# GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?



## innerdude (May 16, 2010)

Okay, I just ran across this quote from Ydars in the "How to make 4e Modules Better" thread: 



> "I want to see something where I can't see the 'role' the NPC is meant to play; I want to see them written with some integrity and reality. Otherwise they are just sock puppets who are meant to be killed.
> 
> I want locations and encounters that are not there 'just to advance the story' but are there instead to make the world seem to live and breath.
> 
> ...



Now here's the thing: how does this sentiment--largely echoed in critiques of WotC's 4e adventure modules in numerous circles--square with the following quote by WotC designer David Noonan? (You can find the quote here.)



> [talking about 4e monster design] "We wanted our presentation of monsters to reflect how       they’re actually used in *D&D*  gameplay. A typical monster has       a lifespan of five rounds. That means it basically does five things, ever,       period, the end . . . Too often, we designers want to give our intelligent, high-level       monsters a bunch of spell-like abilities—if not a bunch of actual       spellcaster levels. Giving a monster _detect thoughts_ or _telekinesis_,       for example, makes us feel like those monsters are magically in the minds       of their minions and are making objects float across the room all the       time. But they aren’t! Until the moment they interact with the PCs,       they’re in a state of stasis. And five rounds later, they’re done."



And I'm wondering what to make of these two seemingly diametrically opposed ideas. 

On the one hand, you have a player basically telling his GM, "I want context. Encounters have meaning by creating context." 

And on the other hand, you have one of the designers of 4e who seems to be saying, "Context is meaningless until the moment a PC walks into the room and an encounter starts. There's no reason to try and 'build up' fancy monsters and abilities, and spend precious GM time creating all of these fantastic traits for something that spends a grand total of 20 minutes (or less) in use at the game table." 

When it comes down to it, the core issue is the value of GM prep time. The player wants more prep time to contextualize encounters; the GM wants to spend as little time as possible while still providing active, satisfying encounters. 

It seems very similar to something I heard in a marketing class once, when the professor quipped, "You can manufacture something cheaply, you manufacture something quickly, and you can manufacture something of high quality--but the catch is, you can ever only do two of the three." 

In other words, the two earlier quotes seem to be saying, "You can have high context, character-driven satisfying encounters, you can have truly engaging combat encounters, and you can have very little GM prep time--but you can only ever have two of the three."

Thoughts?


----------



## MichaelSomething (May 16, 2010)

It can be frustrating when you have two objectives that seem to be completely opposite of each other.  I imagine everyone will suggest to take a third option instead.  

Why not acknowledge the problem and simply use both approaches when necessarily?  Most monster can simply be combat challenges while the BBEG can given a complete story and character development.


----------



## Stormonu (May 16, 2010)

The 4E designers jumped to the wrong conclusion.  They only anticipated a creature's worth is the "5 rounds" the party faces it in battle, ignoring its place in the overall scheme of the story and setting.

It is one of the reasons that many folks decry their modules as nothing more than tentatively linked slugfests.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 16, 2010)

innerdude said:


> In other words, the two earlier quotes seem to be saying, "You can have high context, character-driven satisfying encounters, you can have truly engaging combat encounters, and you can have very little GM prep time--but you can only ever have two of the three."





I think that this is pretty much true.  I don't mind that.  Either I'm trying to run a game that caters almost exclusively to one or the other gameplay goal, in which case it doesn't matter . . . or I already _know_ that I'm going to have to put in a lot of DM prep time and effort.

But I think that unless you're some kind of improvisational genius, you're probably going to have to pick two of those three things for any given game (or session of a game) as a DM.


----------



## pawsplay (May 16, 2010)

While the 4e philosophy of designing a monster for 5 rounds is a good _technique_, as a philosophy it's completely bankrupt. As pointed out above, without story and engagement, those five rounds might as well be spent fighting a pokemon. Monsters should be designed with loving detail, albeit with the understanding they might die in a few rounds, unmourned and forgotten.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (May 16, 2010)

I don't see the two quotes as intrinsically in conflict. One refers to the characterization of NPCs and the other refers to the mechanical design of monsters. I certainly appreciate both campaigns with engaging characters and game systems with simple-to-run rules.

I think the key issue is that the 4e approach to monsters encourages the DM to apply their own story and fluff: to reskin freely. Some DMs find this approach liberating; others want the monster stat blocks to have more detail and to inspire stories.


----------



## hayek (May 16, 2010)

I think you misinterpret Noonan's quote - it's regarding monster design, not module design. If you create a richly detailed monster with a memorable personality and a significant place in the story of the adventure, when the PC's finally fight them, they still die in 5 rounds. Noonan's just saying that because of that, they don't need loads of special powers and abilities to be cool and interesting. The DM makes them cool and interesting by integrating them into the story and bringing them to life - the monster manual can't do that. It can just give you 5 rounds worth of combat stats so the monster can fight the PC's at some point in the story.

Yeah, just like Pseudopsyche said


----------



## AllisterH (May 16, 2010)

I think that's the point Noonan was making with those spells.

Are you going to say that the BBEG couldn't communicate with the otherworldly creature that it is using as a sub-boss becasue it didn't have/know either the language or the _Tongues_ spell?


----------



## steenan (May 16, 2010)

The problem here is that at least some players (myself included) demand consistency. There is no need to have a detailed description of each and every ability the creature has, even these that probably aren't useful in an encounter. But the monster really has them - and it breaks suspension of disbelief if they can't be used in the rare case when they would be useful. 

In other words, you need to choose one of three: you either discard consistency, or work with extensive statblocks full of rarely-useful powers, or have the players trust you to use monster powers that have no mechanical description. The last option is the best one, IMO, but also something many modern games and gamers don't accept.


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2010)

The statblock is the part of an NPC writeup relevant for combat.

You don't have "Unrepentant Rapist" and "Loves Croissants" or "Talks in the Third Person" in the statblock; those are certainly parts of the NPC, they are personality quirks and important details. But they aren't relevant to the numbers, and they're not going to show up in the 5 round lifespan. 

An NPC's personality, plans, methods before the PCs roll initiative, and daily routine are meant for the paragraphs describing the NPC and his role in the story. 

To put it another way, let's go all the way back to _The Sunless Citadel_ and Meepo. Meepo, everyone can agree, was a fun and interesting and memorable NPC that interacted with every group and resulted in _some_ shared story. And you know what Meepo's stats were? A typical kobold, for when the d20 came out with regards to Meepo. Everything that made Meepo MEEPO was contained in either the module's DESCRIPTION of Meepo, or the DM's notes/decision how to use Meepo. 

To drive home my point, let's compare two modules. Paizo's _Burnt Offerings_ and WotC's _Keep on the Shadowfell_. The first, most think is a good module, the second most think is a bad module. Let's look at the villains, and the amount of effort put into them. In Burnt Offerings, the background of the entire module revolves around the main villain. It's a revenge plot, it's a religious transformation plot, it's all about her plans, her motivations, and the interaction of her and the other villainous NPCs. It's her story. It's her plan in motion and her cohorts given orders. In KotS, Kalarel is tacked on. Sure, he's the guy behind it all doing some ritual, but he's a sidenote, and we have no idea, from reading this module, who he is or what he's like, his motivations or where he comes from, how to run him or what kind of individual he is beyond a cleric of Orcus.

But in *both* modules, the PCs never meet the villain (much less _see them_) until they walk into the room at the end of the module and roll initiative. The PCs in Burnt Offerings don't get to appreciate how much everything hinges on the villain's background story. They don't get to experience her. They just kill her. Same with Kalarel - the Pcs don't know him, and only know his name mentioned here or there, and they just show up and shoot him in the face with their swords. 

The difference between the *statblocks* of the two villains? The villain of Burnt Offering mentions she can Turn/Rebuke undead, and she can cast Daylight 1/day. These things will not be relevant in the fight, and are there simply because the villain is a cleric and an aasimar, therefore it's there for posterity as opposed to utility. 

So not only do we have superfluous things in the statblock, but also we see two different approaches that ultimately end the same way. Burnt Offerings gives great affection to the villain. Details her background, her motivations, her personality. And _none of those matter to the PCs_, who don't really find them out and end up walking into her room and kicking her ass at the end of the dungeon without any meaningful interaction. Just like Kalarel. The only difference is that the DM gets to read about the former.


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2010)

steenan said:


> The problem here is that at least some players (myself included) demand consistency. There is no need to have a detailed description of each and every ability the creature has, even these that probably aren't useful in an encounter. But the monster really has them - and it breaks suspension of disbelief if they can't be used in the rare case when they would be useful.



We all expect consistency. Don't make this about those who prefer a lean statblock being OK with utterly inconsistency in their gaming.

Not only that, but the players don't see the statblock. The players only see what actions the NPC makes. So there's no inconsistency in the first place.

And most of your abilities, if not related to combat, don't _matter_ if the Pcs never see them. If the villain has his dungeon and his cohorts as animals, and the module says he has some ability to speak to animals, _if there are no animals in the place the PCs fight him_, then there's no point in noting it, regardless of whether it's a bonus to handle animals, a magical ability, or the fact the guy can mimic animal behavior. He's never going to interact with animals in the PCs' presence, so it's irrelevant for the purposes of what he can do to the PCs. 

It's a "does a tree falling in the forest where none can hear it make a sound" situation.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 16, 2010)

Most GMs care about the world, most players don't. Sure, players want some kind of story, variety of encounter (not just combat), and a thin veneer of verisimilitude, but most of them don't care about the game world's history or about NPC back story, the history of a magic item and so forth. Players are like most people in that respect - they focus on the here and now, on practicalities, on success in their current endeavour.

I think NPCs do need motivation, monsters need to act in plausible ways and to feel like they have lives outside the moment they are encountered, but you don't need a lot of module text to provide that. Gary Gygax's classic modules have very little back story, almost no notes on NPCs' personalities. They focus on what the PCs are doing right now - killing monsters, finding treasure, looking for secret doors, etc. Heck, the giants in Nosnra's hall are frozen in time, eternally feasting, we have no idea what they do the rest of the time.

Noonan is right to say that the combat encounter must work purely as a combat encounter, that it doesn't benefit the GM to have non-combat powers cluttering up the stat block. In a sense he's right to say that the monster doesn't really exist outside the moment it is encountered. However it helps verisimilitude if module writers pretend that it does. I don't think you need a lot of text on this, a couple of sentences for a monster, a paragraph for an NPC.


----------



## pawsplay (May 16, 2010)

Rechan said:


> The statblock is the part of an NPC writeup relevant for combat.




Objection! Not all stats are combat stats.


----------



## AllisterH (May 16, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Objection! Not all stats are combat stats.




But in contet of actually fighting the players?

