trade his family does? How many possessions in his house he could ransack? That's not represented by any stat, anything in the statblock. His wealth cannot be measured by what's in his pockets.

Slight tangent, but nothing in the Human Insane Noble stat block requires him to be a noble or even implies that he is one. I could use the same stat block for a Human Possessed Cultist and save myself the trouble of the PCs asking if they can get his lands.

Then again, if that noble isn't particularly high-ranking, the total value of his possessions may be pocket change to 23rd-level PCs.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I think where I disagree then, in a nutshell, is your statement the module does not give them an incentive to care. While it is true that the module does not implicitly bring the PCs into a relationship with Nualia, it brings them into a relationship with those she is attacking. Furthermore, it provides plenty of hooks for the DM, if he chooses, to tie the PCs into her background in some way (or the background of her henchmen, etc.). Each DM is going to want to tell the story a different way but the richness of the module allows that and encourages it. My players cared a lot,even about learning who was behind the attacks. You might say its just because I'm a good DM, but I think its because its such a rich module its easy to run it well.

I would say:

(1) PCs running through Burnt Offerings will learn a lot about the villain without particularly trying to learn those things. The same is not true of PCs running through Keep on the Shadowfell. This doesn't mean, of course, that the module is going to "make them care"; but nothing and nobody can "make them care" about anything. All you can do is give them the opportunity to do so: Burnt Offerings does; Keep on the Shadowfell doesn't.

(2) In addition to the personal details of the villains, there's also the importance of what you talk about: The palpable impact of the villain's actions on the world and the people around the PCs. In Burnt Offerings, the villain's plan has a major impact on the world and the people around the PCs. If the PCs care about anything in their environment, the villain's plan is going to have an impact on things they care about.

OTOH, the villain in Keep on the Shadowfell has virtually no impact on the world around him. The local village doesn't even realize there's a problem unless the PCs bring it to their attention.

Personally, I don't think Burnt Offerings is an instant classic or a perfect module (nor does anyone seem to be saying that except for Rechan). It's not a masterpiece, IMO. Although compared to Keep on the Shadowfell it certainly looks like one.

Look, your following example makes no sense at all - a 4E stat block could also show that the Stag Lord hates humans, is good with a bow and dealing with terrain, has good stealth and acrobatics, high dex, low wisdom/charisma.

Theoretically that's true.

But the point is that 4th Edition's monsters were explicitly designed to support 5 rounds of combat and nothing more. (We know that because the designers told us it was true.) Those same designers who said "monsters are good for 5 rounds of combat and nothing more" are the same designers working on WotC's modules.

Shockingly, the opponents in these modules are good for 5 rounds of combat and nothing more.

This isn't really a matter of connecting the dots. It's a matter of looking at the huge, blazing neon signs.

To reiterate: The problem here is not that Premise A gave us Stat Block B and then Stat Block B gave us Problem C. It's that Premise A results directly in Problem C. The fact that Premise A also results in a flawed stat block which contributes to Problem C is practically irrelevant: The faulty premise, and every conclusion resulting from it, needs to be re-analyzed before ANY of the problems can be solved.