Justifying high level 'guards', 'pirates', 'soldiers', 'assassins', etc.

[S'mon]

I can't think of a single time that I've felt the need to use creatures that utterly outclass the PCs in order to signal that they're "no longer in Kansas". IMO, outside of "Kansas" is better handled out of combat (free form role play or perhaps a skill challenge). If the PCs have no chance of winning, why play it out; isn't it more straightforward to say they get their butts kicked and skip to the daring but strategic withdrawal?

I don't know how that would work in conjunction with the status-quo sandbox campaign I run. I rarely know from one session to the next where the PCs are going to go; I certainly didn't know they were going to explore the Underdark at level 2 and encounter the elite Crushed Skull orcs. And part of running a sandbox is that the PCs have free choice, including on when to retreat. Saying: "You are outclassed and flee" would negate that. Once they withdrew I did do skill rolls to see if they escaped, BTW.

 

[S'mon]

My reference regarding the level 1 solo was an NPC that the PCs are intended to fight (perhaps the campaign centers around a rebellion and the that King's Guardsman has been hunting the PC rebels).

The trick to solos is to never use them alone if you want a tough fight.

Yes, the solo guard hunting the PCs was my example above of an appropriate use.

Re never using them alone, surely elites are the ones you're supposed to use in conjnction with other monsters? I think it may depend on party composition, for a Striker-heavy party a Solo + allies may work well. With my party I find even Elites make for grindy fights, unless I halve every foe's hp.

 

[Snoweel]

Ok sure, but earlier you were stating that 'cinematic' was in some way opposed to 'realistic'. But surely at least some films made according to those 100 most powerful film conventions have an air of gritty realism?

I think you're confusing the use of 'realism' regarding PC power level (as in, PCs are only as powerful as real-life people might be) with 'realism' in the sense of real-life instances of random chance being "stranger than fiction".

There are many real-life stories that, while being unbelievable personal anecdotes or news items, fail to translate to entertainment media. The reason for this is that random chance can ruin an otherwise good story. So while true stories about random chance saving the day might excite us, the same mechanism of resolution in fiction is immensely dissatisfying - and is known as deus ex machina.

So the main reason grim'n'gritty play is anti-cinematic is because users of a grim'n'gritty system almost exclusively desire to remove the advantage to PCs inherent in just about every system and replace it with more random elements.

In much the same way, sandbox play removes the traditional story structure from the PCs' adventures and replaces it with the same organisational force that ultimately guides our real-life day-to-day experience - random chance.

In cinematic terms, this doesn't provide for good storylines because good stories, unlike real-life, are organised along specific lines and contain specific elements - beginning, middle, end, set-up, payoff, rising action, turning point, denouement, etc, etc

The more narrative-style adventure design espoused by most published game designers (and so scorned by sandboxers) makes it more likely that these dramatic elements will occur.

And even more to the point, is it really a convention of good 'cinematic' role play that the heroes always enter stage left? Is that what you were talking about when you said, "modelling the conventions of drama more than modelling the conventions of real life"?

See above.

 

[S'mon]

In much the same way, sandbox play removes the traditional story structure from the PCs' adventures and replaces it with the same organisational force that ultimately guides our real-life day-to-day experience - random chance.

In cinematic terms, this doesn't provide for good storylines because good stories, unlike real-life, are organised along specific lines and contain specific elements - beginning, middle, end, set-up, payoff, rising action, turning point, denouement, etc, etc

The more narrative-style adventure design espoused by most published game designers (and so scorned by sandboxers) makes it more likely that these dramatic elements will occur.

I basically agree, but I think it's just as hard to create a linear scripted adventure tha doesn't deprotagonise the PCs through railroading, as it is to create a sandbox that creates interesting stories at least of the picaresque/Vancian/short-story mold. You don't get Lord of the Rings in sandbox play, but you can get something like "The Eyes of the Overworld".

 

[Imban]

I can't think of a single time that I've felt the need to use creatures that utterly outclass the PCs in order to signal that they're "no longer in Kansas". IMO, outside of "Kansas" is better handled out of combat (free form role play or perhaps a skill challenge). If the PCs have no chance of winning, why play it out; isn't it more straightforward to say they get their butts kicked and skip to the daring but strategic withdrawal?

It's more straightforward, but it might lead to less hurt feelings depending on your players and what kicked their butts. I know quite a few people in my group would get a bit pissed if they thought they could take whatever it was that "just kicked all their butts."

I mean, if they run into a horde of dragons things are a bit different, but ideally that doesn't really get to the point where they get their butts kicked and they start the strategic withdrawal immediately.

 

[Snoweel]

I basically agree, but I think it's just as hard to create a linear scripted adventure tha doesn't deprotagonise the PCs through railroading, as it is to create a sandbox that creates interesting stories at least of the picaresque/Vancian/short-story mold. You don't get Lord of the Rings in sandbox play, but you can get something like "The Eyes of the Overworld".