Again...if the BBEG is using a far realm creature and/or hellish creature, are you going to stop in the middle of the encounter and say "wait...the BBEG can't talk/communicate with the creature because he doesn't have the language and/or the Tongues spell"


----------



## Imaro (May 16, 2010)

Rechan said:


> We all expect consistency. Don't make this about those who prefer a lean statblock being OK with utterly inconsistency in their gaming.
> 
> Not only that, but the players don't see the statblock. The players only see what actions the NPC makes. So there's no inconsistency in the first place.
> 
> ...





The problem with your entire argument is that it is based upon combat being the only type of interaction between characters and monsters/NPC's... and I find that, at least in my experience, to be totally untrue. Hey does that ability to speak with animals matter if the party has a familiar or an animal companion in it... maybe... but removing it entirely sure limits the option that it will ever come up.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 16, 2010)

Rechan said:


> But in *both* modules, the PCs never meet the villain (much less _see them_) until they walk into the room at the end of the module and roll initiative. The PCs in Burnt Offerings don't get to appreciate how much everything hinges on the villain's background story. They don't get to experience her. They just kill her. Same with Kalarel - the Pcs don't know him, and only know his name mentioned here or there, and they just show up and shoot him in the face with their swords.
> 
> The difference between the *statblocks* of the two villains? The villain of Burnt Offering mentions she can Turn/Rebuke undead, and she can cast Daylight 1/day. These things will not be relevant in the fight, and are there simply because the villain is a cleric and an aasimar, therefore it's there for posterity as opposed to utility.
> 
> So not only do we have superfluous things in the statblock, but also we see two different approaches that ultimately end the same way. Burnt Offerings gives great affection to the villain. Details her background, her motivations, her personality. And _none of those matter to the PCs_, who don't really find them out and end up walking into her room and kicking her ass at the end of the dungeon without any meaningful interaction. Just like Kalarel. The only difference is that the DM gets to read about the former.




The assumption here is that the PCs will encounter the BBEG and roll initiative.  It removes any and all possibilities for any other option.  Some players may attempt to _talk_ with the BBEG, to get them monologging, to learn more of their evil plans or to justify to themselves they are in their rights to just kill the BBEG.  It is true that probably for 95% of any group, the rest of the stuff like motivation, background etc. does not matter, but for the DMs of those 5%, not having that information means they need to come up with it themselves and usually on the fly when the party does not do as expected and just attack.  

I agree that statblocks containing whether they NPCs can turn undead or cast Daylight are pretty much useless, but on the other hand, not giving any information as to some of their background, skills and abilities that might be useful in interaction with the PCs other than combat means if needed it is all up the DM.

The final consideration is, who is the true target audience of any published adventure?  The answer is not the players who run through it, but the person who *purchases* it, and that is almost always the DM.  If the players love the adventure, but the DM finds it difficult to run because they are lacking information they need or want, that DM is less likely to purchase another.  If the players love the adventure and it has stuff the players never see, but makes the DM's time simpler and more interesting, the DM is likely to become a loyal customer.


----------



## Wicht (May 16, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> But in contet of actually fighting the players?
> 
> Again...if the BBEG is using a far realm creature and/or hellish creature, are you going to stop in the middle of the encounter and say "wait...the BBEG can't talk/communicate with the creature because he doesn't have the language and/or the Tongues spell"




My players tend to trust me to be fair.  But as a DM, if I find that we have one henchman who only speaks draconic and the leader doesn't understand a word of that language, I am going to want to have an answer how the one gives the other orders.  Or, as a fair DM I'm going to be forced to say...

"The cleric gives a command to his kobold minion... Kill!" The kobold just stares at him with a stupid expression on his face.  What do you do?

There are some of us to whom this stuff matters, both as DMs _and as players_, and there are others that think its a stupid distraction.  That's just the way it is and we have to learn to accept others might see things different.  But for myself I like the stats meshing with the story as consistently as possible.


----------



## Wicht (May 16, 2010)

Rechan said:


> But in *both* modules, the PCs never meet the villain (much less _see them_) until they walk into the room at the end of the module and roll initiative. The PCs in Burnt Offerings don't get to appreciate how much everything hinges on the villain's background story. They don't get to experience her. They just kill her.




That's not even close to being true.  In my campaign, one of the PCs was the brother of the villain, though he had never met her.  He had traveled there to find her. Aside from that, throughout the module there are a substantial number of clues, as a result of which, by the time the PCs met her, they knew exactly who was leading the goblins.


----------



## Wicht (May 16, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> I agree that statblocks containing whether they NPCs can turn undead or cast Daylight are pretty much useless, but on the other hand, not giving any information as to some of their background, skills and abilities that might be useful in interaction with the PCs other than combat means if needed it is all up the DM.




I know of at least one instance where the module was used to run a group of goblin adventurers through it.  Daylight might be important to know about in such a situation. Likewise, while unusual, if someone wanted to run a group of undead heroes, the module provides mostly all the information you would need to make it work.  

More detail provides for greater flexibility and ease of use. Its only pointless information when you don't need it but the fact you don't need it does not mean it might not have utility to another.  Which is something I think module writers do well to keep in mind. You should never assume your module will be used exactly as intended.


----------



## innerdude (May 16, 2010)

hayek said:


> I think you misinterpret Noonan's quote - it's regarding monster design, not module design. If you create a richly detailed monster with a memorable personality and a significant place in the story of the adventure, when the PC's finally fight them, they still die in 5 rounds. Noonan's just saying that because of that, they don't need loads of special powers and abilities to be cool and interesting. The DM makes them cool and interesting by integrating them into the story and bringing them to life - the monster manual can't do that. It can just give you 5 rounds worth of combat stats so the monster can fight the PC's at some point in the story.




But how many times does a monster/NPC/BBEG come into play as part of a story _as a direct result of a key trait, power, or special ability_ that is solely germane to that monster/character? 

Stripping away "powers," "traits," and "abilities" necessarily lowers the range of options in which a particular monster/NPC can be _inserted _into the framework of a story--at least without stretching the limits of verisimilitude. 

Sure, you can _say_ as a GM that a particular monster works a certain way, because it works for your story. I mean, that's what GM fiat is for, after all. But why not include more of these "hook" traits for the monster, to help GMs create more context-rich encounters?


----------



## BenBrown (May 16, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> The assumption here is that the PCs will encounter the BBEG and roll initiative.  It removes any and all possibilities for any other option.  Some players may attempt to _talk_ with the BBEG, to get them monologging, to learn more of their evil plans or to justify to themselves they are in their rights to just kill the BBEG.  It is true that probably for 95% of any group, the rest of the stuff like motivation, background etc. does not matter, but for the DMs of those 5%, not having that information means they need to come up with it themselves and usually on the fly when the party does not do as expected and just attack.




On the other hand, this can lead to disappointment.  You read the module, think about the villain's motivation, and figure out how you're going to deliver the monologue.  Then you've got to work hard to keep your face from dropping when the players attack before you've finished saying "At last we meet."


----------



## innerdude (May 16, 2010)

Wicht said:


> More detail provides for greater flexibility and ease of use. Its only pointless information when you don't need it, but the fact you don't need it does not mean it might not have utility to another.  Which is something I think module writers do well to keep in mind. _You should never assume your module will be used exactly as intended._ [emphasis added]




EXACTLY. 

Stripping away special abilities and powers from a monster stat block ADDS to GM prep time, not remove it, because if a GM wants a unique power added to a monster, he/she has to do it ad hoc, within the range and limit of their knowledge of the rules. 

Think of a fledgling GM trying to come up with a unique monster for an encounter. The more "stuff" they have in the block, the more raw material they have with easy reference right in front of them to make concrete choices about how that monster is used. 

Is it easier to ignore powers that are spelled out, or to try and come up with something unique on your own (especially if your level of system mastery is relatively low)? 

"Nah, I don't need powers A,B, and G, so I'll just ignore them." 

If you're going to do something "unique" with a monster, it's a moot point anyway, isn't it? You still have to come up with the "something unique and cool" on your own in either case--the difference is in the first case, you have a much broader set of concrete options on which to veer your direction. 

And Wicht's point is spot on--the more "stuff" you have, the more ability the GM has to take ideas in directions the designers never thought of.


----------



## Umbran (May 16, 2010)

innerdude said:


> On the one hand, you have a player basically telling his GM, "I want context. Encounters have meaning by creating context."
> 
> And on the other hand, you have one of the designers of 4e who seems to be saying, "Context is meaningless until the moment a PC walks into the room and an encounter starts. There's no reason to try and 'build up' fancy monsters and abilities, and spend precious GM time creating all of these fantastic traits for something that spends a grand total of 20 minutes (or less) in use at the game table."




On the one hand you have a player.  On the other, you have one designer.

A player.  One designer.  What's more likely - that these represent some fundamental dichotomy in RPGs relevant to all adventure design, or they're just two folks who like different things in games?

It seems to me both are being expressed as extremes that don't make much sense in practical application.  To have context and foreshadowing for _every single individual monster_ is having a lot of work for little payoff.  But to never worry about context is to build a game that seems to have little continuity, and would make me wonder if I'm playing an RPG or a skirmish tactical battle game.

I would expect the real world to be in between the two - context for monsters/NPCs when it matters, and little context when it doesn't.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (May 16, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> The final consideration is, who is the true target audience of any published adventure?  The answer is not the players who run through it, but the person who *purchases* it, and that is almost always the DM.  If the players love the adventure, but the DM finds it difficult to run because they are lacking information they need or want, that DM is less likely to purchase another.  If the players love the adventure and it has stuff the players never see, but makes the DM's time simpler and more interesting, the DM is likely to become a loyal customer.



I agree 100%. Adventure modules should inspire the DM, and background details can enrich the campaign.  The crux of the issue at hand seems to be how to communicate such information. I can't speak for all DMs, but I prefer these background details and flavor elements to be outside the combat statblock.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 16, 2010)

Designing anything on a type of pre-defined life expectancy paradigm contributes to the kind of proscribed outcome adventure design that needs to die in less than 5 rounds IMHO. 

In a game as opposed to a constructed story who says a monster will die and if they do, when? 

Many monsters can be bargained with, or even used for other purposes by PC's rather than just being sword fodder. 

A monster is part of the game world. As such, it should have a place and any abilities which aid it in attaining and maintaining that place. 

Otherwise just having creatures spawn when adventurers draw near and despawn after being looted makes as much sense as slapping together attributes designed for a 1 minute lifespan.


----------



## wcpfish (May 16, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Designing anything on a type of pre-defined life expectancy paradigm contributes to the kind of proscribed outcome adventure design that needs to die in less than 5 rounds IMHO.
> 
> In a game as opposed to a constructed story who says a monster will die and if they do, when?
> 
> ...




