D&D 4E How to speed up combat?

[overgeeked]

Re: combat as skill challenge...
I guess you could do that and I can see some ways to do it I guess. My issue with “skill challenges” is that the activities within a skill challenge are basically just “adventuring” so I don’t see why you would swoosh to another “mode”.

Yeah, I feel the same about “skill challenge mode”. I was trying to introduce a looser, more narrative style of skill challenges in a 5E game for a group that had never played 4E. In writing up an explanation for what skill challenges were in my looser, more narrative desired style...I kept just describing the basic procedure for roleplaying. “I describe the scene with some challenge, you tell me what you want to do, I ask for any necessary rolls, things get better or worse based on the results, and I narrate the outcome.” It made me laugh at myself for a few minutes.

Skill challenges are a great framework idea. And it introduced the concept of discreet challenges to a lot of DMs, but as implemented it’s an overly formalized procedure for just playing the game.

If only I could find a way to keep my players from switching to “combat mode” and have them continue being as loose and free-flowing as they are the rest of the time once initiative is rolled.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I feel the same about “skill challenge mode”. I was trying to introduce a looser, more narrative style of skill challenges in a 5E game for a group that had never played 4E. In writing up an explanation for what skill challenges were in my looser, more narrative desired style...I kept just describing the basic procedure for roleplaying. “I describe the scene with some challenge, you tell me what you want to do, I ask for any necessary rolls, things get better or worse based on the results, and I narrate the outcome.” It made me laugh at myself for a few minutes.

Skill challenges are a great framework idea. And it introduced the concept of discreet challenges to a lot of DMs, but as implemented it’s an overly formalized procedure for just playing the game.

If only I could find a way to keep my players from switching to “combat mode” and have them continue being as loose and free-flowing as they are the rest of the time once initiative is rolled.

My feeling is that what they do is A) focus activity in a specific direction, so the players have a solid idea of what they are attempting to accomplish RIGHT NOW and they stay on track; B) it prevents the GM from simply moving the goal posts on what they are trying to accomplish. This can be either in favor of or against the PCs, like "Oh, well, how about best 3 out of 5..." or OTOH "OK, you tracked him, now you have to find his hiding place. Oh, you did that, well, now you have to bribe the guard..." Because the player knows what a given success will bring, and how likely they are to achieve their goal, they can better decide if they want to spend resources on it.

This is where, IMHO, the 4e SC system mechanically isn't super well served and tightly specified, is in terms of what resource expenditures will bring. They can have obvious narrative effects, but mechanically they only matter if they are directly changing a bonus to a skill check. Most resources (AP, HS, powers) don't really do that. So the game could have used a bit more firm specification on this point.

Overall I just make SCs all of play where any conflict is ongoing, except combat itself. There is 'free play', but it isn't used to decide any issues, merely as a way to describe things where the outcome can simply be stated, or which are just 'background' stuff.

 

[overgeeked]

"Oh, well, how about best 3 out of 5..." or OTOH "OK, you tracked him, now you have to find his hiding place. Oh, you did that, well, now you have to bribe the guard..."

As long as it's not an endless string of "not yet", I don't see this kind of thing as a problem. It's literally the game. There's almost nothing that should be make one roll and you accomplished this long string of things. Like stealing something from a tower. You don't make one roll to accomplish that. You roll to: sneak in, bypass the guards, find the safe, find/remove traps, unlock/open the safe, bypass the guards, and sneak out. To me, collapsing that down to a single roll is boring. Conversely, you don't make the player roll multiple times to accomplish one step in that string. One stealth roll to sneak in, thank you. Just make it at a dramatically appropriate time. One roll to find the safe, thank you. Just make it take longer and/or you make a lot of noise finding it if you fail the roll, thereby increasing your chance of being discovered.

