Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[nightwyrm]

I have no problems with big bad guys. Plot device pools of hit points are annoying though. Giving the big bad a large pool of extra HP just to make sure it gets a minimum amount of screen time is kind of lame.

By the way, mentioning that we should leave MMO's out of the discussion then using CRPG's as source of inspiration for the boss concept seems a bit hypocritical.

It's just the way ppl often uses 4e=MMO=bad to be kinda annoying. CRPGs have been influencing and have been influenced by D&D long before 4e and MMOs showed up. But like I said before, CRPGs aren't the only inspiration for a boss monster. Comics, literature, anime, TV, movies etc. all have the lone, tough antagonists who can stand up to a group of protagonists.

As for bosses, what suggestions do you have for a solitary boss monster who can stand effectively up to 5 PCs but won't kill a PC a turn.

 

[Ariosto]

Killing characters along the way is one way a monster can hold out (a la giants in old D&D, with their 2 dice or more of damage per hit). Numbers weigh heavily in most RPGs, and a monster that might give Beowulf or Conan a run for his money probably won't fare so well when the players muster half a dozen heroes of that caliber.

One can easily work out a ballpark number of hit points that should do the trick, given a good estimate of the opposition. If that's too many hp for the monster concept (e.g., number of hit dice), then it should lair somewhere likely to wear down enemies coming after it.

Of course, in old D&D campaign (or "sandbox") play, it's mainly up to the players to decide the terms of engagement. They might bring to bear enough resources to swat Monster X like a fly, or they might come in suicidally unprepared. Depending on the intelligence (in both senses) available to Big Bad, he/she/it might respond in cunning ways.

The dice also have a way of sometimes laying low the best laid plans of monsters and men.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's just the way ppl often uses 4e=MMO=bad to be kinda annoying. CRPGs have been influencing and have been influenced by D&D long before 4e and MMOs showed up. But like I said before, CRPGs aren't the only inspiration for a boss monster. Comics, literature, anime, TV, movies etc. all have the lone, tough antagonists who can stand up to a group of protagonists.

As for bosses, what suggestions do you have for a solitary boss monster who can stand effectively up to 5 PCs but won't kill a PC a turn.

MMO does not have to carry a negative connotation. It's simply a CRPG played by a lot of people at once.

When coming up with a solitary threatening monster, think of it's place in the context of the campaign rather than just the scene where the PC's are fighting it. As for not being too lethal, large numbers of attacks from a high HD creature that are individually not highly damaging can work well.
As for standing up to 5 PC's it would depend on how the encounter was handled. If the PC's can come up with a clever plan to minimize risk and defeat the solo without taking a lot of time thats good for them.

I would not feel comfortable designing a creature simply to last X number of rounds just because I want the combat to play out a certain way and last a minimum number of rounds. It really depends on the entire way that you approach the campaign. Are you playing just for the sake of setting up cinematic fight scenes or does combat occur in the campaign as a result of conflict that couldn't be settled in another way?

So, while I will feature powerful NPC's and monsters to serve as important potential opposition, designing them specifically to last for a specified amount of time in a combat encounter is not part of the process.

 

[Oni]

Are you playing just for the sake of setting up cinematic fight scenes or does combat occur in the campaign as a result of conflict that couldn't be settled in another way?

Couldn't you have a little from column A and a little from column B. I mean just because one makes an effort to make combat cinematic and exciting, should it occur, does not necessarily mean that it should be the end all be all of the game or necessarily the only solution to a conflict.

Now I suppose one could make an argument that if combat is more fun the players are more likely to engage in it. However I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the notion of making a portion of the game less fun than it could be in an effort to guide the decision making process away from it. That should be more of a decision based on opportunity cost on the part of the characters, than a choice as players to avoid combat just because its not as exciting as it could be.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Couldn't you have a little from column A and a little from column B. I mean just because one makes an effort to make combat cinematic and exciting, should it occur, does not necessarily mean that it should be the end all be all of the game or necessarily the only solution to a conflict.

Now I suppose one could make an argument that if combat is more fun the players are more likely to engage in it. However I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the notion of making a portion of the game less fun than it could be in an effort to guide the decision making process away from it. That should be more of a decision based on opportunity cost on the part of the characters, than a choice as players to avoid combat just because its not as exciting as it could be.

A lot of what guides these decisions are driven by the in-game rewards the PC's get for engaging or not engaging in certain activity. If lots of fighting produces the best method of advancement through XP then there will be a good chance of a lot of combat happening in that campaign.

If the bulk of XP comes from treasure then there will be a lot of looting going on with as much combat as it takes to aquire said loot.

If the bulk of XP comes from quests or completing goals, once again there will be a push to accomplish such goals as soon as possible with as much combat as it takes to get the job done.

The design of the reward system has a large say in how adventuring is approached by the players. If the DM decides beforehand that the party WILL have 4 combat encounters, 2 social/skill based encounters, and 3 trap/ skill based encounters in a given scenario the players approach means very little. The reward or XP for such encounters is already established.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

A lot of what guides these decisions are driven by the in-game rewards the PC's get for engaging or not engaging in certain activity. If lots of fighting produces the best method of advancement through XP then there will be a good chance of a lot of combat happening in that campaign.

