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

[hawkeyefan]

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.


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.

You have a strange definition of "meaningful".

And as I said above, it need not result in the PCs' deaths. The DM could have it result in whatever way he wants, or what he feels is good for the game.

I don't think that every single instance of player choice must have equally favorable options. I also don't think that treating the encounter purely as a cut scene is somehow preserving player choice.

We're also talking about one moment in a campaign. Sone moments will naturally have fewer options for the players than others.

 

[pemerton]

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.

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.

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.

There are some gaps in these descriptions.

For instance, how does it come to be that the PCs are confronted by Demogorgon, or by 300 orcs? I don't mean in the fiction, how does this come about. I mean, at the table, how does this come about.

I've canvassed a few different ways that might happen in my posts: if the players fail a check, they might be confronted by something like this (eg they fail their dungeoneering check and stumble into Demogorgon in the underdark; they fail their stealt/assassination checks and rouse the whole orc camp in the course of trying to kill its sleeping leaders).

For me, the notion that the GM would just frame the PCs into an unwinnable confrontation, in which some salient choices are "foolish" but others are not, and either (i) hint/warn the players as to the right choice, and/or (ii) expect the players to guess what the right choice is (maybe these are ten normal orcs, but maybe they're ten 10th level Disciples of Gruumsh), is a long way from how I want to run a game. It seems to put all the real action in the GM's seat rather than the players'.

 

[pemerton]

You have a strange definition of "meaningful".

I don't think so. It seems to be pretty much the same as [MENTION=6871221]powerfamiliar[/MENTION]'s.

And as I said above, it need not result in the PCs' deaths. The DM could have it result in whatever way he wants, or what he feels is good for the game.

This isn't reducing my sense that the players have no meaningful choice! "Punt it all to the GM" isn't a way of giving the players agency.

(EDIT to elaborate: if the players take the GM's hint/warning and run, it is the GM who produced that outcome; if the players charge Demogorgon and the GM - rather than turning to the combat mechanics - dictates by fiat that they awake with sore heads and all down 10 hp on the bank of an underdark river, then it is the GM who produced the outcome. The players aren't impacting the fiction.)

We're also talking about one moment in a campaign. Sone moments will naturally have fewer options for the players than others.

I don't think that's natural at all. My goal as a GM is to make that number of moments zero. Because I'm not a perfect GM, I fail at that goal from time to time. But it remains my goal.

 

[powerfamiliar]

You have a strange definition of "meaningful".

And as I said above, it need not result in the PCs' deaths. The DM could have it result in whatever way he wants, or what he feels is good for the game.

I don't think that every single instance of player choice must have equally favorable options. I also don't think that treating the encounter purely as a cut scene is somehow preserving player choice.

We're also talking about one moment in a campaign. Sone moments will naturally have fewer options for the players than others.

The scene and action are obviously meaningful if they result in character deaths, but the choice isn't. I don't have a problem with the scene by itself, I just think it is disingenuous to call it a choice. It's fine as a framing devise or like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] mentioned as a result of a previous player action/decision. This specific example if you have somewhat experienced players you don't have to play as a cut scene, or even hint that the players should run. It is obvious from the description. But that does not mean there is another meaningful choice.

Whenever I add an encounter/situation to a game I think "How will my players react to this". I then think of possible broad ramifications based on their choice, so even if they do something unexpected at least I'll have a frame of mind on how the fiction is affected by their choice. In the Demogorgon example there is no need. Not long after the description of Demogorgon rising the fiction will be in the same spot regardless of the player's decision. If that's the case, I can't count the players action as a choice. But that doesn't mean the scene itself is bad, it's very possible it will lead to a lot of very cool RP and fun.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.
.

This reminds me of a session of WFRP 1e I played a few years ago. We were all brand new characters, and a circus or something was in town. One of the things was a minotaur in an arena that you could fight, both of us unarmed. One of the players suggested I don't do it, but the DM was totally silent, leaving me up to my own devices. Well, I was playing a very brash and arrogant warrior. I could take it.

