D&D 4E Throwing ideas, seeing what sticks (and what stinks)

[Balesir]

It's easy enough to execute the scenario: a group check or two determine surprise or a Skill Challenge determines whether the PCs go into an encounter at a more significant advantage or disadvantage, or even whether or which encounter they face next. But the PCs' abilities still remain very relevant in determining that.

I'll start by noting that I don't entirely concur with [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s view of surprise in 4E to begin with. Several fights with surprise on one side or other find the surprised party dazed (or worse) on their first turn, IME, and that can severely cramp your style from the outset.

Having said that, if you want to make a bigger deal of surprise 4E suggests several possible mechanisms. One that I have had some fun with is "Skill Challenge Minionisation". It works like this:

- Select a complexity of skill challenge at the level of the encounter; this is the task required to gain surprise with a good attacking position. If you want to be avant garde, let the players select the complexity in a given range: higher = harder to succeed but more effect (see next).

- If the PCs succeed at the skill challenge, reduce the difficulty of the encounter by (a) giving the PCs surprise and (b) making some or all of the Standard creatures in the encounter Minions instead. Each level of complexity of SC = 1 Standard creature "minionised", and higher complexities may give additional intelligence (i.e. set up the combat map more completely before having the players select PC starting positions, and give more freedom in starting positions).

The challenge skills should guide/be guided by the benefits; more intel on the monster disposition means some Perception and Lore checks, more freedom in positioning at battle start means stealth checks from those going for "advanced" positions, etc. Some approach routes might call for Athletics or similar checks, and (as usual, at least in our game) Powers and Rituals might help on certain checks, making them easier or even automatic.

This mode of "blending" skill challenges and combat was never really explored in the published 4E stuff, but it has worked pretty well, for us.

 

[darkbard]

This mode of "blending" skill challenges and combat was never really explored in the published 4E stuff, but it has worked pretty well, for us.

I would love to see an actual example of how this might work in play. Are you the DM for your group that you might provide an example from your notes?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Three basic problems:
It isn't clear why 4e doesn't already do this. You have a skill challenge, you fail the skill challenge, some encounter results because of it.

Worlds have rules and need to be uniform. Surprise shouldn't just be possible with small encounters, it should be possible with big ones too. The PCs should be able to surprise monsters. The problems here start to get endless - the players realize that if they're all somewhat stealthy, every encounter gets surprise instead of a small percentage. There's advantages in making 5000 perception checks. Big encounters get unexpectedly swingy towards a TPK. Those are not good things IMO.

It isn't clear how the wimpy goblins have an actual threat level unless they're a real encounter, they're added onto an already happening encounter, or they've got some sort of 'gotcha' effect that has an impact far beyond expected on an unusual roll. The 1st and 2nd are easy to do and I find the 3rd type of encounter really unrewarding, both as a DM and as a player. That they might have a threat level if they roll well just isn't really worth my time - let's just call it a healing surge or two and move on.

Mind you, I co-wrote NETH4-1 for LFR, so my style's a bit on the weirder side.

Its quite simple, surprise actually means something, that's how they are actual threat.

As for your apocalyptic vision of what will happen when surprise is factored in adequately... It wasn't a problem in the past. I mean monsters should have pickets and etc, so you really have to WORK for that surprise. This is how you make decisions MATTER in the game. The PCs can charge in, hoping that their initial assault is so effective that they carry the day, or they can sneak around and fight asymmetrically. These are both valid options, potentially, and indicate how the players like to fight. Now, AD&D and earlier 'classic' versions of D&D tended to obviate option 1 by means of making combat too dicey and unpredictable, so you never charge in because no amount of advantage will prevent possible ganking (well, not NO POSSIBLE, but within reason). 4e does the opposite, it makes things like surprise so little of a consideration that you might as well just charge in. Balance is better.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Absolutely. For instance, if you were going to go all old-school and have a random encounter table, you'd want stats for everything on that table available before you ever rolled against it.

