GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[I'm A Banana]

KM - the problem with trying to model Queen Victoria as a 1st level aristocrat is that the rules get in the way in all sorts of ways. Any significantly higher level character will never fail in a skill contest with her. Ever. She will be totally dominated by those around here. No matter what.

Well, I think your first mistake is in thinking that "Any significantly higher level character will never fail in a skill contest with her. Ever."

Even if it were true, mechanically, it needn't be true, functionally. It doesn't matter if a higher level character would fail in a skill contest with her, just if a PC comes into direct conflict with her in a skill contest, and, in that case, you can give her whatever you think is appropriate (Rule 0). Give her a a +10 "I'm the Bleedin' Queen" circumstance bonus, if you need to justify it. It's still pure DM fiat, but that's what the circumstance bonus is for, and unless you're a pretty hardcore sim player all you need it to do is make basic sense to have fun. Having a massive bonus to a specific skill contest in her home kingdom, or in places her home kingdom is respected, makes sense, and as long as the player feels like it represents some reality (e.g.: you're not just making it high to hose them), fun is had by all.

But that's also not true, mechanically. If you are a hardcore sim player, you can giver her skill bonuses that are very significant, even at level 1. It requires a bit of "CharOping", but if you're a hardcore sim player, you're doing that for your big NPC's anyway. Even if she has mere mortal level Charisma and Intelligence (max 11 for most NPCs), skill focus and synergies can drive up her wheeling and dealing to levels that most higher level characters don't bother with. That's something of the simulationist strength of the 3e skill point modeling: you don't increase in skill unless you put points into the skill, so a 20th level character who never felt the need to invest in Diplomacy or Charisma can still have a lower Diplomacy than a 1st level Queen Victoria.

A level 1 Diplomacy from a Charisma 11 1st level generic NPC can be as high as +7. Which means that, while Taking 10, she can convince anything that wants to insult her, and make them neutral. She can stop someone who wants to attack her from doing so by rolling a 14 (so a 30% chance of asking the blacksmith to please stop).

That's not insignificant by any means.

And all of this assumes she is a generic "1st level Queen" right out of the box, not special in any way, and that you want to go crazy with the sim approach (which is not, as I have hopefully shown, required).

I think your next mistake is in believing that "She will be totally dominated by those around here. No matter what."

Even if she didn't have those massive bonuses she could have above, she'd only need to have relatively high skill bonuses -- higher than most of those around her -- to be seen as a great monarch. Since most people implied by this world have a Diplomacy bonus of exactly 0, having even the +7 that she can have at level 1 is already huge. Because most NPC's are 1st level mooks, without much skill trianing, you don't need to have a high-level character to be significantly skillful in comparison to most NPC's.

Now, a 1st-level Queen Victoria wouldn't hold her own against even a low-level PC empath psion (for instance), but that empath psion is not a normal member of society. That character is a character of legend, and so they should essentially trump a generic 1st-level queen out of the box. Yes, a 1st-level Queen Victoria should basically succumb to the first incubus that comes along -- she's friggin' first level, she's not heroic, she's not a big fat deal in the heroic setting of D&D. She's someone the PC's will maybe save, or someone the PC's will maybe have a low-level skill contest with. She's not a heroic figure, because she's level 1.

This does not model Queen Victoria to me at all. I want someone who is savvy enough to be able to run the most powerful nation on the planet without being able to kick every commoner's ass.

You can have that in 3e. She doesn't need to be 10th level. The easiest way is by DM fiat, the second easiest is by a circumstance bonus (a mechanical DM fiat), and if you want to be sim about it, a Diplomacy bonus of +7 will achieve that. Heck, a Diplomacy of +4 or +3 will probably achieve that. A Diplomacy of +0 could achieve that by luck.

That said, I think there's some genre clash going on here. "The most powerful nation on the planet" here in the real world is nothing like "the most powerful nation on the planet" in the heroic fantasy world of D&D.

No Queen Victoria here has to worry about psionicists, mind flayers, assassins (the prestige class), sorcerers, bards, umber hulks, incubi, enchanters, or Asmodeus. Any ruler of "the most powerful nation on the planet" in the implied D&D world would certainly be putting up with these things, and more. Thus, the ruler of "the most powerful nation on the planet" has probably had to get her hands dirty more than once on her bloody rise to power, and would be able to bop the local blacksmith down, no problem. Because the ruler of "the most powerful nation on the planet" would be a heroic figure. They would be Queen Maeve. They would've had to slay goblins and kill kobolds, wrestle with demons, out-think angels, and use a brilliant tongue on the giants who wanted to eat her.

