GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[ExploderWizard]

You have not shown this to be true, nor have you shown that minions do not make sense without the PCs' presence from a story perspective. You are making up absolute rules based on a flimsy, likely mutable definition of what a game ought to be and nothing more. In fact, I'm starting to wonder if the rules you're making up are designed with 4e falling short of them in mind.

It had already been discussed in multiple threads. The exchange typically went something like this:

A- Minions are not scary. Even farmer Joe can drop a minion with a good whack from his shovel.

B- Yeah but they are not minions to farmer Joe.

A-


Was I dreaming all of that? Is the new ruling now that minions are minions, 1 hp is 1hp?

 

[Sir Wulf]

I'm not even disagreeing with your main point here, but did think it worth correcting that you've got the levels backwards here. If 30 levels in 4E is equivalent to 20 levels in 3.5, than a 9th level 4E party is equivalent to a 5th level 3.5 party, not the other way around.

If a 4E party at 1st level equals a 3.5 party at 3rd level...

And a 4e party at 30th level equals a 3.5 party at 15th level (since they never get some of the game-disruptive uberpowers)...

That suggests that:

1st level 4E = 3rd level 3E
5th level 4E = 5th level 3E
10th level 4E = 7th level 3E
15th level 4E = 9th level 3E
20th level 4E = 11th level 3E
25th level 4E = 13th level 3E
30th level 4E = 15th level 3E

(Some may notice an error in my math, as I go from 1st to 5th (4 levels), then increase 5 levels each time: Since I have no explanation for my arbitrary decision, I'm claiming "poster's fiat".)

 

[Sir Wulf]

I would like to thank everyone who has helped keep this discussion civil and productive. It has helped me see ways to use encounters more effectively in 4E.

At risk of digressing, how much DM fiat do you allow yourselves when an encounter doesn't seem to challenge your players? When I've run 4E, I've repeatedly faced situations where the party beat their foes with all the challenge of a hunter clubbing a baby harp seal. While I appreciate that the PCs sometimes enjoy a chance to show off just how badass they are, these encounters were kind of a drag.

As an example, the party faced a group of orc raiders and berserkers. One party member used an ability that made terrain difficult for their foes, but not for them. The party's controller repeatedly pushed the orcs away, generally leaving them just the wrong distance to charge. The poor orcs couldn't reach their foes to swing their axes. Handaxes were thrown (to little effect), but then they could do nothing but stagger around and die.

At the time, I didn't see a way for the orcs to challenge the party. (At the time, I had overlooked that charging is allowed over difficult terrain in 4E, something pointed out to me after the fight). Since the way the difficult terrain power worked wasn't detailed, I couldn't use "out of the box" strategies to overcome it and restore some challenge to the encounter. A few more handaxes or details the berserkers could seize upon to overcome the difficult terrain power (Heroic leaps past the icy ground? Striding atop the bodies littering the floor?) would have made a huge difference.

Without much fluff describing how the powers work, the orcs are limited to variations on "I attack".

 

[Imaro]

I would like to thank everyone who has helped keep this discussion civil and productive. It has helped me see ways to use encounters more effectively in 4E.

At risk of digressing, how much DM fiat do you allow yourselves when an encounter doesn't seem to challenge your players? When I've run 4E, I've repeatedly faced situations where the party beat their foes with all the challenge of a hunter clubbing a baby harp seal. While I appreciate that the PCs sometimes enjoy a chance to show off just how badass they are, these encounters were kind of a drag.

As an example, the party faced a group of orc raiders and berserkers. One party member used an ability that made terrain difficult for their foes, but not for them. The party's controller repeatedly pushed the orcs away, generally leaving them just the wrong distance to charge. The poor orcs couldn't reach their foes to swing their axes. Handaxes were thrown (to little effect), but then they could do nothing but stagger around and die.