I suppose the fact relatively few monsters are statted with more than one secondary role (the same monster presented as, for instance, an heroic-level solo, Paragon-level standard, and Epic-level minion), has to do with wanting to keep the game 'fresh' even while extending the 'sweet spot' over all 30 levels, and, also to keep a sense of advancement in spite of the treadmill - thus spreading the monsters out over 30 levels. Were it not for that, the mechanics lend themselves to a monster having a stat block for most secondary roles (plus swarms) and thus at least one version suitable for almost any level.

It's sounds like we're circling around the idea of supporting the style of Gygaxian 'skilled play,' in which player decisions, driven by player experience with & knowledge of the game, more significantly impact the outcome of challenges. 4e de-emphasizes the player as a component of the resolution system, keeping the character front-and-center.

It's easy enough to execute the scenario: a group check or two determine surprise or a Skill Challenge determines whether the PCs go into an encounter at a more significant advantage or disadvantage, or even whether or which encounter they face next. But the PCs' abilities still remain very relevant in determining that.

Yeah, it doesn't have to devolve down to 'skilled play', at least not to an extreme. However, even a story-centered game needs character's decisions to be significant, and those WILL be made by the players fundamentally, so there's no avoiding putting the player at the center. Its a question there of what you emphasize, a very gamist conflict game, or a more story-oriented game that emphasizes plot and characterization. You don't have to remove all skill or consequence of player decisions to get the later. In fact I'd say its not even necessary to remove any.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'll start by noting that I don't entirely concur with [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s view of surprise in 4E to begin with. Several fights with surprise on one side or other find the surprised party dazed (or worse) on their first turn, IME, and that can severely cramp your style from the outset.

Having said that, if you want to make a bigger deal of surprise 4E suggests several possible mechanisms. One that I have had some fun with is "Skill Challenge Minionisation". It works like this:

- Select a complexity of skill challenge at the level of the encounter; this is the task required to gain surprise with a good attacking position. If you want to be avant garde, let the players select the complexity in a given range: higher = harder to succeed but more effect (see next).

- If the PCs succeed at the skill challenge, reduce the difficulty of the encounter by (a) giving the PCs surprise and (b) making some or all of the Standard creatures in the encounter Minions instead. Each level of complexity of SC = 1 Standard creature "minionised", and higher complexities may give additional intelligence (i.e. set up the combat map more completely before having the players select PC starting positions, and give more freedom in starting positions).

The challenge skills should guide/be guided by the benefits; more intel on the monster disposition means some Perception and Lore checks, more freedom in positioning at battle start means stealth checks from those going for "advanced" positions, etc. Some approach routes might call for Athletics or similar checks, and (as usual, at least in our game) Powers and Rituals might help on certain checks, making them easier or even automatic.

This mode of "blending" skill challenges and combat was never really explored in the published 4E stuff, but it has worked pretty well, for us.

Sure, but again this is specific to a given scenario, where the PCs may achieve surprise. It doesn't address the opposite scenario, where they are being surprised. Its just easier and more natural to have a set of rules that make surprise work in a more expected way and let nature take its course.

Its not that surprise is NEVER effective in 4e, it has some effect, but relative to its huge impact in real life, where we can find the annals of war FILLED with examples of vastly inferior forces winning by surprise, its almost trivial.

 

[MwaO]

As for your apocalyptic vision of what will happen when surprise is factored in adequately... It wasn't a problem in the past. I mean monsters should have pickets and etc, so you really have to WORK for that surprise.

I viewed it as a huge problem of previous editions and wasn't aware about just how much I hated it until I played 4e. Namely, when I DM'd, I had to make sure that initial encounters weren't accidentally overpowered because the wrong set of rolls would end up with a TPK. So I had to really softball them and gradually ramp up difficulty. The players tended to figure this out and then charge in.

IThis is how you make decisions MATTER in the game. The PCs can charge in, hoping that their initial assault is so effective that they carry the day, or they can sneak around and fight asymmetrically. These are both valid options, potentially, and indicate how the players like to fight. Now, AD&D and earlier 'classic' versions of D&D tended to obviate option 1 by means of making combat too dicey and unpredictable, so you never charge in because no amount of advantage will prevent possible ganking (well, not NO POSSIBLE, but within reason). 4e does the opposite, it makes things like surprise so little of a consideration that you might as well just charge in. Balance is better.

