GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[MrMyth]

I stated my preferred solution in an earlier post. Get rid of the ever escalating defenses, let damage increase with level/training, and just have hit points do their job. The minion problem is only a problem due to the MMO style narrow effective level range. If a monster is too many levels below a PC it can never hit. Likewise, a monster that is too many levels above cannot be hit.

I can see that as an interesting approach to a game. On the other hand, I imagine such a fundamental shift would have more than a few other difficulties arise. Among other things, I would expect to see a system like that end up with a much more limited array of options, in order to avoid potential abuse from over-optimization. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing - a more limited system would also make for an easier one to adapt to - but it might not be for all players.

Not a thing. Without any staying power the scrawny scribe will also be able to lay them out with a punch. That feels out of place. If we alter the nature of something to be relevant in different ways to different people then we have narrative constructs, not representative attributes. If a declaration is made that orc mook #1 gets dropped by a mean stare by Hulko the fighter, but linkboy Nodwick would have to carve through 25 hp against that same mook based on some circumstance or outcome that we desire for a story then we have waved goodbye to the game portion of rpg.

Except 4E minions still have scaling defenses. The scrawny scribe doesn't have a great melee attack bonus without investing something in it. It might scale somewhat to level, but Hulko the fighter has significant bonuses from his strength, magic weapon, and random bonuses from class, feats, etc.

Thus, if they both wade into a room filled with orc minions, Hulko will cleave through them, cutting them down in all directions. The scribe will probably be cowering behind him, and occasionally get in a lucky swing and smack an orc over the head with his spellbook, dropping it.

Is that really unreasonable? What benefit would your system have over this? Instead of swinging 4 times and getting in one lucky blow to drop a mook, a wizard caught in melee would swing 4 times for trivial damage until the enemy finally drops? Or would the wizard's attack bonus still be poor, and thus he would need to swing 16 times in order to accumulate enough trivial damage to fell a simple enemy mook?

Or was your reference to a scribe not referring to a wizard PC for some reason forced to use fists instead of magic, but to a purely mundance scribe NPC caught in battle with orc minions. In which case... again, he probably will only drop a minion with the occasional hit, which I have no issues with - a companion of the PCs, in over his head, who occasionally lands a lucky blow seems entirely reasonable. Or are you proposing some hypothetical off-screen fight between a bunch of scrawny scribes and random orc raiders?

In which case... really, that's not a scene you need to be rolling out to begin with.

Absolutely correct. In a fantasy story, the author has happen whatever is needed to advance said story to it's desired conclusion. Does the author roll dice to see if his/her hero makes it through alive? Of course not because there is no game being played. The story is what it is. No serious blow could be landed without the will of the author allowing it.

Look, I'll be the first to admit that drawing comparisons between a game and a story can oft be a futile approach. But you are specifically complaining about minions not making sense in the context of the game world. Whether it is random or decided by an author, it makes perfect sense for a hero to still perceive basic enemy grunts as possible threats, and it makes perfect sense that he can dispatch them with ease when he needs a more serious duel to take down their leader.

I'm really not sure what your response has to do with the argument at hand. You laid the claim that the problem with minions is that they don't feel real within the game world. Whether dice are being rolled or not, they work just as well in the game as in classic fantasy stories, as in movies like Lord of the Rings - most enemies the main characters fight are felled with ease, with only the truly dangerous threats requiring more significant opposition. The fighter can carve through orc mooks in order to do battle with the orc chieftain. Whether in the context of a story or a game, it seems entirely consistent to me!

 

[ExploderWizard]

Except 4E minions still have scaling defenses. The scrawny scribe doesn't have a great melee attack bonus without investing something in it. It might scale somewhat to level, but Hulko the fighter has significant bonuses from his strength, magic weapon, and random bonuses from class, feats, etc.

Thus, if they both wade into a room filled with orc minions, Hulko will cleave through them, cutting them down in all directions. The scribe will probably be cowering behind him, and occasionally get in a lucky swing and smack an orc over the head with his spellbook, dropping it.

Is that really unreasonable?

Nope. Not at all. In fact that works as a satisfactory answer for me.
As long as 1hp remains 1hp to the world at large, I'm fine with it.

 

[billd91]

<snip>

THACO of kobolds, orc and bugbears 20, 19 and 17 respectively.

I certainly don't call being "effective" when you need to throw 20 kobolds just to get the possible of one hit.

Indeed...if you look through the Monstrous Manual, most monsters (60%) don't have a THACO better than in the teens...

