GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Fifth Element]

I think the signature is more meant to point out that the truly memorable stories are those in which the odds are stacked against you and you still win. And to be honest, he is right, that's what makes a great story.

It's a poor example though, because the odds were stacked decidedly in Perseus' favour. He had deities on his side, giving him powerful magic items. Medusa didn't stand a chance.

 

[pemerton]

I think the signature is more meant to point out that the truly memorable stories are those in which the odds are stacked against you and you still win.

The great stories are never about balanced encounters because in stories, million to one chances come up nine times out of ten.

And the reason why that happens is because most stories aren't about the 999,999 other guys.

While I do recognize that it's a matter of taste, in a game, I don't really want to play through a scenario 999,999 times to get that one moment of awesome.

I'm with FireLance. I don't play RPGs in order to myself be the person who is the lucky or heroic one-in-a-million. I play RPGs in order for the PCs to be those lucky and heroic people. And that requires either GM fudging (which I'm not a big fan of), lots and lots of reboots (ie the AD&D approach, with multiple PCs and quick PC generation, which I'm also not a big fan of) or a game system that delivers the heroics through the mechanics.

In my experience, 4e does a good job of being the latter sort of game system. In particular, at least in my experience, it delivers encounters which tend to begin with the PCs being threatened with total defeat, but which then allow the PCs (as their depth of resources comes into play) to turn the tide and win by a hair's breadth. These are (in my view, at least) exciting stories which the system is reliably delivering.

 

[Fifth Element]

Here's a better proposition, since I have the 4e rulebooks. Tell me where the rules for customizing these monsters in the way you claim are? Not Danager's houserules or DM fiat, but real rules that would allow a module writer or myself to custiomize monsters in 4e to our liking. If we are talking about DM fiat well that's a moot point and a cop out.

They're in the DMG, I think. And DMG2.

 

[FireLance]

No, that wasn't the argument put forth earlier by FireLance, he made a general statement about options with melee monsters and NPC's in 4e vs. 3.x.

Okay, I'm going to cite some concrete examples, here. If you wish to pursue this line of argument, please feel free to cite your own. Let's look at some monsters starting with the letter "B":

Barghest (3e): Bite (Atk); Bite and claws (Full Atk); Various spell-like abilities (blink, levitate, misdirection, rage, charm monster, crushing despair, dimension door)

Barghest Savager (4e): Bite; Battleaxe; Jump Strike; Power Feed; Change Shape​

Here is one example of how a spellcaster-type monster got its power list trimmed down.

Basilisk (3e): Bite (Atk); Petrifying gaze (SA)

Stone-Eye Basilisk (4e): Bite; Petrifying Gaze​

Here, there is virtually no difference in terms of combat options. The same goes for the other 4e basilisk, the Venom-Eye Basilisk.

Behir (3e): Bite (Atk); Breath weapon (SA); Constrict (SA); Improved Grab (SA); Rake (SA); Swallow Whole (SA)

Behir (4e): Claw; Bite; Devour; Lightning Breath; Thundering Stomp​

Again, the two have an approximately similar number of options, especially when you take into account the fact that in 3e, Improved Grab triggers automatically on a successful Bite and be considered a subset of that ability.

Bodak (3e): Slam (Atk); Death gaze (SA)

Bodak Reaver (4e): Greataxe; Death Gaze​

Once again, there is very little difference in terms of combat options. The other 4e bodak, the bodak skulk, is a lurker and has an additional option to turn invisible and gain the insubstantial and phasing qualities.

Bralani (3e): +1 holy scimitar or +1 holy composite longbow (Atk); Whirlwind blast (SA); Various spell-like abilities (blur, charm person, gust of wind, mirror image, wind wall, lightning bolt, cure serious wounds)

Bralani of Autumn Winds (4e): Longsword; Autumn Chill; Whirlwind Blast; Fey Step​

Here is another example of a primarily spellcasting creature that got its combat options reduced.