So true.

As a narrativist who has to constantly remind himself not to railroad, the quality of stories I expect to emerge from my games are never better than what you describe.

I'm not sure that a story like LotR ever could emerge from a fantasy RPG. I know that when I DM I'm happy with the occasional flash of something that ends up reading like a piece of generic fan-fiction.

And really, there are two secrets to not railroading - all roads should lead to Rome, and dangle the biggest carrot in the direction you want the donkey to go.

 

[S'mon]

And really, there are two secrets to not railroading - all roads should lead to Rome...

Running Vault of Larin Karr, my players have cottoned on to this:

"Oh look! Another hidden exit?! Wonder if it goes to the Underdark, eh? Like the last three..."

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't know how that would work in conjunction with the status-quo sandbox campaign I run. I rarely know from one session to the next where the PCs are going to go; I certainly didn't know they were going to explore the Underdark at level 2 and encounter the elite Crushed Skull orcs. And part of running a sandbox is that the PCs have free choice, including on when to retreat. Saying: "You are outclassed and flee" would negate that. Once they withdrew I did do skill rolls to see if they escaped, BTW.

See, that seems odd to me. I don't run a status-quo sandbox myself, though I usually have a general idea that the entrance to the underdark will be guarded by Crushed Skull orcs (to use your example).

However, in my games the PCs wouldn't ever go looking for the underdark at 2nd level because they'd be well aware that it's way out of their league (that's where drow and hook horrors live). I like to give my players not-so-subtle hints so that they know ahead of time where not to go (until they're higher level).

Additionally, if they did for some reason go, I'd be worried that by using over-leveled minions the PCs might get lucky in the first round and get the mistaken impression that they have a realistic chance of victory. If I wanted to give the players the impression that the Crushed Skulls are elite, I'd probably have them encounter a lone Elite or Solo orc out on patrol that they can defeat with some real effort. Then I'd point out that they see evidence that there are dozens more like this guy up ahead. If they proceeded I'd probably just tell them to cut to the retreat unless they came up with a truly brilliant plan (though if someone complained I'd let them try playing out combat with a half dozen higher-level solos/elites). Cutting straight to the escape is just my way of trying to keep them from dying needlessly in a battle that I know to be quite unfair (as I've stated before, I've found too frequent death tends to impede good role playing).

I've never seen it come to anything like that though, since I make it abundantly clear that the underdark is a location that's out of their league, guarded by things that are also out of their league (for now) when they first seek directions to an underdark entrance.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yes, the solo guard hunting the PCs was my example above of an appropriate use.

Yeah, I was just pointing out that while you kept referring to minions the PCs aren't really meant to fight, my original point was about a solo they are intended to fight.

Re never using them alone, surely elites are the ones you're supposed to use in conjnction with other monsters? I think it may depend on party composition, for a Striker-heavy party a Solo + allies may work well. With my party I find even Elites make for grindy fights, unless I halve every foe's hp.

IME, Solos can be great and terrifying opponents, but usually only if they have support. 4e is a very team-oriented game and that applies as much on the DM's side of the screen as it does for the players. Using an elite boss just means that you can use more non-elites than you could using the solo (IMO it's a matter of what fits the scenario/fight dynamic best).

I've only once had success with using a lone solo and I believe the unusual terrain had a lot to do with that fight being a success.

The solo I used was a bulette which I'd upgraded to solo status. The terrain was a crumbling stone rampart that abutted the cavern wall on one side and surrounded a boiling lake on the other. On the far side of the rampart was the PC's goal- a portal that would take them where they needed to go (it wasn't necessary to kill the bulette assuming the party could reach the portal).

The fight was very tense as the party made a break for the portal but were slowed by the plate wearing fighter. One of the bulette's upgrades allowed him to burrow through stone and collapse portions of the rampart, so it was able to drop the fighter into the scalding mud below. The party fired back with some forced movement that slid the bulette into the burning mud as well, forcing it into a momentary withdrawal that allowed the fighter to scramble back onto the rampart. From there on it was a very cat and mouse battle, with the bulette doing its best to divide and conquer. The PCs won, but half the party was unconscious (including the fighter) and the other half was bloodied. Did I mention that the fighter was a pre-errata Battlerager?

Nonetheless, I would describe all of my other attempts at using a lone Solo as bland at best. I've found they work well with support, but otherwise you need to go out of your way to tailor the encounter to the solo to make it fun.

 

[S'mon]

Contrary to what I've been saying above about status quo minions, this morning I converted a bunch of elven archers from their original stats as 2nd level artillery to 10th level minions. They'll be accompanying the PCs into battle vs a dragon next week, and tracking 8 of them looked like a pain so I decided to minionise them - they'll hit hard and go down fast.

Edit: I did it because otherwise the fight looked like being a royal pain to run. Actually another way of looking at this is that it supports my view that most NPCs should be minions, with only heroic types 'normally' statted.