Now, you can still have an exceptional monarch who hasn't had to deal with any of these things who still rules the most powerful nation on the planet, even if that does stretch credibility a bit, simply because you don't need to be high level to wield non-combat power.

However, if you're making someone the ruler of the most powerful nation on the planet in D&D, and in a world rife with monsters and danger, that person has never had to lift a sword to defend herself, you're starting to strain credibility. It's hard to have your cake here and eat it too. Either they are a powerful ruler of a powerful nation in a fantasy world of dragons and doppelgangers, or they are a powerful ruler of a powerful nation in the real world of jerks and arrogance. If the former, it makes sense that they are also powerful in combat. If the latter, you don't need to use D&D to make their stats (though you can still make a damn good 1st level ruler with simple DM fiat OR sim-heavy mechanics, if you wanted).

The problem is, if I want a skilled NPC, I HAVE to have a leveled NPC and those levels come with all sorts of abilities that do not fit with the concept. Never mind the time it takes to stat up that NPC as well.

I hope I've demonstrated that you don't have to do any of that in 3e (though you can stat them up if you are a gearhead for stats, you certainly don't have to).

In fact, nothing whatsoever stops you from just going Rule 0 on it and saying "this lady has a high Diplomacy score 'cuz I think it makes sense."

Which is essentially the same as the only 4e NPC model out there.

3e has a lot of granularity between that and being a statmonkey, but that's always an available option.

 

[Garthanos]

I have http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...non-combatant-princess-how-abuse-warlord.html
I dont think I would enjoy playing her as a demure yet commanding and perceptive elderly queen --- just not as much fun as clutzy comedy relief or cool as a Galadriel flavored ritualist witch (who is technically still a demure and command perceptive elderly woman with a different base race and a different feat or two on the tree ;p).

 

[Garthanos]

KM ... it sounds like your rule zero.... is the same as admit when the rules suck at doing something they weren't meant to do but pretend they don't because you can always ignore them when they do.

 

[I'm A Banana]

KM ... it sounds like your rule zero.... is the same as admit when the rules suck at doing something they weren't meant to do but pretend they don't because you can always ignore them when they do.

Not sure I grok what you're saying, but using Rule 0 doesn't imply that the rules you're not using suck.

For one, they could just be more useful for DMs who aren't you. It'd be wrong to assume that just because I don't need detailed NPC rules that nobody who plays D&D needs detailed NPC rules.

Indeed, I liked 3e's NPC rules, because I liked the world they implied, where normal monarchs were crafty enough, and where the Greatest Queen in the World was entirely likely to be a mythic creature in her own right, not just some frail old lady, due to the unique problems of being the Greatest Queen in the World in a world filled with monsters.

However, I personally didn't really stat out 10th-level Aristocrats very often, mostly because I'm improv-heavy (my PC's mostly wound up fighting monsters rather than engaging in protracted political games with NPC's just 'cuz I didn't have easy NPC stat blocks, though everyone seemed to have enough fun wailing on monsters, anyway ).

I think a weakness of 4e's "just use fiat" method is that it doesn't provide me with the same baseline. I can't say "okay, your basic ruling monarch as a Diplomacy of X, and your epic-hero monarch has a Diplomacy of Z, so this monarch should probably have a Diplomacy of Y," because monarchs don't have Diplomacy at all unless the PC's are somehow making use of the skill.

 

[Garthanos]

Not sure I grok what you're saying, but using Rule 0 doesn't imply that the rules you're not using suck.

For one, they could just be more useful for DMs who aren't you. It'd be wrong to assume that just because I don't need detailed NPC rules that nobody who plays D&D needs detailed NPC rules.

Fair enough.

I like a nice set of sample characters to give me a baseline..(uber detailed mechanics system primarily restricting me can go sit on the shelf) but you know I already have some of those in monster manual and don't agree with so many as is... For instance I like S&S style action so I think most soldiers and citizenry ought to be statted as minion class characters. ... I think they ought to feel like normal joes and fall down / flee or similar when wounded. (no heroic luck to change that).

I really don't think the game system is going to give me the information to have a cool encounter with say the local locksmith. Because what i want out of it... is more like this

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-dis...-locksmith-d-d-4th-edition-2.html#post5012171

A module might be written that gave it to me, but I dont think that is game system dependent at all.

 

[Jhaelen]

Hmm... I could increase the EL.