I think this abosultely nails it.  For a set of monsters that actually HAVE a place in the world check out the Monsternomicon by Privateer Press.  After reading this bestiary (in my mind the single best rpg-supplement ever made by any company) I knew EXACTLY where I wanted to place each monster, the circumstances leading up to these encounters, as well as the aftermath.  These monsters were much more 'real' than just a set of numbers.  

Exploder Wizard hits it dead on -as a GM - YOU choose the philosophy behind the monster either it a) has a history, a family, a lair, and motivations or b) it's a bag of hitpoints carrying 'phat lewtz' or c) somewhere in between.  YOU get to decide.  

Now...ahem...a brief push of my own recently released product ...Urban Adversaries is available now for 4e D&D and features monsters with which I tried quite consciously to capture the 'Monsternomicon feel'.  Each of my monsters fits into an urban environment and has a role to play.  Each encounter (with XP total) has an actual story behind it as to why the PCs would be involved.  If you're seeking more than bags of hit points I ask you to give it a look!

Thanks!
    William C. Pfaff
www.escapevelocitygaming.com
    Urban Adversaries available at rpgnow.com and drivethrustuff.com


----------



## pawsplay (May 16, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> But in contet of actually fighting the players?
> 
> Again...if the BBEG is using a far realm creature and/or hellish creature, are you going to stop in the middle of the encounter and say "wait...the BBEG can't talk/communicate with the creature because he doesn't have the language and/or the Tongues spell"




If I haven't figured this out in advance, I'm an idiot, and if I'm a professional game designer and I don't take such things into account, I make my customers act idiotically. Simply noting, "Speaks Far Realmsian with a Cthulhoid acccent" is a few keystrokes well spent. Yes, it matters if the BBEG can communicate with their own minions.


----------



## The Shaman (May 16, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Designing anything on a type of pre-defined life expectancy paradigm contributes to the kind of proscribed outcome adventure design that needs to die in less than 5 rounds IMHO.



Oh, *EW*, must you always be so _right_ all the time?


----------



## Beginning of the End (May 16, 2010)

innerdude said:


> And I'm wondering what to make of these two seemingly diametrically opposed ideas.




You laugh in Noonan's misguided face. That's pretty much all you can do.

Here's a quote from The Alexandrian:



			
				The Alexandrian said:
			
		

> If D&D were simply a skirmish game, Noonan would be right: You'd       set up your miniatures and fight. And the reasons behind the fight  would       never become important. But D&D isn't a skirmish game -- it's a       roleplaying game. And it's often the abilities that a creature has  outside       of combat which create the scenario. And not just the scenario  which leads       to combat with that particular creature, but scenarios which can  lead to       many different and interesting combats. Noonan, for example,  dismisses the       importance of _detect thoughts_ allowing a demon to magically       penetrate the minds of its minions. But it's that very ability  which may       explain why the demon has all of these minions for the PCs to  fight; which       explains why the demon is able to blackmail the city councillor  that the       PCs are trying to help; and which allows the demon to turn the  PCs'       closest friend into a traitor.
> 
> And, even more broadly, the assumption that _detect thoughts_  will       never be used when the PCs are around assumes that the PCs will  never do       anything with an NPC except try to hack their heads off.
> 
> One is forced to wonder how much the design team is playing  D&D and       how much the design team is playing the D&D Miniatures game.






AllisterH said:


> Are you going to say that the BBEG couldn't  communicate with the otherworldly creature that it is using as a  sub-boss becasue it didn't have/know either the language or the _Tongues_  spell?




There are two problems with Noonan's attitude:

(1) He is, in fact, dismissive of the non-combat qualities of a monster. When that's your design ethos as a company, it's unsurprising that the non-combat qualities of a monster are being shirked in the modules.

If you say that PCs only interact with their opponents during combat, it's probably unsurprising that your modules are seen as grind-happy combat fests. (They are.)

(2) Yes, actually, I would say that. And if I want the BBEG to be able to communicate with the otherworldly creature, then I would give the BBEG a way to do that: A magic circle derived from Atlantean arts. A crystal ball infused with infernal energy. A sacrificial ritual.

And this is _precisely_ the kind of contextualizing detail that make the BBEG come alive: When you discover the journal detailing his journey to one of the lost outposts of Atlantis and use that knowledge to identify the unique geo-sympathetic locations where his magic circle could be scribed... When you go to the ruined remnants of his former master's wizard tower and find the remnant of the ritual he used to infuse the crystal ball... When you track him from one gruesome sacrificial victim to the next...

All of these tell you something about the BBEG. They create a relationship between the PCs and the BBEG.

When you gloss over the detail work like this, the details don't exist (QED). And if they don't exist, the PCs can't learn about them or interact with them. And if the PCs can't learn about any details outside of combat...

Well, that's when you're back to the grind-happy combat fest modules again.


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2010)

Imaro said:


> The problem with your entire argument is that it is based upon combat being the only type of interaction between characters and monsters/NPC's... .



And what stats are necessary to be used outside of combat? 

In 4e if the villain has a high bluff/intimidate skill it notes it. Its perception skills are listed. So any skill the PCs used in interaction would be noted. 

What other stats are important for non-combat interaction? 

For instance, the statblock for the villain in Burnt Offerings lists her Ride skill. Considering she's in the bottom of the dungeon with no mounts in sight, and escape is next to impossible... ride is going to be relevant _how_?



> In my campaign, one of the PCs was the brother of the villain, though  he had never met her



And this is somehow expected to be the norm? Your DM obviously changed the module so your character could be her brother. You wouldn't have known about it had the DM not changed the story. The module says nothing about being related to her. *I* am talking about *what the module says*, *not* how your DM changed it. 

The module says nothing about if PCs want to parlay, and in her writeup, everything it says on the page with her stats is purely about what she's doing and why she's doing it when the PCs show up. No indication is given that she even wants to talk - in fact, the writeup says that if she suspects combat is imminent, what buffs she casts on herself. 

And your point about PCs just so willing to talk before initiative is rolled can equally be applied to Kalarel in the 4e module. My point is that we know nothing about either villain, and either villain is just stuck in the last room of the dungeon and awaits the PCs to kick in the door and say Hello. MY point is that one has a huge story around her, one has none, but neither module _uses this for involving the PCs_.


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> If I haven't figured this out in advance, I'm an idiot, and if I'm a professional game designer and I don't take such things into account, I make my customers act idiotically.



So now those of us who don't need "Speaks Far Realms" act like idiots?


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2010)

Ultimately, this strikes me as just two polarized views on how the game works. 

To illustrate, I'll give an example. I ran a single session for what I thought would be a new group. During the session, the PCs were on a ship and attacked by a giant sea monster.

I described the monster's head, when it emerged, simply biting a nameless NPC in half. 

The players were upset that I did not roll an attack roll for the monster to kill the nameless NPC, and suddenly the monster had developed the power to bite people in half.

_To them_, I was just changing the rules and exerting DM power without following The Rules, I was just cheating because I wanted something to happen. 

_To me_, it was flavor text and I was doing it for narrative purposes, to emphasize how dangerous and nasty this thing was, to emphasize how powerful the PCs were in comparison to some nameless NPC, and for again, story purposes. I was waving my hand because the NPC wasn't important, but anything that is important (namely the PCs) deserves some sort of roll. 

The issue is not _who is right_. And no matter what, even after we argued over this, neither of us had convinced one another. *Because* it's indicative of the style, the assumptions of How a Game is Ran that we bring to the table. It's preference.

This thread (and many like it) are an indication that different styles and Beliefs about how the Game is Ran, how it Works. None of us are going to budge on our style. We can argue until we're blue in the face whether it should be or it shouldn't be, but it's moot.

4e caters to one style and assumption, and not to another. That's it at the end of the day. And it's not going to change. It's designed from the ground up, by the people who run it, to facilitate one style and not another.


----------



## Wicht (May 17, 2010)

Rechan said:


> And what stats are necessary to be used outside of combat?
> 
> In 4e if the villain has a high bluff/intimidate skill it notes it. Its perception skills are listed. So any skill the PCs used in interaction would be noted.
> 
> ...




I could probably come up with half a dozen possibilities for her riding somewhere if I really want to.  Perhaps the PCs decide they want to bluff their way into her good graces, discern what her plan is and then thwart her.  So they get on her good side, she tells them to find horses and they all will ride to attack Sandpoint.  Along the way the PCs decide its gone far enough and attack.  Suddenly its important to know how good she is on a horse.  There you have ride and its being used in combat even.

In this same scenario, the PCs are with her in the dungeon, helping to excavate and the lights go out.  With an annoyed mutter she brings forth daylight.  There you have a "useless" ability on the stat block and its used outside of combat.

Again the point is, it may not be necessary for your game, but don't begrudge others.  Its uncharitable to tell people they don't need what you don't want.





Rechan said:


> And this is somehow expected to be the norm? Your DM obviously changed the module so your character could be her brother. You wouldn't have known about it had the DM not changed the story. The module says nothing about being related to her. *I* am talking about *what the module says*, *not* how your DM changed it.
> 
> The module says nothing about if PCs want to parlay, and in her writeup, everything it says on the page with her stats is purely about what she's doing and why she's doing it when the PCs show up. No indication is given that she even wants to talk - in fact, the writeup says that if she suspects combat is imminent, what buffs she casts on herself.
> 
> And your point about PCs just so willing to talk before initiative is rolled can equally be applied to Kalarel in the 4e module. My point is that we know nothing about either villain, and either villain is just stuck in the last room of the dungeon and awaits the PCs to kick in the door and say Hello. MY point is that one has a huge story around her, one has none, but neither module _uses this for involving the PCs_.




And again you are wrong.  Burnt Offerings contains numerous clues as to what she is doing and why and its right there for the PCs to find. There;s a notebook in the glass factory with plenty of clues including some risque pictures.  There's her own writings.  There's goblins to interogate, henchman tht can be interrogated. etc.

Aside from that, in the game aforementioned, I was the DM and I did not change anything in the story by giving her a long lost brother.  She was an orphan raised by a priest.  I simply went further and because my son wanted to be an Aasimar cleric, I thought it was a good chance to tie his back story and hers together and further cement the character into the already written storyline.  The details in the module helped do that and I didn't change a single element of her background to accomplish it.  What I did was provide motivation for the PC to hunt for Nualia.  Which is waht a good DM should do.  But the richness of the module helped provide that motivation and thats why its a good module.


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Objection! Not all stats are combat stats.



*4e lacks non-combat stats*. 

Any skill the NPC is trained in goes in at the bottom of their  statblock. If they are not trained in it, you use their ability  modifier, which is at the bottom of the statblock. Skills are the only  stats that can be used outside of combat. 