At the time, I didn't see a way for the orcs to challenge the party. (At the time, I had overlooked that charging is allowed over difficult terrain in 4E, something pointed out to me after the fight). Since the way the difficult terrain power worked wasn't detailed, I couldn't use "out of the box" strategies to overcome it and restore some challenge to the encounter. A few more handaxes or details the berserkers could seize upon to overcome the difficult terrain power (Heroic leaps past the icy ground? Striding atop the bodies littering the floor?) would have made a huge difference.

Without much fluff describing how the powers work, the orcs are limited to variations on "I attack".

I've run into similar problems when running 4e, and I think it's moreso because ultimately I can't remember how every player's powers work and thus cater my challenges to their strengths and weaknesses. There are also those "aha gotcha" moments, especially after levelling up where a new power/ new synergy catches me off-guard and sends the encounter spiralling into EZ land.

This I think is the result of the whole idea that a DM doesn't need to know the powers (and ultimately it is a pretty heavy burden to bear in remembering all the things a party is capable of.)... only the players do. I think it's a bit of a fallacy and while I don't have a solution, I am very much interested in seeing how others have handled this as well.

 

[Dannager]

It had already been discussed in multiple threads. The exchange typically went something like this:

A- Minions are not scary. Even farmer Joe can drop a minion with a good whack from his shovel.

B- Yeah but they are not minions to farmer Joe.

A-


Was I dreaming all of that? Is the new ruling now that minions are minions, 1 hp is 1hp?

No, you're correct that minions are only minions to the PCs, but that doesn't mean the creatures they represent stop existing when the PCs aren't present. There is no imaginary requirement on RPG creatures that their mechanics accurately represent their impact on the world, rather than the PCs - these creatures are a) probably not going to need to interact with the rest of the game world in a mechanical way, and b) in the event that they do, the DM can simply adjudicate what happens on his own. We know that the idea of minions works well from a story standpoint because they are a staple of film - the marauding uruk-hai hordes who terrorize the peasantry but as a group are a solid challenge to the heroes of the ring at Helm's Deep, just to name one example.

You have concocted a requirement for RPG creatures that has no reasoning behind it; it isn't necessary that a monster's mechanics reflect its impact on the world more accurately than its impact on the party, because the monster's impact on the world is much better handled through storytelling rather than mechanical interaction. Save the mechanical interaction for when the players get involved with the monster.

 

[Primal]

I definitely understand where you are coming from, and can see how valuable more detailed guidelines would be.

But, honestly, my advice? Just dive right in. Make those changes, and see how it plays out. As long as all the core stats are on par, there is decent leeway to hand out abilities. And the big offenders on powers are typically obvious - make stuns rare. Whereas dazes less so - don't have an at-will inflicting daze (save ends), but you can put it where appropriate.

And I know that might sound like I'm providing the guidelines anyway, but I really found 4E forgiving of letting the DM just have at it without needing to fear they would break the system. The big guidelines involve action economy, and they give some advice on those in the sections on Elites and Solos. You don't want an ordinary monster to be able to take a ton of attacks on one PC - but an Elite? Giving them a double attack or minor actions or the like becomes more reasonable.

Outside of that, I would just get your hands dirty with a couple - simply guessing what you feel is appropriate for the conditions and recharges. And once you've done that, go ahead and compare them to monsters of that level - see how close it looks. If you don't see any major discrepancies, that is a good sign for being able to make future attempts without as much double-checking.

The freeform design may well not be for everyone, I admit. And I could be entirely wrong, and your PCs may pay the price and have to face some horrific aquatic dragon who breaths out swarms of acidic sharks - as a minor action! I can't say for sure. But I really would encourage just giving it a go - the system balance might not be quite as fragile as you fear.

Maybe I should start with re-skinning monsters, and swapping out one or two abilities at best? I think you're correct -- the balance is probably not as fragile as I think, and the process becomes easier and quicker with experience. Yet I still hope that Monster Vault and Dungeon Master's Kit will include some sort of codified system for people like me.

Thanks for the encouragement! I might give it a go during the summer...