Given that I didnt include magic armour, rings and/or dexterity bonuses, the idea that this is either a 3e or 4e problem I don't agree with.

I would definitely call it much more of a 3e/4e problem than any other edition. For one thing, AC was virtually impossible to get lower than -10 (equivalent to 3e's 30). And it was much harder to get to that point in the first place because there simply weren't that many powers or special gear that could work together to achieve it. That meant that, with modest bonuses, there were fewer cases reduced to just rolling a 20 to hit.

There was also the issue of facing. While flanking takes part of the place of facing rules, it doesn't completely confer the same advantages a low-power attacker might have received in 1e/2e (loss of shield, +2 attacking from behind, loss of Dex bonus). The fighter with a +1 shield, +1 plate mail, 15 Dex, and +2 ring of protection (which won't help his AC because he already has magic armor boosting it), goes from AC -1 to, effectively, AC 4 to the orc attacking him from behind.

Whether this is a worse problem in 3e or 4e depends substantially on how many splatbooks the 3e game is using and how the player is able to stack up his defenses. I'm inclined to say that 3e shows the problem less in some respects because 3e touch defenses tend to be substantially worse than AC defenses for most characters, leaving characters reasonably vulnerable to low-level opponents tripping them up and grappling.

 

[Sir Wulf]

Pg. 99, Full plate armour + shield = AC 0. While not achievable at 1st level due to monetary concerns, it most assuredly was by at least 5th level.

Edit: Some of this is redundant with the earlier post. (Sigh...)

Even in 1st edition, AC 0 was not uncommon for a fighter by 4th level. To be fair, let's assume a fighter with a +1 shield and +1 Dex bonus while we're at it, for AC -2. Kobolds surround him, but only eight can attack him each round. The first three need a 20 to hit, but his shield only blocks three attacks/round. The next two need a 19 to hit. The last three only need a 16 to hit because they are "behind" him, gaining +2 and depriving him of his Dex bonus. In 1st edition AD&D, the fighter would realistically kill three kobolds each round. He'd slaughter them, but not without a few wounds: Assuming he faced 12 kobolds, the lone fighter would still only suffer about 9 points of damage from his total of about 31 hp. Then the few surviving kobolds would flee.

In the meantime, the rest of the tribe (20 more kobolds) would cut his allies into minestrone. The AC 5 Magic User and AC 3 Thief would be cut to ribbons, leaving only the fighter and AC 1 cleric standing. Once the kobold horde engulfed the party, the magic user would be lucky to get a spell off.

That example assumed two advantages for the kobolds: terrain where they could swamp their foes and nearby hiding places so they could close in before missile weapons and spells decimated them. Fortunately for kobolds, they avoid that sort of fight anyway. They'd attack after the party's first rank fell into a pit, then sick their pet giant weasel on the fighter, since they can barely hit the guy.

Allowing grappling makes things even worse for the party...

 

[pemerton]

Mechanics aside for a moment, it isn't the feat of rolling a particular set of numbers on some die rolls that is satisfying. The satisfaction is in knowing that when an opponent drops (or doesn't) that it is a creature that feels like it belongs with the rest of the world.

<snip>

If a horde of nasty looking demons is approaching and they get taken out with a flyswatter the context of being charged by scary demons just isn't there.

I like this, although I don't share the play preferences it expresses, because it makes very clear what those preferences are about.

You're linking satisfaction, here, to facets of ingame reality and their mechanical expression - a creature feeling like it belongs with the rest of the world in virtue of its stat block and the action resolution mechanics that govern it, and a creature being scary for the same reasons, namely, being a mechanical threat to the PCs in virtue of its stat block alone, and the action resolution mechanics that statblock invokes.

In my own play experience, these are not very important contributors to feelings of satisfaction. My players' concerns and emotional responses are tyically to what is going on either in the storyline of the game or (during combat) to what is going on tactically in the game. Their responses do not correlate in any very strong way to the mechanical modelling of the ingame elements. It is the ingame situation that matters.

Two pick up on your two examples:

In my own approach to play, a monster feels like it belongs in the gameworld because, for example, it's a hobgoblin working with other hobgoblins to do wicked things. It's location within the gameworld is established before the combat statblock comes into play - once its minion-ness matters (ie once combat starts), the monster already has a place in the gameworld. The auto-oneshotting that comes with minion-ness contributes to the tactical situation, and (if my group stops to think about it, which frequently they don't) tells us that that was one unlucky hobgoblin, but it doesn't undermine its place in the gameworld. In particular, the players don't lose their suspension of disbelief because they learn that this particular hobgobling has been mechanically implemented as a minion.