So if the only stats that exist are combat stats... then what's the  problem of having a *statblock* consist of _stats_? 

Everything else relevant to the NPC goes in text about the NPC. Anything  relating to numbers and dice go in another. Both of these are for ease of look up.


----------



## darjr (May 17, 2010)

Rechan said:


> *4e lacks non-combat stats*.
> 
> Any skill the NPC is trained in goes in at the bottom of their  statblock. If they are not trained in it, you use their ability  modifier, which is at the bottom of the statblock. Skills are the only  stats that can be used outside of combat.
> 
> ...




eh... there are quite a few things in 4e monster stat blocks that could be useful outside of combat.


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2010)

darjr said:


> eh... there are quite a few things in 4e monster stat blocks that could be useful outside of combat.



Combat stats could be used outside of combat. But they're useful in combat, hence why they're there.


----------



## Hussar (May 17, 2010)

Wicht said:
			
		

> I could probably come up with half a dozen possibilities for her riding somewhere if I really want to. Perhaps the PCs decide they want to bluff their way into her good graces, discern what her plan is and then thwart her. So they get on her good side, she tells them to find horses and they all will ride to attack Sandpoint. Along the way the PCs decide its gone far enough and attack. Suddenly its important to know how good she is on a horse. There you have ride and its being used in combat even.




This is why these conversations go downhill so quickly.

Are you honestly going to claim that this is a likely outcome?  Not only is this a likely event, but, likely to succeed?  I mean, your party would have to first successfully bluff her, manage to convince her of their intentions, THEN the DM would have to contrive to send them on this specific mission WHILE she accompanies them, on horseback and THEN they have to decide to attack her at that specific point in time.

This is why we need her ride skill?  :/

I know it's impossible for some to claim that there are any points of comparison between 4e and anything else, but, come on.  It's not the end of the world to admit that 3e creatures are over statted.  Even during 3e, the designers, including Paizo designers I might add, admitted that 3e monsters were over statted and that was the reason there were so many stat block mistakes.


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2010)

All right. I think I get it. Let me try to facilitate both sides.

*Centaur Cavalier*                           Level 18 Soldier
Large Fey Humanoid                                                 XP 2,000
*Initiative* +15,      *Senses* Perception +16, low-light vision
*Smell of the Barn*; Aura 1 - the air around the centaur cavalier smells like hay. This has no effect.
*HP* 172; *Bloodied* 86
*AC* 34, *Fortitude* 31, *Reflex* 29, *Will* 30
*Speed* 8

 *Bastard sword* (standard, at-will) Weapon
+24 vs AC; 1d10+6 damage, plus 1d6 damage while charging. Effect: Target is marked until the end of the centaur cavalier's next turn.

*Quick Kick* (immediate reaction, when a creature moves into a space where it flanks the centaur cavalier, at-will)
Targets the triggering creature; +25 vs. AC; 1d6+6 damage.

*Sugar Cubes*
The Centaur Cavalier loves sugar cubes, and will always accept them when offered outside of combat. In combat, the centaur cavalier's behavior will not change, but he will loot the sugar cubes post combat.

*Allergic to Strawberries and Bees*
Strawberries cause flatulence in the Centaur Cavalier, and bee stings result in hives. This has no mechanical effect.

*Left Handed*
When offered a handshake, the Centaur Cavalier will present the left hand to shake. 

*Fear of Heights*
The Centaur Cavalier does not like heights, and will be nervous in areas with heights. This does not have any mechanical effect or alters behavior, but just the personality of the cavalier in the presence of heights.  

*Must Lead*
During any sort of dance, the Centaur Cavalier has to be the lead. 

*Gambling Debts* 
The Centaur Cavalier has gambling debts.

*Self Conscious About Education*
The Centaur Cavalier dropped out of Centaur High-school. He is self conscious about his scholatic efforts. This has no mechanical effect on any knowledge skills or interactions.

*Likes Brunettes*
The Centaur Cavalier is attracted to brunettes. This does not impact any skill checks made by brunettes, merely a personal preference of the Centaur Cavalier.

*Snores*
The Centaur Cavalier snores.

*Recurring Dream*
The Centaur Cavalier has a recurring dream where he is a butterfly. He has told no one of this.

*Alignment*: Unaligned. Some times the Centaur cavalier is inclined to good behavior, such as when interacting with children or small fuzzy animals or during spring time, but other times (such as when just waking or towards those who talk during movies) the Centaur Cavalier is inclined to evil.     But in general the Centaur Cavalier considers himself "neutral" and behaves as such. 
*Language*: Elven, Twin Language (The Centaur Cavalier has a twin, and the two can communicate with their own language. The Centaur cavalier's twin is not present.) 
*Skills*: Athletics +20, Insight +16, Nature +16, Underwater Basketweaving +2, Riverdancing +18, Centaur Cavalier's Family History and Geneology +20, Carrot Growing +28, 
*Str* 23 (+15)         *Dex* 19 (+13)           *Wis* 14 (+11)
*Con* 20 (+14)        *Int* 11 (+9)              *Cha* 21 (+14)
*Equipment* chainmail, light shield, bastard sword, pocket full of gambling debts, pouch of sugar cubes, bag of carrots, allergy medication, pocket lint, gum wrapper (cinnamon), four horse shoes.

There. Now the Centaur Cavalier's statblock accommodates contingencies such as if the PCs challenge the enemy to a dance off, if the PCs have a tea party, or if the PCs invite the Centaur Cavalier to a sleep over or wish to travel with the centaur cavalier.


----------



## Lanefan (May 17, 2010)

On a broader note, one of the things a module designer kinda has to take into account (and thus write in anticipation of) is things turning out differently than the writer has envisioned.

I've found this to be the most time-consuming part of the process, on the few occasions where I've bothered to write out a homebrew module in full - all the "what ifs".  But it has to be done!  And yes, it can mean a much higher page count... 

Perhaps the biggest beef I have with the various canned modules I've run is that things like room descriptions (almost) always assume the party is entering from a certain direction and in a certain way - which is great if there's only one possible way into the room.  But if there's a choice, a surprisingly high amount of the time the module's description does not suit how they enter at all; and so I'm left trying to reskin the boxed description on the fly.  Doesn't affect prep time, but it sure disrupts the flow of the game if I'm not thinking on my feet.

And other "what ifs" need to be at least waved at.  My current favourite example is Keep on the Shadowfell, particularly the last room where they meet Kalarel.  It seems the writer either did not think of the following questions or deliberately ignored them:
 - What if the party take longer than a few days to get to Kalarel?* (the whole time thing is never really detailed but the impression is there's a time limit, which itself is then left undefined)
 - What if the party try to attack or shoot the Thing in the portal?* (it has no stats)
 - What if the party want to finish opening the portal?*  And how do they?*
 - What if the party want to try closing the portal?*  And how do they?*
 - What if the party decide to pry up the grilles where the blood drains away and see where the drains lead?

Now it's of course absolutely true that while a DM can and should be able to provide the answer to all these (when I ran it I had to for all the ones marked '*', as my party did/tried all those things), if I'm using a canned module it's because I expect it to among other things do that sort of lifting for me.

Lan-"strength 20 but I still prefer if others do the heavy lifting"-efan


----------



## Wicht (May 17, 2010)

I find it semi amusing that despite the general agreement that there are different play styles and thus different desires when it comes to stat blocks, it seems hard for some to admit that others might genuinely enjoy slighty longer, more detailed stat blocks.  

If you like short stat blocks I'm happy for you.  I on the other hand, enjoy  being prepared for some contingencies.  It doesn't matter how likely or unlikely you think any given piece of information is going to be used, to the person who uses it - it was useful.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 17, 2010)

Rechan said:


> All right. I think I get it. Let me try to facilitate both sides.
> 
> *Centaur Cavalier* Level 18 Soldier
> Large Fey Humanoid XP 2,000
> ...




I understand that you are a qualified soldier. The rest of the questions in this interview will be centaur questions..............


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2010)

Wicht said:


> it seems hard for some to admit that others might genuinely enjoy slighty longer, more detailed stat blocks.



I can admit that some like longer statblocks. Some like mayo on their sandwiches. Some like British humor in their cartoons.

The point is that currently, the 4e designers want short statblocks, 4e statblocks are short, and I like short statblocks. Therefore, I am getting what I want, and would like it to stay that way. 

Do not confuse preference with inability to admit others have a different preference. It's impossible to be on the internet without realizing that people think and want different things from you. 

Some people are adamant about making it known they don't like X. And some people are _just as adamant_ about making it known they do like X. It has been said that many who say "I don't like X" are doing so that WotC sees and recognizes their dislike. By the same token, those who DO like X want WotC to see that they like X and don't want it to go away.

Or do you think that just because I know you prefer something different than I, that I should believe your preference is more important than mine?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 17, 2010)

_Keep_ had a whole *lot* of problems other then just Kalarel being an uninteresting blob of combat, to be fair - but Kalarel was one of the bigger problems.  The actual plot was more or less Kalarel attacking the village for...erm, no particular reason.  Writing love letters to his minions explaining his plans for...erm, no particular reason.  His plan is to open a portal to the Shadowfell where Orcus doesn't have a temple, and even then, the 4e books make it clear that portals to the Shadowfell aren't exactly rare.  Mix in a lot of terrible encounters, some horrendously bad DM advice, and what few good nuggets are there accidentally and hidden, and there you have it - the leading argument I've seen _against _playing 4e in others.

Incidentally, the actual _keep_ in _Keep on the Shadowfell_?  You're there for like a minute until you leave.  Yes, there's no keep in the module named after a keep.

But how does this apply to the topic?

At no point in time are any of the monsters given any fluff or thoughts or _purpose_ outside of being blobs of combat.  There's a tribe of goblins there to guard against...well, what?  A tribe of hobgoblins?  Who then guard against undead.  Who are guarding against...the goblins, I suppose?  Winterhaven itself has exactly _zero_ interesting NPCs.  Seriously, the NPCs in Winterhaven are the intellectual equivilant of "Welcome to Corneria."

So what's the point of this?

Namely, that if NPCs are written to be nothing more then combat blobs, they're going to be nothing more then combat blobs.  Certainly, the ride skill isn't very useful in an NPC.  But daylight or turn undead?  Daylight alone can be helpful in establishing a mood - right before the PCs attack, she casts it on herself, highlighting her armor in a beautiful shining light.  The five rounds thing hurts Kalarel because the assumption is "The players won't give a damn about Kalarel at all, because they're just going to find and kill him in five rounds."  The five rounds assumption works in combat, but it's carried far beyond that.  When you actually reach Kalarel, you don't even know who here is - some evil guy opening a bad portal, for some reason?  Whatever, INITIATIVE COMBAT!