 

[Dannager]

As an example, the party faced a group of orc raiders and berserkers. One party member used an ability that made terrain difficult for their foes, but not for them. The party's controller repeatedly pushed the orcs away, generally leaving them just the wrong distance to charge. The poor orcs couldn't reach their foes to swing their axes. Handaxes were thrown (to little effect), but then they could do nothing but stagger around and die.

At the time, I didn't see a way for the orcs to challenge the party. (At the time, I had overlooked that charging is allowed over difficult terrain in 4E, something pointed out to me after the fight). Since the way the difficult terrain power worked wasn't detailed, I couldn't use "out of the box" strategies to overcome it and restore some challenge to the encounter. A few more handaxes or details the berserkers could seize upon to overcome the difficult terrain power (Heroic leaps past the icy ground? Striding atop the bodies littering the floor?) would have made a huge difference.

Without much fluff describing how the powers work, the orcs are limited to variations on "I attack".

This sounds like a situation where the orcs actually had numerous options but neglected to take them because you had a less than complete understanding of the rules of the game. In the same way that PCs are often required to think of creative or unconventional ways to overcome the challenges you present them with, you will occasionally have to make use of unusual tactics in order to present a challenge to the players. So you had a less-than-challenging encounter. That's alright. Next time something like this comes up, you'll remember that you have options, I'm sure.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No, you're correct that minions are only minions to the PCs, but that doesn't mean the creatures they represent stop existing when the PCs aren't present. There is no imaginary requirement on RPG creatures that their mechanics accurately represent their impact on the world, rather than the PCs - these creatures are a) probably not going to need to interact with the rest of the game world in a mechanical way, and b) in the event that they do, the DM can simply adjudicate what happens on his own. We know that the idea of minions works well from a story standpoint because they are a staple of film - the marauding uruk-hai hordes who terrorize the peasantry but as a group are a solid challenge to the heroes of the ring at Helm's Deep, just to name one example.

You have concocted a requirement for RPG creatures that has no reasoning behind it; it isn't necessary that a monster's mechanics reflect its impact on the world more accurately than its impact on the party, because the monster's impact on the world is much better handled through storytelling rather than mechanical interaction. Save the mechanical interaction for when the players get involved with the monster.

It was never my intention to imply that anything ceased to exist when not in proximity to something else.
Impact on the world through storytelling works wonderfully in a storytelling style campaign. If the campaign is not being played in that style then the minion concept is meaningless. Thus if it is your assertion that certain interactions are best handled through the medium of the story then a story based campaign is the assumed mode of play based on rules that support this.

It is one approach, not all, to running a campaign.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I've run into similar problems when running 4e, and I think it's moreso because ultimately I can't remember how every player's powers work and thus cater my challenges to their strengths and weaknesses. There are also those "aha gotcha" moments, especially after levelling up where a new power/ new synergy catches me off-guard and sends the encounter spiralling into EZ land.

This I think is the result of the whole idea that a DM doesn't need to know the powers (and ultimately it is a pretty heavy burden to bear in remembering all the things a party is capable of.)... only the players do. I think it's a bit of a fallacy and while I don't have a solution, I am very much interested in seeing how others have handled this as well.

If things that seem like they should be a challenge end up being cakewalks then step one is to find out why. If it is a rules oversight then some study and perhaps a few encounter reminder notes will do the trick. If the rules were all remembered and implemented correctly then think about the way that die rolls went in general. Were the monsters stinking up the battlefield with low rolls while the PC's were in downtown crit central? It happens.

PC's in my campaign were facing a pack of shadows. I was tired and completely forgot that the PC's were supposed to be doing half damage to the shadows the entire fight. It was a decent fight but nearly as scary as it would have been. Other fights that I didn't think were going to be all that tough ended up being nail biters.

I don't think it's that big of a problem unless every single encounter ends up being an overly easy challenge.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Neochameleon, I'm cutting swaths of your response, because I think there's only really one or two points of discussion. Hope that doesn't mischaracterize your position at all.