Bugbear (3e): Morningstar or javelin (Atk)

Bugbear Warrior (4e): Morningstar; Skullthumper; Predatory Eye​

Here is one example of a primarily melee monster that had its number of combat options increased. The other 4e bugbear in the MM, the bugbear strangler, gets Morningstar, Predatory Eye and two other, related combat options (Strangle and Body Shield).

Bulette (3e): Bite (Atk); Bite and claws (Full Atk); Leap (SA)

Bulette (4e): Bite; Rising Burst; Earth Furrow; Second Wind​

Here's another primarily melee monster that was given more combat options in 4e.

So, to recap, for the SRD monsters starting with the letter "B":

Increased combat options: Bugbear, Bulette - primarily melee monsters, IMO

Decreased combat options: Barghest, Bralani - primarily spellcasting monsters, IMO

About the same number of combat options: Basilisk, Behir, Bodak - monsters with signature magical abilities.

Not (yet?) converted: Belker, Blink Dog​

And before you asked, I picked "B" because it was the first file I opened (the "A" monsters were in a file entitled "MonstersIntro-A") and the list of monsters was fairly short. I do have a life outside of ENWorld, you know.

 

[innerdude]

I disagree with this quite strongly. In effect, you are asserting that any way of RPGing D&D (perhaps, even, of RPGing in general) that adopts a "No Myth" approach, or some other sort of non-simulationist approach to the game, is a mistake.

Could you clarify what you mean by a "No Myth" approach? I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this, since I don't understand the semantics/context of your use of the "No Myth" term.

 

[Lanefan]

Man it's become tough slogging in here, trying to plow through all the 3e and 4e examples while trying to approach all this from a 1e or non-e perspective.

And I am.

A good encounter, a good adventure, is edition-neutral; in that once the mechanical conversions are done it's still good. Forge of Fury, for example: grand adventure in any edition you care to convert it to (though annoyingly laid out; and that sort of thing is also what I hope we're trying to fix here). So let's ignore all the edition-specific stuff and just figure out how to write good encounters.

And though I think I've already said this I guess I'd better say it again: there is - or certainly should be - more to a monster's write-up than just the statblock. In any edition. So why all the concern about whether some non-combat or quasi-combat thing is or isn't specifically in the statblock? As long as it's in the write-up somewhere, preferably on the same page, then so what?

The problem only arises when those non- or quasi-combat things are not mentioned in the encounter write-up at all, when the base assumption of the writer is that This Will Be A Combat Encounter* and no other options are taken into consideration. Hence my "four-times writing" suggestion.

* - note the same problem arises when the writer assumes This Will Be A Stealth Encounter, or a Negotiation Encounter, or in fact makes assumptions of any kind as to how the players/PCs will handle it. And also note this problem is not restricted to 4e; I just got done reading what might be the worst-written module I've ever seen both for these reasons and others, and it was for 1e.

Lan-"Red Sonja Unconquered for the loss"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Because the presentation of the adventure is edition specific. It is not enough to say, "design an adventure that has these specific qualities". Any of us GMs can probably do it for ourselves, for either edition, and run it at our table. But a hefty portion of it would never make it into notes - it'd remain in our heads.

The play of the adventure is edition (or system) specific, but the adventure as written doesn't have to be.

For publication, at the end there needs to be a real, usable document that contains all of it. The real challenge doesn't lie in the adventure design, but in the expression of that design in each edition.

Change the last three words to "such that any edition can make good use of it" and I would wholeheartedly agree.

Now, add onto that a bit of game design (not adventure design) philosophy: 4e does not seem to be designed for the DM to have "stats for everything" (for an NPC or otherwise). The intent seems to be that like in much earlier editions, the DM is supposed to handle a lot of stuff with less explicit mechanical support, and be "old school" about it, if you will.

But you seem to want mechanical support expressed for that same stuff. See the conflict?

I don't want mechanical support for anything that doesn't need it, but I *do* want fluff support. Unless the module writer is doing nothing but crunch numbers, every monster with any brains at all is going to have some sort of personality in the writer's mind; some sort of motivation. I want to see at least a hint of that on the page, even if only as a jumping-off point for me to start making stuff up; so I can portray those monsters at least vaguely like the writer had in mind.