_Ugh._


----------



## Wicht (May 17, 2010)

Rechan, I have not said anyones preference is better.  Nor have I advocated for a change in your prefered edition. I have...

1) Tried to explain that there are valid reasons someone (not necessarily you) might like longer stat blocks.
2) Tried to say that some of us (not necessarily you granted) like the stat block to explain the way the NPC interacts with the world when the NPC is not around the PC
2) Argued that there are in fact games (though I'm not saying yours) where the PCs behave unexpectedly and a little extra information helps out the DM
3) Stated that it is simply wrong to say there is nothing in Burnt Offerings that would clue a PC into the backstory of Nualia.

I'm not sure how any of that has any bearing on your way or my way being better.  They simply are what they are.  AS to the original post - the attitude of the 4e designers steered the game a certain way and its likely that attitude is the reason some people (not you) have difficulty liking 4e modules.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 17, 2010)

Rechan said:


> 4e caters to one style and assumption, and not to another. That's it at the end of the day. And it's not going to change. It's designed from the ground up, by the people who run it, to facilitate one style and not another.




The heart and soul of everything wrong with it. Nice succinct summary.


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Rechan, I have not said anyones preference is better.  Nor have I advocated for a change in your prefered edition. I have...



Then explain what you mean by this?


> I find it semi amusing that despite the general agreement that there  are different play styles and thus different desires when it comes to  stat blocks, it seems hard for some to admit that others might genuinely  enjoy slighty longer, more detailed stat blocks.



I don't understand what you're trying to say. 

Why do you think others here are having a hard time admitting some like something different? 

If you're _not_ trying to say something else, then what are you trying to say?

You've explained multiple reasons *For* longer stat blocks and how other people's games go. Others have given reasons *Against*. It's clear people like and think differently. The points have been made. 

*Now what*?


----------



## Fifth Element (May 17, 2010)

steenan said:


> The problem here is that at least some players (myself included) demand consistency.



That's not a problem, in the sense that you can't please everyone. Pleasing some players will almost always displease others. But at some point you have to make a decision.


----------



## Wicht (May 17, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Then explain what you mean by this?




I think I was trying to suggest that mocking the opinions of others was a poor way to concede that their opinions are valid.


----------



## Umbran (May 17, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Namely, that if NPCs are written to be nothing more then combat blobs, they're going to be nothing more then combat blobs.




Because, as we all know, GMs stick strictly to things as written, and don't step outside the box of what designers hand us?

Way back when, we had games that didn't have rules (or stats) for everything, and the GM made them up when the players went beyond the expected.  We complained because there was little enforced consistency or predictability.

Then, we had games which had rules (and stats) for almost everything under the sun, and we complained how bloody long it took to stat up the NPCs and monsters so fully.

So, now they give us a bit of a mix - all the combat stuff is statted out for NPCs, but the non-combat stuff is left to the DMs imagination.  And still we complain.

It seems to me that satisfying us is an impossible task.


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I think I was trying to suggest that mocking the opinions of others was a poor way to concede that their opinions are valid.



I was trying to get a laugh *because* it was intentionally absurd. And to satirize it to a point.

I'm not sure how validity enters the equation when we talk about preference. An individual's tastes and wants can't be invalid.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 17, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Way back when, we had games that didn't have rules (or stats) for everything, and the GM made them up when the players went beyond the expected.  We complained because there was little enforced consistency or predictability.
> 
> Then, we had games which had rules (and stats) for almost everything under the sun, and we complained how bloody long it took to stat up the NPCs and monsters so fully.
> 
> ...



_Unpossible_, Umbram. Unpossible.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 17, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Because, as we all know, GMs stick strictly to things as written, and don't step outside the box of what designers hand us?




Because when I buy a module, I buy it so I the DM don't have to do all the crap I'm supposed to be paying for.

I can't imagine how freely money flies around for some people.  "Yeah, I bought a module, but then houseruled and changed most the stuff in it.  Totally worth my money!"


----------



## pawsplay (May 17, 2010)

Rechan said:


> So now those of us who don't need "Speaks Far Realms" act like idiots?




No. I have no idea how you would derive that conclusion from what I wrote.


----------



## Wicht (May 17, 2010)

Rechan said:


> I was trying to get a laugh *because* it was intentionally absurd. And to satirize it to a point.




It must be a weakness of the medium because I misunderstood you to be making fun of other people's preferences.  It is good to know you only meant to satirize other people's preferences in good fun.


----------



## Wicht (May 17, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Because when I buy a module, I buy it so I the DM don't have to do all the crap I'm supposed to be paying for.
> 
> I can't imagine how freely money flies around for some people.  "Yeah, I bought a module, but then houseruled and changed most the stuff in it.  Totally worth my money!"




I don't know.  While I tend to use modules as is, and am sort of stuck on doing adventure paths at the moment, I have at times also cut and pasted modules to get something else with a minimum of effort.  I don't think its a money issue so much as a time issue.  So long as someone felt they got their value out of a product, it really doesn't matter how much they spent so long as they are satisfied as to the value.


----------



## Hussar (May 17, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I find it semi amusing that despite the general agreement that there are different play styles and thus different desires when it comes to stat blocks, it seems hard for some to admit that others might genuinely enjoy slighty longer, more detailed stat blocks.
> 
> If you like short stat blocks I'm happy for you.  I on the other hand, enjoy  being prepared for some contingencies.  It doesn't matter how likely or unlikely you think any given piece of information is going to be used, to the person who uses it - it was useful.




Heh, I love how you put it at "slightly" longer.  Prepared for "some" contingencies.  Hrm, 3e stat blocks aren't "slightly" longer.  They can take pages, and yes, that's pages plural.  You gave an example of something that had about as much likelihood of occurring as the PC's spontaneously combusting for no reason, but that's apparently only a minor contingency.  

Take this as an experiment.  Look at the last ten encounters you ran (not necessarily combat - just encounters with stuff outside of traps or hazards) in your D&D game.  Of those ten encounters, tally the total number of NPC's featured.  

Now, how many of those NPC's appeared in a second encounter?  

I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of NPC's featured in exactly one encounter - either combat or non-combat or possibly a combination of both.  So, considering that the NPC will feature in the game for a grand total of about an hour, probably far less than 1% of the total time of the campaign, why does that NPC need a fully detailed stat block?

I mean, for much of D&D's history, OD&D, AD&D, 2e D&D and now 4e, monster stat blocks could be reduced to a single typed line.  And, yet, somehow, we managed to muddle through for about twenty years or so of gaming.  

What were we doing differently?


----------



## Hussar (May 17, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Because when I buy a module, I buy it so I the DM don't have to do all the crap I'm supposed to be paying for.
> 
> I can't imagine how freely money flies around for some people.  "Yeah, I bought a module, but then houseruled and changed most the stuff in it.  Totally worth my money!"




I would wonder why you are not taking Wicht to task since he said that he added to the module earlier in the thread and talked about it being a strength of the module.

Never mind that most modules assume that you will do at least a basic amount of work personalizing it for your group.  The number of DM's who open a module to page one, make zero alterations and run it completely as is, is IMO, pretty small.


----------



## Benimoto (May 17, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Because when I buy a module, I buy it so I the DM don't have to do all the crap I'm supposed to be paying for.
> 
> I can't imagine how freely money flies around for some people.  "Yeah, I bought a module, but then houseruled and changed most the stuff in it.  Totally worth my money!"




As I read Noonan's quote, what he is suggesting is that NPCs should have the stats to fulfill the purpose they serve in a module.  Extra stats are completely extra.   If it happens that somehow Kalarel gets back into town and involved in a iron-chef-style baking contest with the PCs, then the DM should have no problem deciding what his baking skill level is, or what baking-related powers he should have.  But for the purposes of a group intending to run the module as written, such stats are superfluous.


----------



## Blastin (May 17, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Because, as we all know, GMs stick strictly to things as written, and don't step outside the box of what designers hand us?
> 
> Way back when, we had games that didn't have rules (or stats) for everything, and the GM made them up when the players went beyond the expected.  We complained because there was little enforced consistency or predictability.
> 
> ...




Quoted for truth and because I can't give you XP yet


----------



## Beginning of the End (May 17, 2010)

Rechan said:


> So if the only stats that exist are combat stats...




... and you explicitly made the game that way because you felt that monsters were only useful in combat, then it's probably unsurprising that your adventure modules are grind-happy combat fests.



Hussar said:


> Are you honestly going to claim that this is a  likely outcome?  Not only is this a likely event, but, likely to  succeed?  I mean, your party would have to first successfully bluff her,  manage to convince her of their intentions, THEN the DM would have to  contrive to send them on this specific mission WHILE she accompanies  them, on horseback and THEN they have to decide to attack her at that  specific point in time.
> 
> This is why we need her ride skill?  :/




You can ridicule whatever particular example you like. You can say that it's absurd that the PCs would _ever_ be able to lure her out of her lair; or that she would be able to escape their initial attack; or that they delayed long enough that she rides out for an open assault on the village; or any of a dozen other possibilities.

But the reality is that by providing a well-rounded picture of the gaming environment you are giving hooks that the players and DM can both access, manipulate, and use.

When the only thing you support is hitting things with sticks, then lots of things are going to get hit with sticks.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And WotC's design team actually said, "We think the only thing you want are 5 rounds of nails, so we're only going to give you hammers."

I'm not saying that you HAVE to run 4th Edition as nothing more than an endless slog of 5 round bouts of combat. But I am saying that's the design ethos that gave us both the core rulebooks and the grind-tastic adventures.

And you can't really argue with that, because _that's what the designers said_. So unless you're calling the designers a bunch of filthy liars, there's really nothing to argue about here.


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> ... and you explicitly made the game that way because you felt that monsters were only useful in combat, then it's probably unsurprising that your adventure modules are grind-happy combat fests.



You quoted me, but are you actually talking to me? Because you don't seem to actually be responding to me. 

I didn't make 4e. And I don't feel monsters are only useful in combat. But I don't need their combat stats to use them outside of combat. In fact, I often run political games, but I don't use the monster's _stats for those_. 

I also don't make (or use) modules, but my games are rarely grindy.


----------



## billd91 (May 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Heh, I love how you put it at "slightly" longer.  Prepared for "some" contingencies.  Hrm, 3e stat blocks aren't "slightly" longer.  They can take pages, and yes, that's pages plural.  You gave an example of something that had about as much likelihood of occurring as the PC's spontaneously combusting for no reason, but that's apparently only a minor contingency.




For some creatures like Demogorgon, the stat blocks got pretty long in 3.5, sure. But for most creatures, slightly longer is more accurate.

