D&D 4E Thing I thought 4e did better: Monsters

[powerfamiliar]

I'm curious... at what point do you think it's incumbent upon the players to either...

a. Recognize a threat is too much for them... I mean it's a Demon Lord and they are first level is this really "hidden"? Also is choosing certain death affecting the fiction in a meaningful way?

No this wouldn't be an example of hidden information. It is obvious the Demon Lord is too much of a threat for them. I meant that as an example of a non choice. But you do make a point about certain death. I guess it depends on the game. In most of my campaigns I would not consider it an option. I mean if the players want to then sure, but I think at that point I think the players might be trying to tell me something about their enjoyment of my game. . In this exmaple I can't at the moment come up with many ways their death would impact the fiction in a meaningful way. They can roll up new characters, but the outcome of the plot would be the exact same as if they had fled, Demogorgon is doing whatever he was doing (I have not actually read that adventure) and the no new PC have to stop him. I would probably flavor the death of the PCs impacting some NPCs (or maybe some of the new PCs), but I don't see that as particularly meaningful.

But I do admit there are situations and campaigns were a TPK is a valid choice. Just of the top of my head a party decides to stop the Lich's plan by drinking his evil potion that would cause mortals to die. Here perhaps the campaign could continues as the new PCs now try to stop the Lich from gathering the ingredients for a new potion.

b. Do research and/or gather knowledge on their opponents. In the orc example, do they hear rumors around the feats of said orcs... do they scout out the band... have they seen the devastation they are capable of... heard of the opponents they have defeated?

I would like to do at least some foreshadowing. Rumors would be enough, as would be comments of items found on previously defeated "regular orcs", devastation would be another good one. Essentially what I want is that when as a GM I as "You see a band of orcs, what do you do?" that the players have enough information to make a meaningful choice. If my game world so far has the PCs as being very powerful (let's say level 10) and all orcs encountered so far have at most been CR 1-2, I can't expect the PCs choice to be significant if this band is suddenly CR 12. In this case I do think something as simple as "these orcs are far better equipped than previous bands" would be enough to make the choice meaningful. I just don't want my players playing the game of "guess what the DM wants us to do in this encounter". In this specific encounter I think if the orcs had been CR 5 instead it would've been fine with no foreshadowing, I would count that encounter as the foreshadowing that stronger orcs are abound.

I'm asking because for me I like having hidden information in my games... as long as there is a way for the players through their characters actions to acquire it. I'm not a big fan of telling the players straight out that they can't beat something, try something, do something, etc. because my players have surprised me before in pulling things off. I also feel that hidden information (again when it is attainable) adds a level of verisimilitude to my campaigns and the investigation and discovery of it by my players helps to draw them into the world more.

I think hidden information is fine up to a point, and it really depends on what kind of decisions you want your players making. Let's say the leader of the thieve's guild is really a disguised demon lord. There is a confrontation between the lowish level players and the leader and a few guards. I think this is bad hidden information if it's intended as a choice for the players to fight or not. If you threw out some foreshadowing about it, and the opportunity to investigate then it would be fine. The player's don't need perfect info, just enough for their choices to be more than random. Verisimilitude is one of the most important things in my opinion for an enjoyable game, but in the end it is still a game. In the above example it would be great verisimilitude for the demon lord to be very concerned with hiding his true being and have no clues of his origin. But in most games I think it falls flats if he just TPKs the party that had no way of knowing.

I also don't like telling my players they can't beat something. But I would not think of a situation presented with an insurmountable foe as a choice. I think non choice situations are fine in RPGing as a GM, but I think it's no use fooling ourselves into thinking they are choices and not railroads.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I want to clarify my comments, because I largely agree with you.

In the situation where my PCs run into 300 orcs, I will do everything in my description to make it clear that they cannot win. If they ignored all of that and charged anyway, I wouldn't say that they cannot do so.....but in this case, I don't know if I'd roll the battle out. It would be such a long and arduous encounter that I don't think it would be worth it to spend the time on that.

However, I've never actually had to do this in a game. Anytime the players have run up against a huge force like that, they've known it was not a winnable fight straight on, and they've used other tactics.