And go against the guidelines for appropriate encounters? Oh, dear! And here I thought you cared about rules
Yeah, I know, don't reply: I'm making false assumptions again.

but these are big, glaring holes that some players (even in this thread) want the answers to when designing their own stuff.

Except, that's your opinion. I don't see anything deserving to be called 'glaring holes'.

WOW, you really have a knack for making general sweeping statements of opinion as if they were fact... all I'll say is... Best. Advice. Ever. FOR YOU.

Of course! Everything I'm posting reflects my opinion, just as everything you are posting reflects your opinion. I happen to disagree with your opinion just as you are disagreeing with mine.

Personally I would have preferred a system that worked.

In theory, I'd agree. But I prefer no system to a system that does not work.

It's also not quite true, that it wouldn't affect me negatively if they provided more accurate guidelines:
It costs development resources to provide them; resources that might be better spent developing something more useful (to me). Imho, this is an example of the pareto principle: Providing a system that works in 80% of all cases requires only 20% of available resources.

See, this reminds me of a reaction I've seen regarding errata:
'I don't like errata. Why don't they get things right the first time, instead, then we'd never need errata!'

Well, yeah. The problem is: Then we'd still wait for the next edition of D&D. It's like waiting for Godot!

 

[Jhaelen]

OK, I'd missed that.

No worries, so did I

What IS this thread about after all? Cognitive Dissonance?!

 

[Coldwyn]

@KM:

I find this very unconclusive. So instead of sticking to the rules to archive the numbers, you simply slap some boni on. Either way, said NPC has the same plusses to skills and so on at the end. That´s Rule0 at work for me.

@Imaro:

Take a look at DMG p. 184 - Monster statistics by role. Then add in DMG p. 185 Damage per Level - Choose Low for AoE damage, Med for standard attacks, High for recharging.
IMO really hard coded rules like in 3E prevent you from creating the critter you need right now. Also IMO, sticking to balance is a waste of time here and if I notice my critter turned out to tough or too deadly, I simply give more exp.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I was at one point and time, but I have canceled my subscription. I think this clouds the issue as this brings in additional tools one must pay for to use... so yes I understand your point but I think it is irrelevant to someone who only has the books and is trying to design their own monsters.

I don't see the Monster Builder as anything much less fundamental than the Monster Manuals for designing a monster. And a one month subscription to DDI is cheap - and you get to keep the tools when you unsubscribe.

Who is asking for perfect balance... but these are big, glaring holes that some players (even in this thread) want the answers to when designing their own stuff. If 4e is as balanced as most claim it is this shouldn't be that big of a deal to stick in a reference chart.

An eyeball reference chart, possibly. But only as rules of thumb - I'm unaware of a detailed system I can't bend double. Or one that would cover the range of monsters I sometimes want. What they have is guidelines on the hit points, attack, defence, and damage values. Which more or less leaves the movement and the status effects. (I'm pretty sure the guidelines including the damage expressions are close to being able to design many brutes, soldiers, and artillery - but when it comes to controllers, lurkers, and (Leaders) it's always going to be case by case.)

Personally I would have preferred a system that worked.

That's just it. I don't think that one is theoretically possible. At least not without massive restrictions in the design space.

More comprehensive does not equal more complicated... in fact sometimes when something is more comprehensive it can make it easier to use.

Here I agree. But I also think that a bad system is worse than useless. And that a good system would be impossible.

 

[Nagol]

I don't see the Monster Builder as anything much less fundamental than the Monster Manuals for designing a monster. And a one month subscription to DDI is cheap - and you get to keep the tools when you unsubscribe.



An eyeball reference chart, possibly. But only as rules of thumb - I'm unaware of a detailed system I can't bend double. Or one that would cover the range of monsters I sometimes want. What they have is guidelines on the hit points, attack, defence, and damage values. Which more or less leaves the movement and the status effects. (I'm pretty sure the guidelines including the damage expressions are close to being able to design many brutes, soldiers, and artillery - but when it comes to controllers, lurkers, and (Leaders) it's always going to be case by case.)



That's just it. I don't think that one is theoretically possible. At least not without massive restrictions in the design space.



Here I agree. But I also think that a bad system is worse than useless. And that a good system would be impossible.

If that were true then 'toolbox' games like Hero, GURPS, and Mutants and MAsterminds wouldn't exist in usable form. While there are corner cases in these systems, by and large they produce workable and similarly effective abiiltiies for similar cost.

Relatively simple to use and relatively balanced rulesets can be made -- they just take a lot of work.