If the DM's being honest about the person you're tracking having a hiding place, it makes sense. If they're artificially extending resolution of the situation, that's lame.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As long as it's not an endless string of "not yet", I don't see this kind of thing as a problem. It's literally the game. There's almost nothing that should be make one roll and you accomplished this long string of things. Like stealing something from a tower. You don't make one roll to accomplish that. You roll to: sneak in, bypass the guards, find the safe, find/remove traps, unlock/open the safe, bypass the guards, and sneak out. To me, collapsing that down to a single roll is boring. Conversely, you don't make the player roll multiple times to accomplish one step in that string. One stealth roll to sneak in, thank you. Just make it at a dramatically appropriate time. One roll to find the safe, thank you. Just make it take longer and/or you make a lot of noise finding it if you fail the roll, thereby increasing your chance of being discovered.

If the DM's being honest about the person you're tracking having a hiding place, it makes sense. If they're artificially extending resolution of the situation, that's lame.

Sure, but my point is, the player (and probably the GM) has no idea how many checks will be required to come to a conclusion about success or failure. So, as a player, why would I expend a resource on one of those checks, since I have no idea how significant it is in the overall scheme of reaching my goal. SCs, and things like BitD clocks, give you a pretty good idea about that. Its a complexity one challenge, you need 4 successes. Now, granted that this suggests a certain limit to the narrative (IE the GM either has 4 situations where an obstacle will have to be overcome, or the GM will construct 4 such situations). That's fine though, that is exactly what it is supposed to do. Presumably if the fiction changes so drastically that this is no longer a sensible scenario, then the SC is out of the picture (you failed, you succeeded, or you just went off into left field).

And GMs OFTEN have trouble with this sort of pacing of things. The GM may or may not be 'lame' in your parlance, but they often do seem to have preferences... This is a bit of a broader issue though, which speaks more to techniques of play in a wider sense. SCs do work well within those sorts of frameworks.

 

[pemerton]

As long as it's not an endless string of "not yet", I don't see this kind of thing as a problem. It's literally the game. There's almost nothing that should be make one roll and you accomplished this long string of things. Like stealing something from a tower. You don't make one roll to accomplish that. You roll to: sneak in, bypass the guards, find the safe, find/remove traps, unlock/open the safe, bypass the guards, and sneak out. To me, collapsing that down to a single roll is boring.

My feeling is that what they do is A) focus activity in a specific direction, so the players have a solid idea of what they are attempting to accomplish RIGHT NOW and they stay on track; B) it prevents the GM from simply moving the goal posts on what they are trying to accomplish. This can be either in favor of or against the PCs, like "Oh, well, how about best 3 out of 5..." or OTOH "OK, you tracked him, now you have to find his hiding place. Oh, you did that, well, now you have to bribe the guard..." Because the player knows what a given success will bring, and how likely they are to achieve their goal, they can better decide if they want to spend resources on it.

I don't see skill challenges and similar scene-resolution frameworks (HeroWars/Quest is maybe the pre-eminent version; Maelstrom Storytelling might have been the first) as about making things boring or not boring. Nor is resolving things via a single check inherently boring or not boring. This depends on what the focus of play (given the system; given the table; given the mood right here and now is). Of systems I know, Burning Wheel has the most sophisticated way of using an intricate framework for augments to allow single-roll resolution (test the most apposite skill/ability augmented by other relevant ones). HeroQuest revised is not as intricate but probably more flexible.

The purpose of using a skill challenge or similar framework is to provide finality of resolution in the context of multiple checks. In this respect it's no different from the D&D combat system, which uses multiple checks to wear down hit points producing finality of resolution (ie one side or the other reaches zero and hence is defeated). Just as a GM might decide to have more or fewer hp on the NPC/monster side, depending on how challenging and drawn-out s/he thinks a fight should be, so setting the complexity of a skill challenge establishes how intricate the scene will be and how long it will take to resolve. If the scene doesn't feel like it's ready to support an hour or more of play, don't set the skill challenge at Complexity 5!

IMHO, the 4e SC system mechanically isn't super well served and tightly specified, is in terms of what resource expenditures will bring. They can have obvious narrative effects, but mechanically they only matter if they are directly changing a bonus to a skill check. Most resources (AP, HS, powers) don't really do that. So the game could have used a bit more firm specification on this point.