Well yeah, but that's all information that the PCs would reasonably know. You as the DM aren't giving away anything that a PC wouldn't be able to deduce on their own. But you're also not telling them "no, don't bother, you can't". You're letting the PCs decide that. With something like a low level party against Demogorgan, or going up against 300 orcs might seem really obvious, sometimes it's not so obvious to them and only DM knowledge tells you that they have no chance. Do you tell them that flat out? Or do you let them make the risk assessment on their own based upon the info their PCs would reasonably know? I have a feeling you do the latter, as I do. and I have a hard time seeing as how the latter means I'm taking away choice, because that's quite the opposite of what I'm actually doing. YMMV of course.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well yeah, but that's all information that the PCs would reasonably know. You as the DM aren't giving away anything that a PC wouldn't be able to deduce on their own. But you're also not telling them "no, don't bother, you can't". You're letting the PCs decide that. With something like a low level party against Demogorgan, or going up against 300 orcs might seem really obvious, sometimes it's not so obvious to them and only DM knowledge tells you that they have no chance. Do you tell them that flat out? Or do you let them make the risk assessment on their own based upon the info their PCs would reasonably know? I have a feeling you do the latter, as I do. and I have a hard time seeing as how the latter means I'm taking away choice, because that's quite the opposite of what I'm actually doing. YMMV of course.

I definitely do the latter, as you suggest. If my players are doing something that seems to be foolish and I feel like their characters would have a clear idea that it was foolish, I would probably reinforce that with one last warning of some point....but if they ultimately choose to proceed, then so be it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think hidden information is fine up to a point, and it really depends on what kind of decisions you want your players making. Let's say the leader of the thieve's guild is really a disguised demon lord. There is a confrontation between the lowish level players and the leader and a few guards. I think this is bad hidden information if it's intended as a choice for the players to fight or not. If you threw out some foreshadowing about it, and the opportunity to investigate then it would be fine. The player's don't need perfect info, just enough for their choices to be more than random. Verisimilitude is one of the most important things in my opinion for an enjoyable game, but in the end it is still a game. In the above example it would be great verisimilitude for the demon lord to be very concerned with hiding his true being and have no clues of his origin. But in most games I think it falls flats if he just TPKs the party that had no way of knowing.
.

In this scenario and the PCs attacked this guy and he killed them, then in my group, the lesson here is "Don't go attacking people you don't know anything about." rather than me flat out telling them (and removing their choice) that they can't win. I agree verisimilitude is important, and doing metagaming things like that is what ruins it for me. Verisimilitude means that you don't always win, and sometimes you get stomped, especially if you do something reckless and dumb, like a low level party deciding to attack the leader of a thieves' guild. In fact, in this scenario, the demon could probably still keep his cover and not need to change into his form to kill the party, which is the most likely scenario if said demon doesn't want to blow his cover. Either way, I wouldn't tell the party not to do it because of information I have they don't.

 

[powerfamiliar]

In this scenario and the PCs attacked this guy and he killed them, then in my group, the lesson here is "Don't go attacking people you don't know anything about." rather than me flat out telling them (and removing their choice) that they can't win. I agree verisimilitude is important, and doing metagaming things like that is what ruins it for me. Verisimilitude means that you don't always win, and sometimes you get stomped, especially if you do something reckless and dumb, like a low level party deciding to attack the leader of a thieves' guild. In fact, in this scenario, the demon could probably still keep his cover and not need to change into his form to kill the party, which is the most likely scenario if said demon doesn't want to blow his cover. Either way, I wouldn't tell the party not to do it because of information I have they don't.

In my experience fighting the bandit/thief leader is a staple low level character trope. But if in your case it isn't just replace thief leader with goblin boss, or whatever a normal low level boss fight would be. And in this example I would also not tell the party not to fight, or that they can't win. But at the same time I wouldn't put them in that situation. There would be hints of something being off with the thieves, maybe some rumors about their leader. Something to get the players to think about it. If you still think my example is reckless and dumb, just replace it with one you think isn't. The point isn't about the example.

If your players are really used to your games, and that anything can be anything, then you get more leeway. But in my experience players will be influenced by outside tropes/previous games. Playing with their expectations is fine, but I feel TPKs for it are not. In most campaigns they're just not fun. With the right mind set and players sure, but in general I would not recommend it.