But here's the kicker. For gamers who like the extra detail of non-combat stats or stats relevant for other situations than just 5 rounds of combat, the detail was there. For gamers who don't like it, it can be cut out or ignored when prepping your adventures. For my money (and yes, if I'm going to shell out $ for the rules, I'm interested in what I'm getting for my money), supporting more detail and variety trumps 5 rounds of combat. I can use it high detail mode or low detail at *my* discretion, not Dave Noonan's.

EDIT: And if their module reviews are suffering compared to other companies, maybe it's because they put themselves in a box too confining and haven't figured out how to widen it yet.


----------



## Beginning of the End (May 17, 2010)

Rechan said:


> You quoted me, but are you actually talking to me? Because you don't seem to actually be responding to me.
> 
> I didn't make 4e. And I don't feel monsters are only useful in combat. But I don't need their combat stats to use them outside of combat. In fact, I often run political games, but I don't use the monster's _stats for those_.




*Admin note: Don't be rude. Please see my note below*

My apologies for using rhetorical skills above your level of comprehension.

Perhaps the gentle reminder that we're talking about what David Noonan wrote will help to guide you out from your confusion. If that is insufficient, you might consider reviewing the content of the thread for the clarity it may provide.


----------



## pemerton (May 17, 2010)

Rechan said:


> All right. I think I get it. Let me try to facilitate both sides.
> 
> *Centaur Cavalier*



Great stuff - but I can't give you more XP at this time!


----------



## pemerton (May 17, 2010)

Beginning of the End;5184087

<snip>

And you can't really argue with that said:
			
		

> that's what the designers said[/i]. So unless you're calling the designers a bunch of filthy liars, there's really nothing to argue about here.



I don't agree. Non-combat encounter resolution in 4e turns on the skil challenge rules, which don't require anything in monster statblocks (because in a skill challenge the monsters and NPCs do not do anything mechanically, only narratively - the mechanics are all in the players' hands).



ExploderWizard said:


> Designing Many monsters can be bargained with, or even used for other purposes by PC's rather than just being sword fodder.
> 
> A monster is part of the game world. As such, it should have a place and any abilities which aid it in attaining and maintaining that place.



In 4e as written (perhaps not as played at all tables) this sort of bargaining is a skill challenge. Therefore, it doesn't depend on monster stats but rather on the GM's assignment of level-appropriate DCs.

As written, the WotC modules don't make these sorts of skill challenges easy to run, but it's not due to a lack of monster stats but due to a lack of contex/motivation given to the monsters. And also due to some of the problems with the skill challenge rules themselves.



ProfessorCirno said:


> [At no point in time are any of the monsters given any fluff or thoughts or _purpose_ outside of being blobs of combat.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> if NPCs are written to be nothing more then combat blobs, they're going to be nothing more then combat blobs.



I agree, this is a big problem with WotC adventures. The solution is not more stats in the statblock. It's better adventure design, and (within the 4e paradigm) better development and then deployment of the skill challenge rules.



Wicht said:


> the attitude of the 4e designers steered the game a certain way and its likely that attitude is the reason some people (not you) have difficulty liking 4e modules.



I don't like the 4e modules very much as written (though they have some interesting maps and set pieces) but it has nothing to do with the 4e designers pragmatic approach to statblocks. It's because the modules are poor adventures. _Bastion of Broken Souls_, a high level 3E adventure by WotC, has super-long statblocks but exactly the same problems with its adventure design.



wcpfish said:


> For a set of monsters that actually HAVE a place in the world check out the Monsternomicon by Privateer Press.



At least in my copy of the 4e monster manuals there's quite a bit in each monster description about general lifestyle, motivations, religious affiliations (where appropriate) and so on. There's also the Origin stat and a range of types and subtypes, which helps make sense of some of this. The MM and MM2 are actually much better than the modules in this respect, and when the sort of situation ExploderWizard describes comes up in a module encounter, I tend to turn to the relevant monster manual for guidance.

I also use Manual of the Planes, Open Grave, Underdark and The Plane Above to help with this (if I used a lot of dragons or elementals I guess I'd buy and use those books to).


----------



## pemerton (May 17, 2010)

innerdude said:


> Is it easier to ignore powers that are spelled out, or to try and come up with something unique on your own (especially if your level of system mastery is relatively low)?



In my experience, this just isn't true. I've not GMed a lot of 3E, but I've converted 3E modules, including high level ones, to other game systems. Some of those statblocks are monstrosities, and are a lot of work for a GM to read through and understand even in the context of preparation, let along the context of play.



Thornir Alekeg said:


> If the players love the adventure, but the DM finds it difficult to run because they are lacking information they need or want, that DM is less likely to purchase another.  If the players love the adventure and it has stuff the players never see, but makes the DM's time simpler and more interesting, the DM is likely to become a loyal customer.



This sounds plausible enough. But, as a GM, I don't see it as a reason to clutter my stablocks with stuff that I don't need, even if X% of other purchasers want them.

Now, if X is high enough, than WotC should ignore me and satisfy that X%. But if X% is on the small side, then WotC are better off trimming to satisfy me and my "slim stablocks" majority.



Wicht said:


> Or, as a fair DM I'm going to be forced to say...
> 
> "The cleric gives a command to his kobold minion... Kill!" The kobold just stares at him with a stupid expression on his face.  What do you do?



I find this weird, for two reasons: (i) 4e stablocks list languages spoken, and so both designer and GM can see at a glance if communication is meant to be an issue or not; (ii) I can't really imagine someone running a module like this - instead of the above, why would you not just add Draconic to the NPC's language list on the fly?


----------



## AllisterH (May 17, 2010)

Given that 4e statblocks ALREADY include the various skills implictly, you already KNOW what the monster's skill levels are even if they aren't trained in it.


----------



## Hussar (May 17, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Given that 4e statblocks ALREADY include the various skills implictly, you already KNOW what the monster's skill levels are even if they aren't trained in it.




Shhh, don't let facts get in the way of a good edition bash.  



Beginning of the End said:


> ... and you explicitly made the game that way because you felt that monsters were only useful in combat, then it's probably unsurprising that your adventure modules are grind-happy combat fests.




Possibly true that they are grind happy combat fests.  Reason doesn't follow.  If that were true, then every single 1e module would be nothing but grind happy combat fests.  Yet they aren't.  Funny that.




> You can ridicule whatever particular example you like. You can say that it's absurd that the PCs would _ever_ be able to lure her out of her lair; or that she would be able to escape their initial attack; or that they delayed long enough that she rides out for an open assault on the village; or any of a dozen other possibilities.
> 
> But the reality is that by providing a well-rounded picture of the gaming environment you are giving hooks that the players and DM can both access, manipulate, and use.




Now we've put the goalposts on rollerskates.  How does adding a skill to an NPC or a SLA suddenly become a "well rounded picture of the gaming environment"?  



> When the only thing you support is hitting things with sticks, then lots of things are going to get hit with sticks.
> 
> When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And WotC's design team actually said, "We think the only thing you want are 5 rounds of nails, so we're only going to give you hammers."




This really is a meme that needs to have a stake put in it.  First off, every single NPC has a full array of skills, although only the exceptional ones are noted in the stat block.  But, even ignoring that, there are a number of things you can do that have nothing to do with combat.

As was said in the Robot Chicken DM commentaries - "To those of you who say 4e is all about combat - you are dumb"



> I'm not saying that you HAVE to run 4th Edition as nothing more than an endless slog of 5 round bouts of combat. But I am saying that's the design ethos that gave us both the core rulebooks and the grind-tastic adventures.




Wow, do you have a licence to fly that leap of logic?



> And you can't really argue with that, because _that's what the designers said_. So unless you're calling the designers a bunch of filthy liars, there's really nothing to argue about here.




Well, I think I'd be calling someone a filthy liar, but, it wouldn't be the designer.  It would be nice if people actually took the time to read what's being said, rather than what they think is being said.

But, you know what?  I've had this conversation way, WAY too many times.  I know this isn't going to change any minds.  You've decided that they've said something they really haven't and there's nothing I can say that will change that. 

Good gaming.  One wonders though, why you would bother getting involved in a thread about a game you don't play and don't like.  Other than to edition bash that is.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 17, 2010)

My take on this:

For major monsters (aka the villians), I would like some background work and motivation written about them. After all, its a story not a grindfest.


That said though, to me the statblock has little to do with that. I don't need noncombat things for a villian to be a villian. NPCs can have whatever abilities I need them to have for the story.

If an npcs had mindcontrolled minions....well that's because he learned a secret mindcontrol ritual. Maybe I have it written somewhere the players could find and learn it, maybe I don't.

So its not the how that's important to me, simply the what. The fact that the NPC used mindcontrolled minions is what I need to know. The rest I'll figure out.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 17, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> My apologies for using rhetorical skills above your level of comprehension.






Hussar said:


> As was said in the Robot Chicken DM commentaries - "To those of you who say 4e is all about combat - you are dumb"
> 
> ...
> 
> Wow, do you have a licence to fly that leap of logic?




OK guys, enough with the insults.

Anyone after this point gets threadbanned.

Thanks


----------



## Sir Wulf (May 17, 2010)

Rechan said:


> The statblock is the part of an NPC writeup relevant for combat.
> 
> You don't have "Unrepentant Rapist" and "Loves Croissants" or "Talks in the Third Person" in the statblock; those are certainly parts of the NPC, they are personality quirks and important details. But they aren't relevant to the numbers, and they're not going to show up in the 5 round lifespan.



And this is where our experiences parted company. I find that the most unusual things sometimes become relevant.



Rechan said:


> To drive home my point, let's compare two modules. Paizo's _Burnt Offerings_ and WotC's _Keep on the Shadowfell_. The first, most think is a good module, the second most think is a bad module. Let's look at the villains, and the amount of effort put into them.
> 
> (snip, snip...)
> 
> The PCs in Burnt Offerings don't get to appreciate how much everything hinges on the villain's background story. They don't get to experience her. They just kill her. Same with Kalarel - the PCs don't know him, and only know his name mentioned here or there, and they just show up and shoot him in the face with their swords.



Except my players frequently surprised me with their reactions to the various NPCs in Burnt Offerings. One party ended up releasing the villain's mercenary henchman, encouraging me to include him as a source of information in a later scenario. Inspired diplomacy and deception turned an evil mage into an ally for the party. 

If all I'd been given to work with was the foes' combat stats, I'd have been on my own when developing these unexpected twists. Instead, they followed easily from the interaction between the party and the scenario.



Rechan said:


> Burnt Offerings gives great affection to the villain. Details her background, her motivations, her personality. And _none of those matter to the PCs_, who don't really find them out and end up walking into her room and kicking her ass at the end of the dungeon without any meaningful interaction. Just like Kalarel. The only difference is that the DM gets to read about the former.