No. I need information for things I want to be varied and interesting. Stats are simply one form of information. What I need in 4e for social interaction are motivations, habits, nervous tics, level of influence on the world, principles, religion. All the stuff you normally can't find in stat blocks. Rolling the dice is just a means of keeping score - and the difference between DC17 and DC20 is fundamentally not very interesting.

You can totally find those things in stat blocks.

You don't normally see them there in D&D stat blocks, yes, except maybe in the form of "alignment." However, they are things that have been in the stat blocks of many other games (Forex, I'm playing a Sufficiently Advanced game currently that has numerical stats for, amongst other things, how closely you cling to your core character values).

Now, I don't disagree with you that stats are essentially away of "keeping score," but follow me down this game design rabbit hole for a minute.

Why do stats exist? Why do we have them for anything? You certainly can play and have fun in a game without any stats or dice or anything, leaving stuff up to the DM judgement, or even without a DM (such as in one of those murder mystery party games), just based on information. I could determine how my warrior does in a combat against goblins with simple information: "He is a good swordsman."

So why does D&D have stats? Why do RPG's in general have numbers and die rolls? What use are they, if you can have fun, and keep score, without them?

Stats, as far as I've found, serve three major purposes. The first is that they are fair and impartial. If your character fails, it helps the trust and fun at the table to be able to "blame the dice," to keep the success or failure independent of DM judgement calls or player persuasiveness. Jenny's PC doesn't get an edge in trying to achieve victory just because Jenny's dating the DM, who, consciously or no, somewhat favors her plans. Derrek's PC didn't die because the DM hates him, he died because he never rolled about an 8. By removing the judgement call to a die roll, you achieve fairness.

The second, related reason (really the same reason ) is that they don't depend on player skill. This is the old "If I'm a shy person, but I'm playing an outgoing, vivacious bard, why does my personal inability to talk easily mean that I can't be an effective outgoing, vivacious character?" problem. This becomes especially key in fantasy combat. How would Derrek slay a dragon? With stats, the specifics don't matter so much -- he doesn't need to guess the right answer, or puzzle out the DM's intent. He just needs to roll. If the roll succeeds, he does whatever it is that means success (stabs it in the belly or something).

The third reason is that they are fun, in and of themselves. Stats are a big part of the reason that D&D is a dork's hobby (pretending to be an elf would be another big part of that). Dorks love stats. Dorks love information, and stats are elegantly presented information. Information that is there to be manipulated, understood, and mastered, in the same way that dorks master math or science or engineering or literature or art or social rules or whatever (cuz everyone's got some dork in them). It's fun to be a gearhead about stats, to break them down, build them up, understand them, and change them, and propogate change through them. People do this about the Yankees every year. Stats are keen. Overly complex stats and overly meaningless stats can be a major hassle, and aren't needed, but a few elegant stats absolutely add to the experience.

So, all of this applies for combat. Stats are fun (watching them go up as you level up is fun!). Stats don't depend on player skill (it doesn't matter if you know how to properly penetrate chainmail -- roll a die). Stats are fair and impartial (the DM, and other players, can't even subconsciously hose you over simply by being human and having bias).

These things also apply to basically anything that you want to resolve, including exploration, interaction, and reaction. These things don't necessarily involve the drawing of a single dagger, yet they can benefit from being impartial, from being independent of player skill, and from being more fun.

Thus, stats for things not involving combat are desirable.

That's my logic. I don't think they're necessary, but I don't think any stats are necessary. If you're going for necessity as a prerequisite, you're going to cut out broad swaths of the D&D game. I think they're positive to have. They make the experience better. They add to the game's enjoyment by those at the table.

It's ironic I'm getting this response when in a thread a couple of weeks ago (on RPG.net) I was told that if I rolled dice for social interaction I couldn't be roleplaying.

It's an old-school philosophy, and it can certainly work and be lots of fun, but I think stats make the experience better for more people. Depending on DM judgement and player skill is less fun then rolling a die, doing some math, and seeing the effects.

That's why we do it in combat -- it's more fun than just describing what you do.

It's something we can do to any resolution.