As a DM you have complete control. Having the three goblins that killed the party's horse really be three shapeshifted dragons might be perfectly in line with your setting and world, but it makes for a crap encounter and game.

 

[pemerton]

if someone runs their monsters only doing actions that are described as a power in a statblock and doesn't do anything else (prior planning, using motivations to determine choices, interacting with an environment, etc etc--all things that differentiate from a boardgame), then what's the difference between that and Wrath of Asherlon?

I answered this in the post to which you replied: the shared fiction matters to resolution. That's what makes it a RPG.

For clarity I'll repost my concuding paragraphs on that point:

if the participants in the game (i) think it would be interesting for the game to have (say) a hill giant who can knock enemies prone when it hits them with its club; and (ii) think that they would rather have this be regulated by the mechanics rather than just something the GM gets to make up (eg because they think the latter wouldn't necessarily be fair to the players); then (iii) they might prefer monster design that gives the hill giant that mechanical capability.

This desire, by these imagined RPGers, could arise whether, in their game, the rulebook entry for hill giants had 1000 words or prose, or 10. And it won't be solved by paying more attention to those words of prose, be they few or many. "Monster lore and flavour text" is completely irrelevant to it. It's an issue about whether or not the mechanics of the game support the creation of the fiction they want in the fashion that they want.​

I'll add: looking at the INT and WIS scores of a hill giant, or at what is said in the flavour text to motivate it, won't help these D&D players who want it to be possible, in the fiction, for a hit from a hill giant's club to knock you flat.

 

[pemerton]

It is obvious the Demon Lord is too much of a threat for them. I meant that as an example of a non choice.

<snip>

In this exmaple I can't at the moment come up with many ways their death would impact the fiction in a meaningful way. They can roll up new characters, but the outcome of the plot would be the exact same as if they had fled, Demogorgon is doing whatever he was doing

<snip>

I would not think of a situation presented with an insurmountable foe as a choice. I think non choice situations are fine in RPGing as a GM, but I think it's no use fooling ourselves into thinking they are choices and not railroads.

I admit I have a very hard time grasping the argument that allowing players to make an evaluation and choose whatever they do is actually removing player choice. That seems.....opposite to me, and in fact what removes player choice is telling them flat out what something is or what they should expect. I.e., it seems the "choice" is an illusion.

As I understand it, [MENTION=6871221]powerfamiliar[/MENTION] is saying the same thing I have said in some posts upthread - that if the choice for the players is to run or suffer TPK, then there is no meaningful choice. The players have no choice as to how to influence the salient fiction through the actions they declare for their PCs.

They are just dancing to the GM's tune.

I don't thinking this situation the GM is giving the players a choice. There is no way for the player choice to affect the fiction in a meaningful way.

They could charge Demogorgon and die, which would end the fiction.

But not meaningfully. As powerfamiliar said, if the players want to suicide the PCs that might tell me something meaningful about the game (apparently it sucks) but is not a meaningful impact on the fiction.

Choosing that your character dies is a choice though... as long as you have the relevant information to determine that is the most likely outcome of a situation. You are assuming said sacrifice doesn't have an effect on the fiction but it certainly can.

This was answered by [MENTION=6871221]powerfamiliar[/MENTION] (including with an interesting contrast scenario - the lich's toxin). I agree completely with what was said.

 

[Imaro]

As I understand it, [MENTION=6871221]powerfamiliar[/MENTION] is saying the same thing I have said in some posts upthread - that if the choice for the players is to run or suffer TPK, then there is no meaningful choice. The players have no choice as to how to influence the salient fiction through the actions they declare for their PCs.

They are just dancing to the GM's tune.

Choosing that your character dies is a choice though... as long as you have the relevant information to determine that is the most likely outcome of a situation. You are assuming said sacrifice doesn't have an effect on the fiction but it certainly can.

 

[GameOgre]

I'm curious... at what point do you think it's incumbent upon the players to either...

a. Recognize a threat is too much for them... I mean it's a Demon Lord and they are first level is this really "hidden"? Also is choosing certain death affecting the fiction in a meaningful way?
b. Do research and/or gather knowledge on their opponents. In the orc example, do they hear rumors around the feats of said orcs... do they scout out the band... have they seen the devastation they are capable of... heard of the opponents they have defeated?