This is why I'm looking at more than just the statblock to tell me what makes a monster tick. Expand that one step further, and I'm looking for more than just combat tactics in an encounter write-up.

Let me try one here:

"You enter a 30x30' room with stone walls, a straw-covered floor, and dingy smoke-stained ceiling. In one corner there is a low-burning fire with some sort of small beast roasting on a spit above it; the smoke exits through what looks like a crack in the ceiling. Against the other wall stands an open barrel. There are no obvious exits from the room. (If the PCs have approached quietly) Two Orcs are tending the fire and meal, while 6 more lounge on rickety chairs around a large table. (If the PCs have alerted the Orcs) Two Orcs with weapons drawn are guarding the fire. Several others are crouched behind an upturned table, crossbows at the ready and pointed your way."

Orcs(8): {statblock statblock statblock}

Treasure: each Orc carries 1d6 s.p. and one is wearing a silver bracelet worth 45 g.p. Their weapons and gear are in poor condition and close to worthless. The Orcs' hoard is in a secret cavity in the floor beneath the fire, to find this requires removal of the fire and ash followed by a successful search for secret doors. Within is {list the contents}.

General tactics: in any situation, the Orcs will let the PCs make the first move. If the PCs attempt to open dialogue in either Orcish or Common, the Orcs will gruffly respond but will not approach nor will they allow the PCs past the door. These Orcs are starving and can easily be bribed with food (the small beast on the fire would make a decent meal for two of them at most); a promise of regular meals might even convince the Orcs to help the PCs, or at least allow them to use their room as a hideout

Combat tactics: if threatened or if any PC is seen to be casting a spell, the Orcs behind the table (flipping it first if needed) will fire their missiles. Four will then move to block the PCs from getting past the table (two to left, two to right), while two will keep shooting at obvious spellcasters. The two by the fire will engage only if attacked or if two other Orcs go down.

Other notes: if an invisible or very stealthy PC manages to sneak so far as to disturb either the fire or the beast on it, the Orcs' wrath will know no bounds and they will attack anything they see for the next hour or so until they calm down...or somehow get fed. If any unconscious or dead PCs should end up being left behind they will be efficiently butchered, cooked and eaten by some now-much-happier Orcs.

DM notes: the barrel contains about 10 gallons of warm brackish water. The crack in the ceiling is only about 6 inches wide; it leads to the surface via some sharp turns and can only be climbed (or flown through) by someone either in gaseous form or who has been somehow shrunk to less than 1' tall.

Now I'm not a professional writer, and I dreamed that lot up off the top of my head pretty much while I was typing it; but how's that for covering the four-times bases? In this forum format, it looks like a mighty long write-up, but in module form that's what - half of a half-wide column? And there's certainly room to edit for brevity...

Lan-"feed the Orcs, tuppence a bag"-efan

 

[pemerton]

Could you clarify what you mean by a "No Myth" approach? I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this, since I don't understand the semantics/context of your use of the "No Myth" term.

Innerdude, your edit took effect between me reading your post and clicking the "quote" button - your original version said I may have misunderstood you, and if I have than I apologise because my response was fairly strong!

As to "No Myth" - it's a phrase that I picked up on a thread around here somewhere that linked it back to a webpage that in turn has links back to the Forge. The idea of No Myth play is that the GM creates the gameworld in response to the actions of the players, only when and as that gameworld is needed. Pretty obviously (I think) it's not a game style that supports classic exploration play (which is certainly a common way of playing AD&D, and maybe 3E as well). It's focus is more on situation (ie the GM putting the PCs into conflicts that will be fun for the players to play out) and perhaps exploring characters.

I don't GM full-fledged No Myth - I have a rough idea of a setting, encounter maps (which I find are crucial for 4e) and use gods and other mythological elements from the 4e rulebooks - but do GM in this way to an extent, given that I will make up a lot of game elements to respond to what the players are having their PCs do, and in order to create interesting situations. In the past I have used this approach a lot more.

