Will DMs Need to Plan the PC Strategy?

[osmanb]

This may have been discussed somewhere already, but I haven't seen it. I've played in quite a few 3.0/3.5 games now. Pretty much everyone is familiar with the sweet-spot effect, but there's another (related) issue that comes up for DMs. I'm curious how people think it's going to work in 4e.

In 3.5, the overall capabilities of the party are somewhat limited at low-to-medium level. During this phase of a campaign, the DM has to be very careful when designing encounters and challenges. Depending on the set of classes in the party, it's easy to accidentally construct an impossible (or overly difficult) scenario for the players. As a result, many DMs talk about having to figure out how their players are going to be able to overcome whatever they're building.

At higher levels (once you get to around 5th and 6th level spells), the party's versatility increases tremendously. DMs can pretty much just make up anything, and the PCs can probably find a way to deal with it. The huge arsenal of crazy utility spells available to the Cleric/Druid/Wizard lets them overcome or circumvent almost any challenge. If they're planning to do something, and realize they don't have what they need, it's usually one in-game day of "We Teleport to some large city, buy the scroll(s) we need, Teleport back". At this stage, the DM can usually count on the PCs (if the players are somewhat experienced) coming up with solutions, even if the DM didn't bother to make sure that a solution existed.

So... I'm just wondering how people think 4E will behave. From what we've seen of Utility powers, they're still pretty limited in effect. It seems like Rituals are going to play a part in this, but I haven't seen any designer comments or anything about this stuff. Ideas?

 

[Derren]

Your problem is very unique as many people moaned and complained that the abilities of the PCs ruined their precious stories in 3E. But that is also a problem of "Plan for PC strategies". When the DM creates a 0815 murder plot which could come straight from a movie or cheap novel and completely forgets that in D&D spells like Speak with Dead exists is no wonder that the plot "fails".

So in the end, no matter if the PCs have many or just a few abilities a DM should always plan with those abilities in mind.
From the overall "can do" level I guess 4E characters will be more limited than 3E characters because of the many complains like the one I described above.

 

[Kishin]

I'm not sure I follow.....I've never really encountered a situation where I did -not- have to reflect on the PCs possible strategies for overcoming it?

Your problem is very unique as many people moaned and complained that the abilities of the PCs ruined their precious stories in 3E. But that is also a problem of "Plan for PC strategies". When the DM creates a 0815 murder plot which could come straight from a movie or cheap novel and completely forgets that in D&D spells like Speak with Dead exists is no wonder that the plot "fails".

I await the day when you realize how condescending you sound when you post, because otherwise you come across as very intelligent and well spoken. Its a shame you choose to diminish that by sneering down at a subgroup of players. That said, I agree that its foolish to not account for those sorts of spells/abilities in those scenarios (The typical of example doing so in the ubiquitious 'Testimony of the dead is inadmissable as evidence.'

If anything though, they keep harping on the flexibility of rituals, and I'm almost certain we won't lose iconic things like Speak With Dead. (It may see a level bump though, and I'd not be entirely surprised if that did happen.)

 

[psionotic]

One thing that will help out with adventure design, especially at low to mid levels, is that encounter and obstacle breaking spells and effects are being shifted to much higher levels... So to some extent, it will still be a 'problem,' but only later when the PCs *should* be breaking through walls, ignoring traps, speaking to Gods, and otherwise being superhuman.

 

[Derren]

I await the day when you realize how condescending you sound when you post, because otherwise you come across as very intelligent and well spoken. Its a shame you choose to diminish that by sneering down at a subgroup of players.

I simply heard too many complains from people who said that spells like Detect Evil, Speak With Dead, etc ruined their plot and were unwilling to write adventures which take the D&D spells into account. Imo such people are as bad as DMs who knock the PCs out by DM fiat because their plots requires it for the PCs to be captured.

And I am generally fed up with generic medieval fantasy worlds. When you have a system with lots of magic then this should reflect on the society. But instead magic changes nothing in how the world works and it even goes so far that magic actively gets ignored in some cases (See D&D novels & resurection). FR is a big offender as it has lots of powerful magic but the society mostly looks like a classic medieval one. Eberron was a step in the right direction (although it sometimes just replaces "medieval" with "renassaince".
Sadly 4E seems to make two steps backwards as to keep the world medieval arbitrary rulings are introduced like destiny etc, but that discussion is way off topic.

To get on topic again I will simply repeat my original post (in other words). Yes the DM has to plan for what the PCs can do. Although at least in the skill category you sometimes don't have to do anything except to nod while the players create the world which allows them to reach their goal (skill challenge).

One thing that will help out with adventure design, especially at low to mid levels, is that encounter and obstacle breaking spells and effects are being shifted to much higher levels... So to some extent, it will still be a 'problem,' but only later when the PCs *should* be breaking through walls, ignoring traps, speaking to Gods, and otherwise being superhuman.