When the battle started, I got to go first and I hit. And rolled a 6. And other 6. And another. I kid you not, I rolled 5 sixes in a row*. Which was more than enough to knock the ever living crap out of that minotaur. Statistically, I should have been stomped. I for one am glad the DM didn't say "Sorry, you're gonna lose. Don't waste your time and I'll save you from making that choice since it's not a meaningful one anyway..." Even if the choice ends up less than ideal, it's still a choice. Someone calling it "not meaningful" is THEIR opinion, and I'd rather not have you push me one way or the other, because THAT is what removing choice looks like.


*for those that don't know, in WFRP, if you roll a 6, you get to keep rolling and adding damage as long as you keep rolling 6s.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

And sometimes DM knowledge is wrong. Sometimes the players charge 300 orcs and, and the DM private thinks to himself, "These guys are going to die!" but runs things fairly anyway, and somehow the PCs manage to kill 100 of them including the warchief, without a single PC casualty, and the DM ends up deciding much to his own surprise that the orcs' morale might be breaking... then he rolls some dice and voila! the orcs flee in panic and the player characters "win" for today.

It's epic when that happens.

 

[Rhenny]

And sometimes DM knowledge is wrong. Sometimes the players charge 300 orcs and, and the DM private thinks to himself, "These guys are going to die!" but runs things fairly anyway, and somehow the PCs manage to kill 100 of them including the warchief, without a single PC casualty, and the DM ends up deciding much to his own surprise that the orcs' morale might be breaking... then he rolls some dice and voila! the orcs flee in panic and the player characters "win" for today.

It's epic when that happens.

Yes! Everyone always remembers the times when their choices defy the odds. This is a major reason why I like swinginess to some extent. The D20 model with limited bonus modifiers (bounded accuracy) adds a little excitement. If I didn't run most of my games on Fantasy Grounds, I'd probably use the proficiency dice optional rule rather than the fixed bonus to add to the variability of individual actions and encourage more players to take risks.

 

[Psikerlord#]

While I think 5e on the whole is a lot better than 4e, it is somewhat lacking in the monster department. There are three main things I think 4e did better with monsters:

1. Ramping up humanoids. In 5e, pretty much every natural humanoid monster is an appropriate monster for 1st level characters to fight. Bugbears, duergar, and thri-kreen top the humanoid pecking order at CR 1, and below those we have gnolls, svirfneblin, hobgoblins, lizardfolk, orcs, and sahuagin at CR 1/2, bullywugs, drow, goblins, grimlocks, kuo-toa, and troglodytes at 1/4, and kobolds and merfolk at 1/8. The only ones going beyond that are gith, lycanthropes, and quaggoths. In 4e, you had a progression of humanoids starting with kobolds and goblins at level 1-2, then moving up to orcs and hobgoblins at level 3-4, bugbears, gnolls, and lizardfolk at level 5-6, and shadar-kai and troglodytes at level 6-8. Sure, 4e had a different level scale than 5e does, but it would have been nice to have the humanoids spread out a big more over CR 1/4 to 5.

2. Variety in monsters. 4e usually provided multiple variants of a particular monster. In some cases it was just a higher-level version of the same thing (Iron Gorgon and Storm Gorgon), but (particularly among humanoids) often they were differently "classed" monsters - e.g. goblin blackblade for the sneaky ones that stab you in the back, goblin warrior for the relatively straight-forward fighters/skirmishers, goblin sharpshooter for the archers, and goblin hexer for the magical support. Volo's Guide to Monsters helps out with this a little, but nowhere near enough.

3. Monsters that do cool stuff. A lot of 5e monsters are just big bags of hit points and damage. By comparison, most monsters in 4e at least had a little something extra - and in 13th age, almost all the monsters have something cool to do. Perhaps one does not need to go that far, but it would be cool with monsters with more abilities.

Yeah I like the personalised abilities of monsters in 13th Age, makes for cool suprises most combats.

In Low Fantasy Gaming RPG, all monsters have a special effect on a 19 and/or crit, and some have other abilities (might activate on bloodied, or a breath weapon with a recharge chance, etc).

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sandbox and railroad/AP are not the only two ways of running a RPG.

Yeah, that was pretty much my point. No campaign or adventure is just one thing. Or at least, most aren't.

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.