I'm asking because for me I like having hidden information in my games... as long as there is a way for the players through their characters actions to acquire it. I'm not a big fan of telling the players straight out that they can't beat something, try something, do something, etc. because my players have surprised me before in pulling things off. I also feel that hidden information (again when it is attainable) adds a level of verisimilitude to my campaigns and the investigation and discovery of it by my players helps to draw them into the world more.

Granted I would put money on the Demon Lord verse most characters and entire parties but I have lost bets like that before. The right pc with the right player behind the wheel and more than once I have ended up reeling at just what those crazy knuckle dragging dice monkeys managed to pull off.

In just that exact adventure and spot one of my pc's started to get froggy after before hand having examined in great detail how this area supported the weight of the underdark above it, even going so far as to find several support points. I let him know in no uncertain terms that i would rule heavily the other way if he decided to try any of his engineering shenanigans and thankfully that put a stop to that crazy look in his eye.

 

[pemerton]

just because one moment of an adventure presents such an instance does not make the adventure a railroad. Barring some kind of mythical true open sandbox type of game, there are always going to be such moments. If I understand you correctly, you would simply "cut scene" such moments rather than treat them as an instance of player choice.

Sandbox and railroad/AP are not the only two ways of running a RPG. There is at least one other: scene-framing, with GM authority over scene and associated backstory, but not over outcomes. This is my own preferred approach to RPGing.

And as I said, I would generally do the demogorgon thing as a result of failure. So it would be an outcome in the resolution of a situation, not the starting point. For instance, the PCs are wandering the Underdark, where - it is established in the backstory - Demogorgon is roaming. The players fail their navigation/dungeoneering/whatever check (different systems and different GMs will treat this differently in respect of the details - eg single role vs multiple rolls vs skill challenge vs whatever - but that's not important for present purposes, I don't think). The result of that failure is that the players (and PCs) don't get what they were hoping for, namely, safe passage through the underdark. Instead, they see Demogorgon at the other end of the tunnel!

In the scenario I just outlined, the GM is not hard-framing the PCs into a no-win situation. It is the failed check that produces that outcome. Had the players succeeded on their check (eg thrown more resources, say Inspiration or buffs, into it; or just got luckier!) than they wouldn't have found themselves in this circumstance.

the chart you are referencing: does it simply say "this is an appropriate DC for a PC of level X"? Or does the DM have to consider environmental factors from within the game world? The way you've described it makes it sound like any level PC is going to see climbing a cliff as equally difficult, no? DC by level seems odd to me.

The chart has 30 rows (levels 1 to 30) and 3 columns (easy, medium, hard). The default level is the PC's level, though if the DC is associated with a monster (eg difficulty of escaping its grab) then the DC will be set by the monster's level. The default column is Medium, but the GM is expected to depart from that if s/he thinks fit for a single check; for a skill challenge there are guidelines for the proportion of Medium to Hard checks.

DC by level is a type of pacing device. It establishes a certain expectation of the ratio of success-to-failure. In D&D, which has extremely granular PC building with wide variation in bonuses to various tasks, it is hard to do this - 4e took several goes to settle on a reasonable set of numbers, and the skill challenge guidelines in Essentials initroduce additional mechanical devices, on top of difficulty guidelines, to help the GM manage the pacing. A much "purer" example of this sort of DC-setting is Robin Laws' HeroQuest revised - PC building in that game is not very granular, and hence the ability to establish pacing via a set of "level appropriate" DCs is easier (I use inverted commas here because HeroQuest revised doesn't have levels per se - the DCs are calculated by direct reference to the average bonuses of the PCs).

In a system like this the onus on the GM is to ensure that the narration of the situation fits the DCs set. More generally, therefore, the GM is expected to be framing the PCs into situations that reflect their level. Hence, as I replied to you a bit upthread, level in 4e is also a pacing device, for managing the escalation of the campaign from kobolds to Orcus. (In the default, at least - in Dark Sun this is repackaged as an escalation from pettty templars to Sorcerer Kings; and as I've already posted in the thread Neverwinter does it differently again.) If one wanted to run an ongoing "Black Company"-type game in 4e the easiest way would simply be to not use level advancement, or perhaps to cap it somewhere around 6th to 10th level.