I think the DMG 2 is pretty sound on this (at least as I've read and adapted it): spending an Action Point, or Healing Surge, or encounter power, or similar sort of non-trivial-but-non-superlative resource is worth a +2. At our table we also allow an Action Point to instead grant a re-roll (which is somewhat similar to its function in combat).

The DMG and DMG2 suggestion that a ritual equates to an auto-success is an idea that I use more sparingly, depending on the "oomph" of the ritual relative to the PCs' level and its contribution to the fiction.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't see skill challenges and similar scene-resolution frameworks (HeroWars/Quest is maybe the pre-eminent version; Maelstrom Storytelling might have been the first) as about making things boring or not boring. Nor is resolving things via a single check inherently boring or not boring. This depends on what the focus of play (given the system; given the table; given the mood right here and now is). Of systems I know, Burning Wheel has the most sophisticated way of using an intricate framework for augments to allow single-roll resolution (test the most apposite skill/ability augmented by other relevant ones). HeroQuest revised is not as intricate but probably more flexible.

The purpose of using a skill challenge or similar framework is to provide finality of resolution in the context of multiple checks. In this respect it's no different from the D&D combat system, which uses multiple checks to wear down hit points producing finality of resolution (ie one side or the other reaches zero and hence is defeated). Just as a GM might decide to have more or fewer hp on the NPC/monster side, depending on how challenging and drawn-out s/he thinks a fight should be, so setting the complexity of a skill challenge establishes how intricate the scene will be and how long it will take to resolve. If the scene doesn't feel like it's ready to support an hour or more of play, don't set the skill challenge at Complexity 5!


I think the DMG 2 is pretty sound on this (at least as I've read and adapted it): spending an Action Point, or Healing Surge, or encounter power, or similar sort of non-trivial-but-non-superlative resource is worth a +2. At our table we also allow an Action Point to instead grant a re-roll (which is somewhat similar to its function in combat).

The DMG and DMG2 suggestion that a ritual equates to an auto-success is an idea that I use more sparingly, depending on the "oomph" of the ritual relative to the PCs' level and its contribution to the fiction.

Well, rituals normally require a check of some sort anyway, so it isn't really 'auto' success, although it may be a fairly foregone conclusion in that PCs who are likely to be ritual casters have high bonuses in most of the skills that are called out in them (they tend to be Arcana or Religion based, though Nature is also fairly common).

Anyway, DMG2 makes some suggestions. I kind of thought the whole system could use some stronger tie ins to these resources though. It isn't a big deal, and GMs can handle it. It just seems like it would make the whole SC system seem more integrated. Especially if there was a resource that was particularly central in them. In a sense even 4e 'tacked on' the mechanic to an extent.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Sure, OTOH the design of the game is still centered around 30 levels.

I don't think I would say centered. It supports 30 levels the same way that other editions support play to level 20, which is to say that there is content there but it's not polished or well tested even in 5e. As far as adventures, I only remember the three E adventures covering play above about level 22. However, the HPE adventures were overall pretty bad. WotC never really put the effort into creating good published adventures for 4e. The 3rd party adventures I saw were focused at levels 1-20, and mostly 5-15.

However, I think the style of game that 4e was made it easy to take adventures from any edition and just update the encounters as you were going through it.

I do agree the game was overall worsened by expanding to 30 levels because it meant the game had to spend time creating content for those levels when a narrower scope with more focused content would probably have been better overall. I'd have much rather there been good adventures published, but adventures don't sell like crunch books do, and WotC was trying to grow the market for D&D with 4e and that meant player books. I think they were also trying to always give the PCs new things to keep them invested or whatever, instead of relying on the DM to do that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think I would say centered. It supports 30 levels the same way that other editions support play to level 20, which is to say that there is content there but it's not polished or well tested even in 5e. As far as adventures, I only remember the three E adventures covering play above about level 22. However, the HPE adventures were overall pretty bad. WotC never really put the effort into creating good published adventures for 4e. The 3rd party adventures I saw were focused at levels 1-20, and mostly 5-15.

