Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[Raven Crowking]

How many different ways did the encounter with the Ogre in the cave turn out?

Quite a few. The ogre's behaviour can and does relate to that of its allied orcs. Sometimes the ogre is nothing more than a pack animal, helping the orcs to carry out their treasure between PC raids!

But, I would also point out something here Raven Crowking. Every single one of your "different encounters" were statted up as a combat encounter.

No. Every one of my "different encounters" was statted up as an encounter. There are some notable exceptions, where Gary tells us specifically what the monsters will do. These encounters are "scenes", if you would, similar to 4e (and many 3e) encounters, where any given group is likely to have relatively similar play experiences. The orc lookout watching through the skull is a good example here. The medusa is another "scene" encounter that is likely to go along similar lines no matter who is the DM or who is playing (assuming some level of competence on the DM's part).

You knew the combat stats of every single one of those involved, whether combat was the result or not. How is this any different from 4e design?

I knew the stats of the guards at the Keep's gate, too. Was that a combat encounter?

The difference is this:

When setting up a "combat encounter" or any other kind of "scene" encounter, how the encounter will play out is largely determined beforehand (as Majoru Oakheart rightly notes). For instance, in Forge of Fury, when the players encounter the chasm bridge, the DM is given exacting information as to what will occur. If you, I, or anyone else ran the encounter as written, it will never result in a religious debate.

Barrow of the Forgotten King, as an early example of the Delve format, is even worse. No longer are the positions of creatures based upon circumstances (noisy or quiet PCs, for example); the DM is told not only where to place the minis, but is given the tactics that the monsters will follow throughout the combat. The encounter is a fully laid out scene that any number of people can run through in exactly the same manner, often having little or no connection to the scenes preceding or following it to minimize the need for the DM to make decisions as to how A affects B on the fly.

BotFK is also as linear a scenario as ever has appeared in D&D. The only real player choices are (1) to choose to play in the first place, and (2) tactics in each discrete combat. Bleh. The DM is given even less to do.

If you are really interested in seeing the difference between a "combat encounter" and an "encounter", I can think of no module that offers as many repeated firm examples of combat encounters than this.

(Other WotC modules post BotFK might be just as bad, or worse -- this one so put me off WotC modules that I stopped buying them.)


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

Quite a few. The ogre's behaviour can and does relate to that of its allied orcs. Sometimes the ogre is nothing more than a pack animal, helping the orcs to carry out their treasure between PC raids!

The ogre is an occasional ally of the goblins in apartment D rather than the orcs across the ravine in apartments B & C. Otherwise good stuff

 

[qstor]

My point is that many complaints about 4E also work as complaints about all editions of D&D. However, these days they tend to be framed as things that are wrong with 4E, and only 4E.

Right many but not all. Certainly the complaint that all settings are now 4e (i saw it called hamburger genre or such) settings doesn't work in 3e or 2e. Cause Dragonlance wasn't Greyhawk and Greyhawk wasn't Dragonlance etc

And the mini centric aspect of the game or the use of powers for all classes. I think those are other examples that can only be mentioned of 4e.

Mike