See, I understand your use of the term no-win situation. I don't really look at it that way, because what constitutes a win really depends on the circumstances...sometimes, survival itself is a win. But we can use your term for ease of discussion.

I have no problem putting players in no win situations like that. In fact, that was my original point...I find it beneficial from time to time to do exactly that. I do this because I find that it helps overall....each potential encounter is viewed with less certainty of success. I DO want my players to think that failure is an option. I do want them to struggle with deciding between the lesser of two evils.

Now...I don't do this all the time. It tends to happen here and there....usually as a result of my players doing something unexpected or going someplace they shouldn't go to....but not frequently at all.

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.

Okay...I think I worded my question improperly. How do you determine the DC? How do you decide if something is easy or medium or hard? I understand that player or monster level is one axis on the chart...what determines the other?

For instance, how does it come to be that the PCs are confronted by Demogorgon, or by 300 orcs? I don't mean in the fiction, how does this come about. I mean, at the table, how does this come about.

Well, in the case of Out of the Abyss....spoilers follow for anyone who doesn't want to know...the players have been wandering the Underdark and have come to a Kuo-toan (I think...maybe troglodyte, I forget...some slimy subterranean race, anyway) city. There have been several escapades through the Underdark at this point, and they've been pursued by stow the entire time.

The PCs are there in the city just as Demogorgon rises from the underground lake and then proceeds to lay waste to the city. This is not intended to be a major decision point for the players so much as it is to show the true threat and to foreshadow later parts of the adventure. I used it as an example not expecting a discussion on the importance of player agency so much as to serve as an example of how an encounter with a superior force can help at times, per the point I reiterated above.

The 300 orc example was given as just an example. Perhaps the PCs have been sent to observe enemy movements. When they find the enemy, they discover that many more tribes have banded together to threaten the entire region. Armed with this knowledge the PCs don't rush back to the city to warn their friend the duke...they decide to charge, because hey, they're 10th level and orcs are only CR 1/8 creatures.

That example was provided to show how meta-game thinking can irk me. The focus on the mechanics of the game, rather than of the "reality" of the fictional world. That is not how I want my players to make decisions. And our fictional world is less mythic than that; we don't have PCs slaying enemies by the score. Nothing is wrong with either of those things, it's just not how we do things.

For me, the notion that the GM would just frame the PCs into an unwinnable confrontation, in which some salient choices are "foolish" but others are not, and either (i) hint/warn the players as to the right choice, and/or (ii) expect the players to guess what the right choice is (maybe these are ten normal orcs, but maybe they're ten 10th level Disciples of Gruumsh), is a long way from how I want to run a game. It seems to put all the real action in the GM's seat rather than the players'.

That's cool. I like player agency just fine. I just know that it cannot determine everything, so I don't pretend to try and let it. Sometimes I do indeed determine events for the game.

I don't think so. It seems to be pretty much the same as @powerfamiliar's.

Then you both share the strange definition.

Honestly, if your level 4 PCs who are underequipped and who've been lost for several tendays in the Underdark decide that they want to attack Demogorgon, that is indeed their choice. I really doubt most groups would even consider it...and while I would certainly try and impress upon them the gravity of the situation and the danger...if they still chose to attack, then that's them making a choice that will likely have meaningful consequences.

This isn't reducing my sense that the players have no meaningful choice! "Punt it all to the GM" isn't a way of giving the players agency.

They have plenty of meaningful choices up to that point and hopefully many after.

I don't think that's natural at all. My goal as a GM is to make that number of moments zero. Because I'm not a perfect GM, I fail at that goal from time to time. But it remains my goal.

Really? So you would never have one encounter where the players can bluff, bribe, or fight their way past a guard and then another where they can only bluff or fight because the second guard is truly devoted and won't accept a bribe?

All your encounters offer the same potential solutions? Or the same number of potential solutions?

The scene and action are obviously meaningful if they result in character deaths, but the choice isn't. I don't have a problem with the scene by itself, I just think it is disingenuous to call it a choice. It's fine as a framing devise or like @pemerton mentioned as a result of a previous player action/decision. This specific example if you have somewhat experienced players you don't have to play as a cut scene, or even hint that the players should run. It is obvious from the description. But that does not mean there is another meaningful choice.