If I understood osmanb right, encounter breaking spells (or lets say plot breaking spell) are not his problem and he actually likes them because when the PCs have such abilities he does not have to plan for a way for the PCs to reach the goal. With those abilities the PCs can create the "path" by themselves. But when the PCs don't have such abilities he has to prepare a way for them to reach their goal with their limited abilities.

@osmanb: Is that correct?

Edit: Small example

*With Plot breaking abilities*

DM: The artifact is somewhere in the BBEF (Big Bad Evil Fortress)
Players: Ok, we could teleport into the fortress but we don't know exactly where the artifact is that means we first have to scry. I suggest we teleport in a few rooms away and use passwall to get to the treasure vaults to bypass any teleport blocking effects,.....

*Without plot breaking abilities*

DM: The artifact is somewhere in the BBEF
Players: *Look at their character sheets* How many guards do we currently see? 20? *Look at each other* *Look at the DM with an expression saying "where is the conviently placed sewer which bypasses the defenses and brings us near the artifact"*.

 

[Kishin]

And I am generally fed up with generic medieval fantasy worlds. When you have a system with lots of magic then this should reflect on the society. But instead magic changes nothing in how the world works and it even goes so far that magic actively gets ignored in some cases (See D&D novels & resurection). FR is a big offender as it has lots of powerful magic but the society mostly looks like a classic medieval one. Eberron was a step in the right direction (although it sometimes just replaces "medieval" with "renassaince".
Sadly 4E seems to make two steps backwards as to keep the world medieval arbitrary rulings are introduced like destiny etc, but that discussion is way off topic..

Actually, I agree with you 100% here. This is a common failing of fantasy as a whole, but in D&D in particular (as per the aforementioned spells). The Magical Medieval Society books by Expeditious Retreat Press are neat in that they actually discuss this to a degree. Unfortunately, I think its become an ingrained concept that really won't see change anytime soon. The only way really is to limit magic to the 'mysterious' and 'unknown', which is walking straight into another cliche.

I'm curious as to how destiny works to keep the world more medieval, but another discussion for another time.

If I understood osmanb right, encounter breaking spells (or lets say plot breaking spell) are not his problem and he actually likes them because when the PCs have such abilities he does not have to plan for a way for the PCs to reach the goal. With those abilities the PCs can create the "path" by themselves. But when the PCs don't have such abilities he has to prepare a way for them to reach their goal with their limited abilities.

I think here it simply comes down to leaving open a variety of mundane paths to choose, instead of ye olde teleport smash and grab, which I freely admit to not liking.

DM: The artifact is somewhere in the BBEF
Players: *Look at their character sheets* How many guards to we currently see? 20? *Look at each other* *Look at the DM with an expression saying "where is the conviently placed sewer which bypasses the defenses and brings us near the artifact*.

This is basically the same thing as when players rush headlong into what would normally be a daunting situation or encounter because they 'know the DM would have made it level appropriate'. Its something of a social contract, really. If you want to players to go to the fortress, you're expected to leave them some form of opening.

So in short, they can give the DM that look all they want, but they'd best get down to the business of looking themselves.....for a way in, that is.

 

[hong]

I simply heard too many complains from people who said that spells like Detect Evil, Speak With Dead, etc ruined their plot and were unwilling to write adventures which take the D&D spells into account. Imo such people are as bad as DMs who knock the PCs out by DM fiat because their plots requires it for the PCs to be captured.

And I am generally fed up with generic medieval fantasy worlds. When you have a system with lots of magic then this should reflect on the society.

See, you wouldn't have this problem if you banned detect evil and speak with dead.

 

[Derren]

This is basically the same thing as when players rush headlong into what would normally be a daunting situation or encounter because they 'know the DM would have made it level appropriate'. Its something of a social contract, really. If you want to players to go to the fortress, you're expected to leave them some form of opening.

So in short, they can give the DM that look all they want, but they'd best get down to the business of looking themselves.....for a way in, that is.

Here the 4E Skill challenge system does make a difference. In 4E the PCs can rush in, but not for combat but for a skill challenge. They can go in and start rolling skills. That reduces the planning a DM has to do but at the cost of a defined setting (not a real disadvantage for many people) as now the PCs write the details of the setting. Having a unclimbable wall (for the climb skill the PC has) does not mesh well with the 4E skill challenge system.

See, you wouldn't have this problem if you banned detect evil and speak with dead.

Ban all spells which can destroy are poorly thought out plot (a plot which does not take the D&D specific abilities into account) and there are only single target direct damage spells left. Thats not very interesting (and its what 4E is apparently doing).

 

[hong]

Having a unclimbable wall (for the climb skill the PC has) does not mesh well with the 4E skill challenge system.

Why?

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Generally I find having no imagination and single-minded devotion to my static opinions REALLy doesn't mesh with 4e either.