However, I think the style of game that 4e was made it easy to take adventures from any edition and just update the encounters as you were going through it.

I do agree the game was overall worsened by expanding to 30 levels because it meant the game had to spend time creating content for those levels when a narrower scope with more focused content would probably have been better overall. I'd have much rather there been good adventures published, but adventures don't sell like crunch books do, and WotC was trying to grow the market for D&D with 4e and that meant player books. I think they were also trying to always give the PCs new things to keep them invested or whatever, instead of relying on the DM to do that.

Well, there were some other 4e adventures for epic, but yes it was underserved in that department. Still, isn't that normal? While Epic may be 'aspirational' I know there are many GMs here who ran epic level campaigns, and WotC did publish only 24 adventures (not counting Dungeon) for 4e. Of those, five are epic or contain epic material (the E series plus Tomb of Horrors and Dungeon Delve). There are also a number of Epic adventures in Dungeon Magazine, although I don't have a list. Scales of War is an entire AP which includes a full epic treatment.

So, out of all the published adventures, roughly 1/6th of the material is epic. Sadly the epic-focused DMG3 was never published (nor even written as far as I know).

My point is, I think there's definite interest, and there DOES need to be an epic aspect to the game which is included in the rules. I just think 30 levels is dross. You don't need to level 30 times to make a good progression. Classic D&D effectively had 18 levels, of which about the last 6-9 are epic, depending on how you play. This is why I think a 15-18 level progression would be good. It cuts out some levels in the middle that are really pretty close to mechanically 'dead' and lets the designers focus on the good stuff. My original HoML 1.0 was built with 20 levels, but I think 15 would really be enough.

 

[overgeeked]

Well, there were some other 4e adventures for epic, but yes it was underserved in that department. Still, isn't that normal? While Epic may be 'aspirational' I know there are many GMs here who ran epic level campaigns, and WotC did publish only 24 adventures (not counting Dungeon) for 4e. Of those, five are epic or contain epic material (the E series plus Tomb of Horrors and Dungeon Delve). There are also a number of Epic adventures in Dungeon Magazine, although I don't have a list. Scales of War is an entire AP which includes a full epic treatment.

So, out of all the published adventures, roughly 1/6th of the material is epic. Sadly the epic-focused DMG3 was never published (nor even written as far as I know).

My point is, I think there's definite interest, and there DOES need to be an epic aspect to the game which is included in the rules. I just think 30 levels is dross. You don't need to level 30 times to make a good progression. Classic D&D effectively had 18 levels, of which about the last 6-9 are epic, depending on how you play. This is why I think a 15-18 level progression would be good. It cuts out some levels in the middle that are really pretty close to mechanically 'dead' and lets the designers focus on the good stuff. My original HoML 1.0 was built with 20 levels, but I think 15 would really be enough.

Nah. You need 36 levels to get it right. And you should be an immortal god for the last six.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Nah. You need 36 levels to get it right. And you should be an immortal god for the last six.

I laughed, but of course there are games where you might actually want that...

The resistance to that sort of play also seems to me to be rooted in "I don't want players being able to mess with the world too much." which is a very Gygaxian sentiment. I think it also is somewhat of a factor in many people shunning high level play.

I kind of like the 'Age of Adepts' thing, https://ageofadepts.com because it has a pretty interesting take on 'high level' characters. You have to either read/skip on for a few 100 chapters to get to the more interesting "these guys have almost godlike power" parts, but the author does present a kind of cosmology and suggestions of possible mechanics that could accommodate 'zero to god and beyond' play (so far it has only progressed up to presenting 5th Grade beings, but there are hints that a whole new set of rules apply to 7th, 8th, and 9th grades). Presumably 9th grade is the ultimate, but my guess is if the story ever gets there it will have an ultimate apotheosis of some sort. 5th grade is already 'minor deity' levels of power.