Similarly, scariness is in part a function of player expectations, and in part a function of how events unfold. Again, it is about situation, not about the mechanical properties of particular game elements abstracted from that situation. Thus, if 6 demons surround a PC, that is scary whether or not they're minions. (I usually play that the players don't know if a monster is a minion until at least one is hit - at that point they can generally guess the rest because of the sameness of token, and often they can guess in advance that some minions are around by metagaming an assumption of balanced encounters. But even if the players know that the 6 monsters are minions it can still be scary to be surrounded by them.)

If the minions are then dropped by an enemy-only burst hitting them all for at least 1 point, the fear will pass and feelings of relief and/or awesomeness may replace it, but that is fine. The fear was still there, even if it has now passed. I find that the game has plenty of ways of generating sustained anxiety in the players if I want to do this (eg elites and solos), and that the presence of minions in encounters doesn't undermine this. Indeed, sometimes it can enhance it - as the minions gradually drop, and then some of the lower level ordinary monsters, leaving only the elite leader left, apparently unfazed by the best the party has had to offer, the tension and anxiety can be enhanced rather than undermined. Again, it is about situation, not individual game elements. I find that the variety of game elements that 4e offers - minions, elites and solos as well as ordinary monsters - helps rather than hinders the process of building up a compelling ingame situation.

 

[pemerton]

Get rid of the ever escalating defenses, let damage increase with level/training, and just have hit points do their job. The minion problem is only a problem due to the MMO style narrow effective level range. If a monster is too many levels below a PC it can never hit. Likewise, a monster that is too many levels above cannot be hit.

4e has the increase in damage (although perhaps not at the rate needed to implement your preferred solution), with the growth in power damage output and the growth in the ratio of encounter and daily powers to total powers avaible.

Personally, I think the function of the "MMO style" level increases is not to model anything in the gameworld, but to establish a basic storyline for the game - you start with kobolds and work up to Orcus. Getting rid of level-based defences and attacks would significantly reduce this aspect of the game. It's an aspect I like, but of course others may not.

Without any staying power the scrawny scribe will also be able to lay them out with a punch.

<snip>

If a declaration is made that orc mook #1 gets dropped by a mean stare by Hulko the fighter, but linkboy Nodwick would have to carve through 25 hp against that same mook based on some circumstance or outcome that we desire for a story then we have waved goodbye to the game portion of rpg.

I don't want to retread all the ground of your exchange with MrMyth, but like him I'm not sure what you've got in mind here. If the "scrawny scribe" is the PC wizard then s/he gets to attack and try and drop the minion like any other PC. In my session last weekend exactly this sort of thing happened - hobgoblins (a mixture of soldiers and grunts) were running away with kidnapped children and the wizard charged them, attacking with his spellbook (as an improvised weapon for d4). The fact that his STR is low and there is no proficiency bonus meant that he wasn't too effective as a melee combatant (of course things changed once he started the round in melee and was able to use Colour Spray).

If the "scrawny scribe" is an NPC then either they're a companion character, in which case the PC rules apply, or they're under the GM's control, in which case (at least in my game) they are not going to be part of the combat except as part of overall colour for the scene - and if a player chooses to "activate" that bit of colour via the rules on page 42 of the DMG, I have their to-hit and damage chances already set out for me. But if the PCs are not involved, then the notion of enemy hit points, or "minimum 1 damage on a hit", just aren't relevant to working out what is going on in the gameworld.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Personally, I think the function of the "MMO style" level increases is not to model anything in the gameworld, but to establish a basic storyline for the game - you start with kobolds and work up to Orcus. Getting rid of level-based defences and attacks would significantly reduce this aspect of the game. It's an aspect I like, but of course others may not.

I think the scaling introduces an artificial feeling of scaling. I prefer that the inhabitants of a gaming fantasy world not have their interactions dictated by some sort of forced story line. I like the idea of a mob of peasant militia taking down a marauding giant even though the cost would be horrendous. Of course a small band of heroes could down that giant in less than a minute and it might take the peasants hours and cost over a hundred lives. This still allows the PC's to be amply heroic without the need for such a dividing line of absolutes. It also means that enough low level opposition can still be deadly to the party which is also not undesirable.

 

[Hussar]

Mechanics aside for a moment, it isn't the feat of rolling a particular set of numbers on some die rolls that is satisfying. The satisfaction is in knowing that when an opponent drops (or doesn't) that it is a creature that feels like it belongs with the rest of the world.