But even in my slightly more "Some Myth" approach to 4e, I still don't find the ingame reality all that important as a support for play, other than (i) those things which have already been revealed to the players in the course of play, which provide the context for their actions, and (ii) those things which are central to the current direction of play, and so are in the process of becoming game elements in category (i).

Thus, for example, I know roughly what the plans are of the magic-user the PCs saw flying off from his fortress on a flying carpet. This is something the players are in the process of wondering about, and the decision whether or not to follow him has implications for how some encounters are likely to play out in the near future. On the other hand, I haven't worried at all about the name of the ruler of the duchy the players are in, or whether that person is honest or a tyrant or possessed by a demon or whatever, because this is a game element that at present has no relevance to the matters that the players are interested in the game. In due course, if their interests change, then I'll have to make some decisions.

I guess I'd sum this up as "Backstory, yes" but "Worldbuilding, no". If that makes sense.

 

[LostSoul]

Here's a better proposition, since I have the 4e rulebooks. Tell me where the rules for customizing these monsters in the way you claim are?

Okay.

DMG1, Templates: pages 175 through 182.
DMG1, Class Templates: pages 182 through 183.
DMG1, Creating Monsters: pages 184 through 185.
DMG1, Creating NPCs: pages 186 through 188.
DMG2, Customizing Monsters: pages 102 through 133.

Oh yeah, and for balanced encounters != great story... no. Not at all.

All great stories are balanced. If the protagonist has easy choices to make, it's not a great story. If the protagonist has to make difficult choices - that is, balance one choice against the other, then it has a chance to be a great story.

 

[Imaro]

Okay, I'm going to cite some concrete examples, here. If you wish to pursue this line of argument, please feel free to cite your own. Let's look at some monsters starting with the letter "B":
...

Bugbear (3e): Morningstar or javelin (Atk)

Bugbear Warrior (4e): Morningstar; Skullthumper; Predatory Eye
​

Here is one example of a primarily melee monster that had its number of combat options increased. The other 4e bugbear in the MM, the bugbear strangler, gets Morningstar, Predatory Eye and two other, related combat options (Strangle and Body Shield).

Bulette (3e): Bite (Atk); Bite and claws (Full Atk); Leap (SA)

Bulette (4e): Bite; Rising Burst; Earth Furrow; Second Wind
​

Here's another primarily melee monster that was given more combat options in 4e.

So, to recap, for the SRD monsters starting with the letter "B":

Increased combat options: Bugbear, Bulette - primarily melee monsters, IMO
...
​

And before you asked, I picked "B" because it was the first file I opened (the "A" monsters were in a file entitled "MonstersIntro-A") and the list of monsters was fairly short. I do have a life outside of ENWorld, you know.

I am going to concern myself with these two examples since this is where the crux of your more options for melee monsters/NPC's lie... and actually I will have to comment on the Bulette later, but I will quickly comment on the Bugbear...

Our 4e Bugbear is a level 5 monster (I'm not certain how it compares to the CR 2 3.x Bugbear), who has a simple melee attk w/ a morningstar (easily covered by the 3.x Bugbear), it has Skullthumper... which is an attk that requires combat advantage and a morningstar... it does the regular damage for a morningstar but allows the bugbear to knock an opponent prone and daze him. Finally Predatory Strike allows the Bugbear to deal extra damage 1x per encounter. He can also, per 4e rules,... charge, bull rush and grab.

Our 3.x Bugbear already has a morningstar basic attack... now for one of his racial feats lets give him power attk... he can now deal extra damage anytime he wants by taking a reduced chance to hit. He also has a ranged attack with the javelins... so we're already at three different options by just switching a feat out... a regular attk, power attk and ranged attk. On top of this he can implicitly grapple, trip, feint, sunder, bull rush, charge, disarm, overrun etc. I'm not understanding how your 4e Bugbear has more options in combat by the rules?