Ironically, I've killed more 4e PCs charging in than in any other edition. Because I know that if the TPK starts happening, they should have enough time to retreat and it will be due to their own decisions that they die horribly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, it doesn't have to devolve down to 'skilled play', at least not to an extreme. However, even a story-centered game needs character's decisions to be significant, and those WILL be made by the players fundamentally, so there's no avoiding putting the player at the center.

Sure, the player make decisions, declaring actions for instance. The resolution should be based on the abilities of the character. The less the character matters, the closer you get to that 'skilled play' extreme.

Its a question there of what you emphasize, a very gamist conflict game, or a more story-oriented game that emphasizes plot and characterization. You don't have to remove all skill or consequence of player decisions to get the later. In fact I'd say its not even necessary to remove any.

You do have to draw the line somewhere. If, for instance, you have a game/setting where, say, 4th level Alchemists can learn the secret to making gunpowder, but it just so happens that the DM and one of the players just happen to know exactly how it's really made, does the DM let that player declare a series of actions that result in making gunpowder, or does he just say, "look, your 2nd level barbarian can't make gunpowder."

Deciding to try to surprise the enemy is one thing, and a player thing, generally. Carrying it off is a matter of how good the PCs are at that sort of thing. So the reward is as much for having the right abilities and passing a check or a challenge, as it is a reward for the players doing the smart thing. As such, it should be in proportion.

Its not that surprise is NEVER effective in 4e, it has some effect, but relative to its huge impact in real life, where we can find the annals of war FILLED with examples of vastly inferior forces winning by surprise, its almost trivial.

Military history is larger engagements of relatively normal people. D&D characters don't worry about their return fire ratio: it can be 100% unless they're instantly killed. There's no failures of morale, very little confusion or fog of war going on.

I do like the minionizing-skill-challenge idea, above, for the player side, though. If you catch enemies sufficiently unaware by completing the gain-surprise SC, enemies are knocked from Standard to Minion - you catch them so off-guard they can't defend themselves and down they go. There's even an obvious formula - success on the challenge reduces the exp budget of the encounter by the value of the challenge.

On the monster side, if you want to model a really devastating degree of surprise you could add a rider to all the surprising enemy's attacks. Like stunned (save ends) - that'll bring down their return-fire-ratio.

A related thing that'd be cool is some meaningful 'covered' condition. The old sword to the throat or held at gunpoint, another trope D&D has never done well. Just having to weather an attack is not much of a threat to most D&D characters. But if they can get the drop on you, maybe they can do a /lot/ of damage (like you are reduced to your bloodied value, /then/ take a critical hit), unless you (or something) distracts them or gives you a chance to change the situation. In 4e, that'd be a fair thing to declare when you've reduced an enemy to 0 - you've forced a surrender and have them at swordpoint, or something along those line. But dropping to 0 is not that likely without focus fire.

 

[MwaO]

On the monster side, if you want to model a really devastating degree of surprise you could add a rider to all the surprising enemy's attacks. Like stunned (save ends) - that'll bring down their return-fire-ratio.

You can also set up a skill challenge in the combat that only goes off if the PCs fail at the skill challenge. As an example, the PCs failed the skill challenge, so the Kobolds set up traps that need to be disabled in combat or the Goblins are behind cover, the Giants have threatening reach, the Dragon has set up its treasure to turn into a landslide, etc...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I viewed it as a huge problem of previous editions and wasn't aware about just how much I hated it until I played 4e. Namely, when I DM'd, I had to make sure that initial encounters weren't accidentally overpowered because the wrong set of rolls would end up with a TPK. So I had to really softball them and gradually ramp up difficulty. The players tended to figure this out and then charge in.

I don't disagree that there was a certain randomness. However, 4e characters have a lot of baseline hit points, surges, and other resources they can tap into in order to manage their level of effort. In previous editions what I found was just that players were extremely timid because when you have a max of say 20 hit points at 4th level its trivial to be ganked by a monster even if one hit only does maybe 5 damage on average. I think it will be POSSIBLE for a surprise scenario to kill off 4e characters, of course, but I'm not really proposing that PCs get surprised all that much. In fact it wasn't common in AD&D and probably won't be in my 'hack' of 4e.