The problem I have is that 4e stats assume the DM knows exactly how things will play out ahead of time. One guy is a villain, and the PCs will try to kill him. Another is an ally, and his stats are built differently. 

By instead adding peripheral information, the DM has the tools to deal with factors not anticipated by the scenario authors. For example, you claim that _Daylight_ and turning undead aren't relevant, so they're just dead weight for the stat block: Since one of my groups featured a drow PC and a necromancer, that wasn't the case. Both those powers became potentally significant.

If stats don't clearly address other interactions the party may have, the DM is forced to wing it without direction. Suppose your group plans to trick the villain, claiming to be fellow cultists sent to help the villain's schemes? Suppose the PCs decide to investigate the villains' motivations and background in detail? (Mine sometimes do) Do your "5 round only" statblocks allow your villain to adapt to these types of encounter? My experience has been that they do not.

EDIT:  I understand that some such interactions can be handled as skill challenges.  My point is that peripheral powers such as _summon wallaby_ or _light_ might be insignificant in many situations, then utterly bedevil PC plans another time.


----------



## pemerton (May 17, 2010)

Sir Wulf said:


> The problem I have is that 4e stats assume the DM knows exactly how things will play out ahead of time. One guy is a villain, and the PCs will try to kill him. Another is an ally, and his stats are built differently.



Can you provide an example of this? I've not encountered it in the 4e modules I'm familiar with (except that some NPCs who are expected to be allies aren't statted out at all, or have only abbreviated stats, such as a few rituals known or bonuses in a couple of skills).


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 17, 2010)

innerdude said:


> Now here's the thing: how does this sentiment--largely echoed in critiques of WotC's 4e adventure modules in numerous circles--square with the following quote by WotC designer David Noonan? (You can find the quote here.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think that one of the problems with Dave Noonans comment is that it is far too shallow. While it might be true for goblins or orcs who are due to die in hordes, the end result of this philosophy is monsters at all levels that can only do 5 things before they die. The same 5 things.

I much prefer the 3.0e demons and devils (for example), where although in each situation they might only do 5 things before they die, they can do a different _selection_ of 5 things each time. In one encounter a 3.0 devils 'Animate Dead' power might be fundamental to the encounter, in another encounter it might not be used, and on a third occasion there might be an on-the-fly opportunity where it makes a lot of sense.

They focussed on how a monster might be used in one single combat, without considering how they might be used in an adventure or even a campaign.

Like so much in 4e, the 'combat' is the fundamental unit of play, and most things were designed to fit around that.

(If there is ever a 5e, I hope that they take up Kamikaze Midgets suggestion and make "the adventure" the fundamental unit of gameplay - but that discussion is happening elsewhere!).



Back to the original question, Ydars is speaking about Adventure Design, and Noonan is speaking about Monster design. As a result, the two are not necessarily in conflict.  I think that Kalarels stat block made him a spectacularly uninteresting combatant, but the faults in the module regarding him were not about his stat block, it was about the lack of any sense in the plotting of the adventure (as Prof Cirno points out quite comprehensively)

Cheers


----------



## bagger245 (May 17, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Ultimately, this strikes me as just two polarized views on how the game works.
> 
> To illustrate, I'll give an example. I ran a single session for what I thought would be a new group. During the session, the PCs were on a ship and attacked by a giant sea monster.
> 
> ...




Well, as the DM we could easily add "Eat NPC" power like how we add themes to monsters. But I do understand your point. Monster stats are codified now, as in "pre-programmed" just before the fight and players might feel it's unfair that the DM just "adds" more attacks or abilities for monsters on the fly eventhough used only for narrative purpose.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 17, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I don't agree. Non-combat encounter resolution in 4e turns on the skil challenge rules, which don't require anything in monster statblocks (because in a skill challenge the monsters and NPCs do not do anything mechanically, only narratively - the mechanics are all in the players' hands).
> 
> In 4e as written (perhaps not as played at all tables) this sort of bargaining is a skill challenge. Therefore, it doesn't depend on monster stats but rather on the GM's assignment of level-appropriate DCs.




Here we have another part of the problem. Skill challenge mechanics issues tend to mask the skill challenge concept issues.

I don't know if any interaction between the players and an NPC/monster will involve skill use, combat, neither, or both. As DM I do not dictate how the PC's interact with elements of the game world, that is the player's job. 

I can make notes on the relative difficulty of certain courses of action, such as an overly paranoid and suspicious guard being very hard to bluff but writing out a lengthly encounter on the premise that the players will attempt this tactic is a waste of time.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 17, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I can make notes on the relative difficulty of certain courses of action, such as an overly paranoid and suspicious guard being very hard to bluff but writing out a lengthly encounter on the premise that the players will attempt this tactic is a waste of time.



So are you saying that things that are unlikely to occur should be omitted from a written adventure?


----------



## Fifth Element (May 17, 2010)

bagger245 said:


> Well, as the DM we could easily add "Eat NPC" power like how we add themes to monsters. But I do understand your point. Monster stats are codified now, as in "pre-programmed" just before the fight and players might feel it's unfair that the DM just "adds" more attacks or abilities for monsters on the fly eventhough used only for narrative purpose.



That's one nice thing about 4E's designed as compared to 3E. 4E is exception-based, and you could add a monster power called "Eat NPC" that automatically hits an NPC.

But if that sort of thing annoys your players, you probably shouldn't do it. Or you could get new players.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 17, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> So are you saying that things that are unlikely to occur should be omitted from a written adventure?




Nope. I'm saying that certain approaches shouldn't be expanded upon to the exclusion of all others.
Pre-defined encounter types are the antithesis of meaningful choice. If an encounter involves an NPC that the players may come into conflict with, then combat stats as well as some notes about how the NPC behaves
in non-combat interaction are both needed.

Any attempt to "pace" an adventure by dictating encounter type is simply too much DM steering IMHO. 
So what if the party just fought through six combat encounters. Perhaps they were just feeling homicidal. Whatever decisions the party makes regarding the approach to an encounter should have meaning and
consequences. The moment the DM tells them when to fight, when to bargain, etc, is the point at which player decisions stop mattering.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 17, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Back to the original question, Ydars is speaking about Adventure Design, and Noonan is speaking about Monster design. As a result, the two are not necessarily in conflict.  I think that Kalarels stat block made him a spectacularly uninteresting combatant, but the faults in the module regarding him were not about his stat block, it was about the lack of any sense in the plotting of the adventure (as Prof Cirno points out quite comprehensively)
> 
> Cheers



 I think this sums up my feelings perfectly.  I have no desire to return to the page long statblock, but in modules I purchase, I would like to see some depth given to NPCs and BBEGs beyond their combat stats.  It isn't really needed for the 35 orc guards scattered around the stonghold, but for the chieftain and his shamen, a litle more information would be great to give me ideas about how to use them other than as a tool for beating on the PCs.  

And no, I'm not talking about wanting to know whether they have allergies to strawberries or use their left hand.


----------



## AllisterH (May 17, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> I think this sums up my feelings perfectly.  I have no desire to return to the page long statblock, but in modules I purchase, I would like to see some depth given to NPCs and BBEGs beyond their combat stats.  It isn't really needed for the 35 orc guards scattered around the stonghold, but for the chieftain and his shamen, a litle more information would be great to give me ideas about how to use them other than as a tool for beating on the PCs.
> 
> And no, I'm not talking about wanting to know whether they have allergies to strawberries or use their left hand.




ER..but if things like allergies et al are NOT what are you talking about, the 4e stat block ALREADY includes the Monster's skill levels.

I thought THIS was what people were talking about since the 4e stat block incorpoates the skills both explictly and implicitly and the ritual system means that you dont NEED to list every non-combat spell since non-combat magic isn/t restricted.

This might be a case of two different assumptions.

If I'm reading this correctly, you're implying that unless the monster has say the spell "Raise Dead" on its writeup, it can't use that effect as it is a spell restricted to a certain class.

This doesn't hold true for 4e where again, anyone can use the ritual system and have the "Raise Dead" ritual.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 17, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Nope. I'm saying that certain approaches shouldn't be expanded upon to the exclusion of all others.
> Pre-defined encounter types are the antithesis of meaningful choice.



Can't the module writer make an educated guess? Space is at a premium after all.

I'm sure we all know what the talk/fight axis revolves around for an NPC - attractiveness. The PCs are highly unlikely to negotiate with orcs, way more likely if the NPC is a beautiful woman (assuming typical players).

There was only one time in my last campaign where the PCs talked when I thought they would fight. Yep, you guessed it, the NPC was a sexy woman.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 17, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Can't the module writer make an educated guess? Space is at a premium after all.
> 
> I'm sure we all know what the talk/fight axis revolves around for an NPC - attractiveness. The PCs are highly unlikely to negotiate with orcs, way more likely if the NPC is a beautiful woman (assuming typical players).
> 
> There was only one time in my last campaign where the PCs talked when I thought they would fight. Yep, you guessed it, the NPC was a sexy woman.




LOL! I gotta spread some XP around.  Hot chicks FTW!

Educated guesses are not a problem unless presented without alternatives. Certainly if the circumstances in the adventure point to extreme hostility then combat stats and tactics are logically going to be prominent parts of the write up. Likewise, some stats should be included 
for an NPC that the party is likely to parley/bargain with beyond just skills and DC's. 

Hey, the NPC could be ugly.


----------



## Garthanos (May 17, 2010)

I had a hot chick were one PC identified her (relatively correctly) as a potentially dangerous dissident and the other identified her as a somebody who might be worth saving (relatively correctly) .. the latter decided his character fell in love with her and the other had her arrested after fighting her and her minions. The one was a justiciar and the other a high counciler of the same country.


----------



## Scribble (May 17, 2010)

I think personally for some of the "Key" NPCs found in adventures and books, I would like to see the addition of something along the lines of the Role Playing Stat Block, Mearls suggested in the Skill Challenges article.

Obviously not for every single NPC or monster, but the main NPCs should all have this in its own little section.

This way, we have the combat stats at a glance when/if we need them, but we also know how the NPC acts outside of combat in a similar quick/easy fashion.


----------



## Umbran (May 17, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Because when I buy a module, I buy it so I the DM don't have to do all the crap I'm supposed to be paying for.




"...all the cap I'm supposed to be paying for"?

I'm going to venture a guess that "all the crap" is not actually a well defined list of items.

The writers of an adventure could give you a 250+ page supplement for every adventure, and not fully cover _everything that one could possibly imagine_ a GM might need.  Giving you literally all the crap is not a practical goal, nor would you probably be willing to pay for it if it could be done.

So, somewhere you draw a line, and say, "this is enough crap".  Somewhere you figure the GM will fill in the gaps. 