I agree that XP does drive players to do things. But only so much. Back when I played a combo 1e/2e game, we got XP for finding magic items. But we got XP for killing the monsters guarding those items as well. It only made sense to kill them AND take their stuff. Yes, we got more XP for the items than we did for killing the monsters...but XP is XP. We'll take it all.

The design of the reward system has a large say in how adventuring is approached by the players. If the DM decides beforehand that the party WILL have 4 combat encounters, 2 social/skill based encounters, and 3 trap/ skill based encounters in a given scenario the players approach means very little. The reward or XP for such encounters is already established.

It still means something. Their approach is what continues to make it a role playing game. This isn't a new concept.

In previous editions, most DMs made thinly veiled attempts at pretending they weren't deciding things in advance. So, you'd create a dungeon, populate it with monsters who were evil, protective of their home, violent, and quick to provoke. Then you'd seed a plot hook to give the PCs a reason to go down there...possible a reason to want to kill off the monsters.

And sit back and watch the fireworks(mostly consisting of a series of combats). All the while safe in the knowledge that you didn't PLAN there to be combats...the PCs could certainly come up with alternate ways to get the macguffin out of the chest underneath the Goblin King's bed in the heavily guarded Goblin outpost. But, the result was all but certain in advance.

The same is true if you plan out the combats in advance. They CAN be bypassed and you may even write down a couple of possible ways the combat can be bypassed in order to prepare for them. But you expect there to be combat since that is the most likely outcome.

So, their approach to the combat is just as important as whether they get into one at all. Plus, their approach to an adventure can make the difference between getting the first shot against the enemies and having them at a distinct tactical disadvantage or getting surprised and killed. They might be able to stop reinforcements from arriving and make a combat easier, despite being worth the same XP.

 

[seskis281]

Why try 4e?

Beacuse it's always good to try things out.

For that matter,

give OD&D, B/X, Savage Worlds, GURPS, Aces & Eights, Castles & Crusades, Swords & Wizardry a try....

I personally am very anxious to give Jeffrey Talanian' & Matthew Stanham's new RPG "Astonishing Swordsman & Sorcery" a whirl at GenCon..



I play C&C - I don't "hate" other games, I just found the one that matches my personal tastes and wants. I tried 4e twice, bought the PHB when it first came out. I think it's a well-designed system, which follows a different paradigm from my own interests. Nothing wrong with it, just different.... others feel similar to my own brand preference.

It's all good - try it all and do what E. Gary Gygax said so often:

"Play what you like and just have fun!"

 

[Raven Crowking]

In previous editions, most DMs made thinly veiled attempts at pretending they weren't deciding things in advance. So, you'd create a dungeon, populate it with monsters who were evil, protective of their home, violent, and quick to provoke. Then you'd seed a plot hook to give the PCs a reason to go down there...possible a reason to want to kill off the monsters.

And sit back and watch the fireworks(mostly consisting of a series of combats). All the while safe in the knowledge that you didn't PLAN there to be combats...the PCs could certainly come up with alternate ways to get the macguffin out of the chest underneath the Goblin King's bed in the heavily guarded Goblin outpost. But, the result was all but certain in advance.

Having used the same scenarios with multiple play groups, I have to disagree. The result was not all but certain in advance.

To take two simple cases from Keep on the Borderlands (and, if you don't want spoilers don't read on), which I have run in Holmes Basic, 1e, 2e, and 3.x:

[spolier]In KotB, there is an evil temple in one of the caves. That temple contains a chamber where acolytes can be found. Depending upon the approach of the players, I have had this scenario turn into a general melee, a chase, a running battle, and a religious debate. Even when the encounter turned into a combat, there can be tremendous variations in how that combat occurs simply because it isn't predetermined.

Likewise, in one cave there is an owlbear. The odds are pretty good that this is going to be a "combat encounter", but what type of combat it is depends very much on the group. I've even run this module where the owlbear was used by players to take out another monster. Because the surrounding humanoids know that the owlbear is there, the PCs can learn this too.....some groups wait for it to leave the cave to hunt, choosing to avoid the encounter altogether. Others devise ambushes or traps to lead the critter into, knowing that it is too tough to take on in a straight fight.

When I ran it in 3.x, the party stumbled into the owlbear while fleeing the grey oozes in a related cave, which created a very different encounter than would have occurred had I planned a "scene" or a "combat encounter" beforehand.[/spoiler]

The more you envision what will happen beforehand, the more you limit what can actually happen in game play.


RC

 

[Hussar]

Keeping with the Keep on the Borderlands then.

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

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

 

[Ariosto]

Designing a dungeon (or other setting and situation) for TSR-D&D and designing a scenario for WOTC-D&D are, from what I have seen, two different enterprises due to differences in both philosophy and logistics -- 4E being, as often observed, a notable departure even from its predecessor.

Fighting is indeed to be expected in most dungeons (exceptions being largely confined to some tournament scenarios). This is eminently reasonable, considering how much D&D material (character and monster ratings, magic, spot rules, etc.) is oriented toward combat application.

However, the shift to expecting combat THERE and THEN is a significant one. It is of course predicate to anticipating WITH WHOM, AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, so one can do the heavy lifting of calculating "proper balance" beforehand rather than spending time and energy to "fudge" things during play.

The situation in the Caves of Chaos is in my experience likely to produce rather exceptionally combat-heavy expeditions (although strategic negotiations can potentially make those less casualty-heavy among player-characters).