To you.

The feeling of awesome is diminished when the circumstances are set up specifically to provide an outcome that is intended to give off a feeling of awesome.

For you.

The context is excactly what I am talking about. If a horde of nasty looking demons is approaching and they get taken out with a flyswatter the context of being charged by scary demons just isn't there.

Again, for you.

Now, if your claim is that "I don't like minion mechanics because they don't serve my playstyle, I'm 100% with you. However, you've phrased this as statements of fact. That this will be true of everyone. Instead of "The feeling of awesome is diminished", why not say, "My feelings of awesome are diminished"?

Because, as I said earlier, there are a whole host of games that either don't use hit points at all, or, like say, Savage Worlds, all creatures other than PC's and named NPC's, have exactly ONE hit point. If what you were saying was true, then all those fans of Savage Worlds are mistaken about how they feel about the game.

The idea that hit points are the only model of reality in a game is ludicrous.

But why would I want to model a 19th century queen in a class-based fantasy RPG? More modern societies don't model well with class-based games as ones centuries earlier.

Fair enough. Queen Elizabeth then. Take your pick.

And why would I think the character needed to be 15th level to have the skills required for her position? A lot of people seem to think that people at the pinnacle of society by birth need to have skills higher than anyone else in order to lead them. But that's not the case.

Because, if she doesn't have those skills then the setting fails to be believable. Either someone with greater skills comes along and dominates her through bluff and diplomacy, or the PC's do.

If I were to use D&D to stat up the old bird, I certainly wouldn't be going as high as 15th level when 8th-10th level would do (and by the time she hit such lofty levels, age-based stat-reduction would be significantly reducing her combat ability). And I'd consider plunking a few feats into Skill Focus if I felt I needed to get some of her skills up.

Snort. Does it really matter? 10th level aristocrat, even with stat penalties (which you now have to account for, this is a thread about GM prep time) still folds, spindles and mauls 99% of the population of the nation, which consists of 1st level commoners. Quibbling over the level is a bit pointless don't you think? Even 8th level, she's obliterating the local blacksmith (lvl 1 commoner) in unarmed combat.

Go granny go.

So, in a thread about GM prep time, which is easier? Taking about an hour to properly stat up an 8th level aristocrat, or the thirty seconds to actually give our NPC the stats she will actually use, and if the PC's actually attack her, she does the totally realistic thing, and dies?

Which is precisely how she'd be statted up in AD&D, BECMI, and 2e. It's only 3e that requires me to take that much time to do it properly.

 

[billd91]

Because, if she doesn't have those skills then the setting fails to be believable. Either someone with greater skills comes along and dominates her through bluff and diplomacy, or the PC's do.

Feh. What did you think governments by guys like Gladstone, Disraeli, and Lord Salisbury were for? That's where the real expertise was.
Thinking Victoria was some kind of super-skilled monarch wouldn't exactly make the setting particularly believable.

Wouldn't work all that well with QE1 either. Frankly, the aristocrat as presented as an NPC class fits lords and monarchs like Richard III better - people who actually learned something about fighting, had fencing instructors, actually participated in tournaments or led men into battle, than QE1 or Victoria. It's one of the mild drawbacks of a class-based system, the archetype a class is based on tends to limit it's applicability to atypical real-world cases.

 

[FireLance]

Feh. What did you think governments by guys like Gladstone, Disraeli, and Lord Salisbury were for? That's where the real expertise was.

That's just shifting the problem one level down. The 3e NPC building Rules As Written pretty much require high skill ranks and high attack bonuses to go hand in hand. Admittedly, you can get a lot of mileage out of a high ability score, Skill Focus and synergy bonuses, but even that will only get you so far. Beyond a certain point, you have to add more levels (and more hit points, base attack bonuses, saving throw bonuses, etc.) in order to raise an NPC's skill level. Because high skill ranks tend to go hand in hand with high combat skill in 3e, you need to push the limits of the rules to get a highly skilled NPC who is poor in combat.

In the interest of fairness, I should note that 4e has the same problem for the PCs because skill checks gain a bonus equal to half the character's level. If skilled diplomat NPCs in 3e are required by the rules to be decent fighters*, skilled fighter PCs in 4e are required by the rules to be decent diplomats. 4e NPCs, on the other hand, can be either, both, or neither, as the DM requires.

* EDIT: Insert snarky comment about 3e diplomat NPCs being able to trip, sunder, disarm and overrun, which 4e fighters cannot do without selecting special powers.