Whenever I add an encounter/situation to a game I think "How will my players react to this". I then think of possible broad ramifications based on their choice, so even if they do something unexpected at least I'll have a frame of mind on how the fiction is affected by their choice. In the Demogorgon example there is no need. Not long after the description of Demogorgon rising the fiction will be in the same spot regardless of the player's decision. If that's the case, I can't count the players action as a choice. But that doesn't mean the scene itself is bad, it's very possible it will lead to a lot of very cool RP and fun.

Yeah, I can understand that. I think we're examining the Demogorgon example in a vacuum, rather than as part of a whole. It is pretty much a framing device used to move the story along. It's the big bad showing up and the characters catch a glimpse.

And as I said above to @pemerton, I strive to allow player agency as much as possible. But I think I also do have an impact on the choices they have in any given situation. That's part of the job of the DM. Yes, the players can also come up with ideas...but the DM determines many of the possibilities for them.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, that was pretty much my point. No campaign or adventure is just one thing. Or at least, most aren't.

I might have mis-communicated. A scene-framed game is neither sandbox nor AP/"linear"/railroad. Nor intermediate beteen them. It's its own thing, relying on different techniques from both sandbox and AP.

The PCs are there in the city just as Demogorgon rises from the underground lake and then proceeds to lay waste to the city. This is not intended to be a major decision point for the players so much as it is to show the true threat and to foreshadow later parts of the adventure.

<snip>

It is pretty much a framing device used to move the story along. It's the big bad showing up and the characters catch a glimpse.

To be honest, that sounds like a cut-scene. As you describe it, it's not intended to have the players engage it via their PCs. There's no need for the PCs to even be there - you could do it as a narrated vignette just as well, if you were into that style of play, and (it seems) nothing would change.

We're also talking about one moment in a campaign. Some moments will naturally have fewer options for the players than others.

I don't think that's natural at all. My goal as a GM is to make that number of moments zero. Because I'm not a perfect GM, I fail at that goal from time to time. But it remains my goal.

Really? So you would never have one encounter where the players can bluff, bribe, or fight their way past a guard and then another where they can only bluff or fight because the second guard is truly devoted and won't accept a bribe?

All your encounters offer the same potential solutions? Or the same number of potential solutions?

I don't think of encounters as offering solutions - that implies they are puzzle to be solved. Encounters confront players (and their PCs) with the need to choose what they do, and how they respond. Parameters in play include practical/prudential considerations (eg managing resources), likelihood of success (which might vary between options, with different characters, etc), loyalties and obligations, and other values (eg "I feel really good about not having killed that bear", said by one player after the PCs succeed in taming an attacking bear). Ideally there should be some sort of tension between these considerations, so that the choice is not automatic (eg "We want to beat them up rather than compromise, but we're low on healing surges"; "If I fight these devils, my Sceptre of Law will get angry at me, because even devils are servants of the gods;" "We can't fight these slaver duergar, because we need to rest, so I guess we'll contract with them instead to redeem the slaves for 300 gp at an exchange to take place a month from today").

The option-set is to be conceived of by the players, not by me - my job is to frame them in, not steer them out. So there is not even such a thing as "a guard to be got passed" until the players have already decided that that's how they want to engage the situation. At which point they've already reviewed the option-set for engaging the situation and narrowed it down.

As to whether I would have a literally un-bribable guard? Typically not. (Assuming we're talking here about a mundane human guard.) That would be contrary to "say yes or roll the dice". (It's a bit complicated in D&D which (i) uses a non-abstract wealth system, meaning the GM has to come up with a "price" for the guard, and (ii) uses resolution where auto-success and auto-fail are possible circumstances, as opposed to say a dice-pool system which sets a target for successful dice and so always permits failure no matter how big the pool if, by chance, all the dice come up negative. If the PCs offer a "duty bound" guard 10 gp to look the other way, I might happily say "no way", although - depending on the mood of play and the back-and-forth at the table - I might, as GM, observe as they are preparing their action declaration that 10 gp is a pretty pox bribe! If the bribe amount doesn't look pitifully small, though, then I'll set a DC and run with it.)