Ironically, I've killed more 4e PCs charging in than in any other edition. Because I know that if the TPK starts happening, they should have enough time to retreat and it will be due to their own decisions that they die horribly.

I've killed off few 4e PCs and only had one TPK, which we ended up turning into a 'soft' TPK since that fit well with the situation. There certainly can be now and then a bad luck death at low levels, bullywugs once ganked the wizard in one party during an epic battle. It wasn't a BAD death though, as you say. The PCs could have beat feet.

I just want to dial it back slightly, so there's a little more value to planning, and potentially a bit wider range of things that COULD be challenging in the right situation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, the player make decisions, declaring actions for instance. The resolution should be based on the abilities of the character. The less the character matters, the closer you get to that 'skilled play' extreme.

You do have to draw the line somewhere. If, for instance, you have a game/setting where, say, 4th level Alchemists can learn the secret to making gunpowder, but it just so happens that the DM and one of the players just happen to know exactly how it's really made, does the DM let that player declare a series of actions that result in making gunpowder, or does he just say, "look, your 2nd level barbarian can't make gunpowder."

Yeah, THAT sort of thing is fairly system-independent, though 4e certainly has a good skill system to help mediate it.

Military history is larger engagements of relatively normal people. D&D characters don't worry about their return fire ratio: it can be 100% unless they're instantly killed. There's no failures of morale, very little confusion or fog of war going on.

Well, its true, PCs have perfect 'presence of mind', at least in most systems such as D&D. You COULD enact a sort of 'fog of war' kind of thing using limited information, but it would be a little weird, more suited to systems like DW that are pretty abstract and lack mechanics covering positioning and whatnot.

I do like the minionizing-skill-challenge idea, above, for the player side, though. If you catch enemies sufficiently unaware by completing the gain-surprise SC, enemies are knocked from Standard to Minion - you catch them so off-guard they can't defend themselves and down they go. There's even an obvious formula - success on the challenge reduces the exp budget of the encounter by the value of the challenge.

On the monster side, if you want to model a really devastating degree of surprise you could add a rider to all the surprising enemy's attacks. Like stunned (save ends) - that'll bring down their return-fire-ratio.

The skill challenge is not bad. My other observation is that there is both tactical and OPERATIONAL levels of surprise. The latter is just as important and 4e can certainly handle THAT. In other words getting the jump on the orcs guarding the entrance is one thing, they're likely to be wary, they're certainly armed, and maybe at best you reduce them to a minor threat by a totally unexpected attack. The ORC LAIR ITSELF is another thing. How many of the orcs are awake? How many have weapons and armor to hand? How many are even present in the lair when you make your assault? How effectively do they rally and how quickly can they muster their forces, identify the axis of the attack, determine its strength and nature, and mount an effective response? If you're FAST ENOUGH and achieved tactical surprise at the entrance, well, they might not really offer a ton of resistance overall. So an attentive DM can manage that aspect of things to provide decision points and incorporate tactical thinking. 4e certainly CAN handle that, though D&D traditionally has shied away from this whole aspect due again to the wide range of challenge level that might result depending on good or bad choices.

I guess I tend to be a DM that isn't shy of this. If you choose badly, it hurts! Maybe you do go down in defeat. OTOH I've played with the same group for a LONG time mostly, and they don't make a lot of obvious mistakes.

A related thing that'd be cool is some meaningful 'covered' condition. The old sword to the throat or held at gunpoint, another trope D&D has never done well. Just having to weather an attack is not much of a threat to most D&D characters. But if they can get the drop on you, maybe they can do a /lot/ of damage (like you are reduced to your bloodied value, /then/ take a critical hit), unless you (or something) distracts them or gives you a chance to change the situation. In 4e, that'd be a fair thing to declare when you've reduced an enemy to 0 - you've forced a surrender and have them at swordpoint, or something along those line. But dropping to 0 is not that likely without focus fire.[/QUOTE]