Historically, gamers have not been in agreement, or consistent, about where they want that line drawn.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 17, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Educated guesses are not a problem unless presented without alternatives.



There's always at least one alternative to using a skill challenge as presented: roleplay the thing out. You can even use the information contained in the skill challenge block to inform the roleplaying!

If a DM feels obligated to use a skill challenge just because it's there, and forces it upon the players regardless of what they wanted to do, that's not a system problem. That's a DM problem. That same DM, running a 1E module, sees the combat stats presented for a "good" monsters will probably have it attack the party - since the stats are there, they must be used.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 17, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> ER..but if things like allergies et al are NOT what are you talking about, the 4e stat block ALREADY includes the Monster's skill levels.
> 
> I thought THIS was what people were talking about since the 4e stat block incorpoates the skills both explictly and implicitly and the ritual system means that you dont NEED to list every non-combat spell since non-combat magic isn/t restricted.
> 
> ...



Sorry, I think there are two slightly different, but related, conversations going in this thread.  

One is about the stat blocks specifically.  I don't have any particular issue with the shortened stat blocks, and while it can occassionally lead to a hiccup in consistency or require a DM handwave, I think the shorter blocks themselves are an improvement.

The other conversation is in regards to the idea that the opponents in D&D really only "exist" once the PCs encounter them and last for an average of five rounds of combat before they are killed by the PCs, therefore the only thing that matters is what they can and likely will do in those five rounds.  Any deeper writeup including background, motivation and even other abilities is unncessary.  That was what I was speaking to in my post where I agreed with Plane Sailing about uninteresting NPCs.


----------



## Azgulor (May 17, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> While the 4e philosophy of designing a monster for 5 rounds is a good _technique_, as a philosophy it's completely bankrupt. As pointed out above, without story and engagement, those five rounds might as well be spent fighting a pokemon. Monsters should be designed with loving detail, albeit with the understanding they might die in a few rounds, unmourned and forgotten.




That technique also assumes a foregone conclusion that the monsters will die.  Not retreat, not return as a recurring villain - just 5 rounds and then loot the corpse.

Also, I DO think about what major villains (NPCs or monsters) are doing - what are their goals & objectives, etc.  Maybe it comes out in play and maybe it doesn't.  When it does, it's pure gaming gold.  When it doesn't, it goes into the recycle bin to potentially be dusted off another day.

The reward far outweighs the risk.  It's anything but wasted effort.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 17, 2010)

Umbran said:


> "...all the cap I'm supposed to be paying for"?
> 
> I'm going to venture a guess that "all the crap" is not actually a well defined list of items.
> 
> ...




Come on Umbran, we aren't talking about weird and non-existant theoreticals.  We're talking about an existing module.  Keep on the Shadowfell.

The damned thing constantly says things like, to quote direct: "An easy way to set a scene is to describe the weather - is it overcast  and damp with a slight hair-ruffling wind? Is the sun blazing down with  scarcely a cloud in the sky? Is the night open to the vault of a million  stars, or does bone chilling rain cut through the darkness?"

I dunno.  Does the bone chilling rain cut through the darkness, module?

4e modules have all been nothing more then combat slugfests with what little plot there is acting as _plot spackle_ to keep the combat sessions vaguely connected, and one of the reasons why is because it's so _terrified_ of trying to, I don't know, set a scene for itself.  The module writers seem scared out of their skulls to even think about making a statement on what the atmosphere is like, or what an NPC does if you don't immidiately reach for your weapon, or if there should be any kind of flavor text at all.  I've been reading through some Paizo modules, and they all have a small section for morale on what the enemy does when low on health.  What do monsters in Keep on the Shadowfell do when low on health?  _Nothing!_  They're there to die, and nothing more.  The only time they'd ever run away is if there's a second encounter you need to meet them at, or they need to grab more enemies to throw at you.  There's no surrendering, no running away, no pleading for mercy.

Here's the problem, and it's the direct opposite of the hammer/nail.  _When everything is a nail, the only tool players will use is a hammer_.  When every monster in every 4e module exists only as a combat blob, yes, the players are always going to do nothing more then "Initiative, attack!"  When monsters are written to be _incapable_ of doing anything but dying on the players' sword, then the players will - rightfully so - assume that's the entire purpose of *all* the monsters.

Kalarel has a spy in Winterhaven.  Ignoring how _hilariously_ obvious that spy is, what can the players do with her?  Well, they can kill her.  That's it.  There's no convincing her to switch sides.  There's no talking to her.  You can't trick her out of giving more information then she meant to.  You can't spy on her and watch for her communicating with Kalarel.  We don't even know why she serves Kalarel in the first place.  Her entire purpose, despite potentially being a great big plot device to help shape the module and give Kalarel flavor, is to be really obviously suspicious, and then bite it in a graveyard.  There's _so_ much potential there, and it's flat out gone.  That's how it is with all the NPCs - they're either two or three lines of exposition and a quest line, or they go "Rargh!" and attack you, and then you kill them.  There aren't any cunning double crosses or intriguing non-combat moments with NPCs, there's no setting two enemies against each other, no making backhand deals or sneaking through side doors and evading the enemy.  Just one linear line and a bunch of combat blobs between you and the unexplained goal.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Hrm, 3e stat blocks aren't "slightly" longer.  They can take pages, and yes, that's pages plural.




I certainly agree with this.  One of the things I was struck by when writing 3e adventures was the length and mathematical pickiness of the statblocks.  The Monsternomicon "Quickplates" were ideal; in many cases, though, adding a template was more work than the outcome was probably worth.

Something worth considering is the TSR-D&D approach, which allows for a longer, more detailed monster write-up, and a shorter statblock that contains the information that the DM will probably need.  The 3e approach, AFAICT, was to contain relatively complete information in the statblock, which led to its bloat.

If I were going to play 4e, or make a new monster book for 4e, I would want to include more information in the book that isn't necessarily reflected in the statblock....but which is called out to the DM for attention, because the DM can use that information both to plan encounters, and to enhance the RP potential of existing encounters.

If the writing isn't enough to make a largish group (but not all) of the WotC adventure designers to think in terms other than simply "combat slog", then what chance does the average DM have?



> I mean, for much of D&D's history, OD&D, AD&D, 2e D&D and now 4e, monster stat blocks could be reduced to a single typed line.  And, yet, somehow, we managed to muddle through for about twenty years or so of gaming.
> 
> What were we doing differently?




I agree here, too.  I don't believe that a larger statblock is needed, so much as a better initial write-up.  And that is, I think, what we were doing differently.

And that is why not every single 1e module is grind happy combat fests.  Well, that and the faster combat system.  

Yet, OTOH, examine fey creatures.  In 1e, it is clear that fey creatures are supposed to be representative of how fey appear in fairy tales and folklore.  Yet, overwhelmingly, they seem geared to combat (IMHO and IME, at least).  Why is that?  The system is not designed to codify the type of "action" these creatures represent.

Suddenly, in 3e, it is possible to have fey creatures that actually _*seem like *_fey creatures.  Why?  Both WotC and 3pp codified the necessary types of "action" in the game rules.  There is an example of something that WotC got absolutely right, IMHO.

Shorter statblocks I am all for.  But those shorter statblocks should be memory aids for a longer reference.  The 4e MM is too dry in this regard; perhaps later monster books have done better?



> The problem I have is that 4e stats assume the DM knows exactly how things will play out ahead of time. One guy is a villain, and the PCs will try to kill him. Another is an ally, and his stats are built differently.




This is, I think, a real issue.  Not shorter stat blocks, per se, but stat blocks that seem to predefine outcome.  It is another area where I think better text could overcome the problem, though.  I.e., the statblock is devised on the basis of the expected outcome, but the text that the statblock is a reminder for should not only explicate the expected outcome, but give enough information to deal with unexpected outcomes.



ExploderWizard said:


> The moment the DM tells them when to fight, when to bargain, etc, is the point at which player decisions stop mattering.




Again, this is certainly a problem with WotC module design, and I think with the 4e design philosophy in general.  From posts on EN World, however, I believe it is a problem one can play 4e without experiencing.  The modules, however, are no help in this regard, AFAICT and IMHO.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 17, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> Sorry, I think there are two slightly different, but related, conversations going in this thread.
> 
> One is about the stat blocks specifically.  I don't have any particular issue with the shortened stat blocks, and while it can occassionally lead to a hiccup in consistency or require a DM handwave, I think the shorter blocks themselves are an improvement.
> 
> The other conversation is in regards to the idea that the opponents in D&D really only "exist" once the PCs encounter them and last for an average of five rounds of combat before they are killed by the PCs, therefore the only thing that matters is what they can and likely will do in those five rounds.  Any deeper writeup including background, motivation and even other abilities is unncessary.  That was what I was speaking to in my post where I agreed with Plane Sailing about uninteresting NPCs.




Yes.

The first is not (necessarily) a problem; the second is.


RC


----------



## Sir Wulf (May 17, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Kalarel has a spy in Winterhaven. Ignoring how _hilariously_ obvious that spy is, what can the players do with her? Well, they can kill her. That's it. There's no convincing her to switch sides. There's no talking to her. You can't trick her out of giving more information then she meant to. You can't spy on her and watch for her communicating with Kalarel. We don't even know why she serves Kalarel in the first place. Her entire purpose, despite potentially being a great big plot device to help shape the module and give Kalarel flavor, is to be really obviously suspicious, and then bite it in a graveyard.




I was looking for an example to discuss, and this one is better than any I'd thought of.  Where the NPCs are supposed to show for five rounds, then bite the dust, that's all they're equipped to do.

Suppose that the PCs decided to lay seige to the stronghold of a powerful evil cult, recruiting a force of lawful-good paladins to aid them in their campaign.  If all the DM has is the cultists' combat abilities, he's completely on his own when it comes to their non-combat resources.  Do their leaders possess rituals for conjuring food and water?  Can they bargain with demonic allies? No one knows, since these are things done outside of combat.  Could the cult's fanatic berserkers be ordered to fire crossbows at the beseiging force instead of waiting for the heroes to storm the walls?  Can the wily cult leader place a berserk minion on his ferocious warhorse, moving to escape while his men combat the PCs?  Such questions default to DM fiat, since the stats don't allow for things like ordering a warhorse to fight without a rider.


----------



## Sir Wulf (May 17, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Kalarel has a spy in Winterhaven. Ignoring how _hilariously_ obvious that spy is, what can the players do with her? Well, they can kill her. That's it. There's no convincing her to switch sides. There's no talking to her. You can't trick her out of giving more information then she meant to. You can't spy on her and watch for her communicating with Kalarel. We don't even know why she serves Kalarel in the first place. Her entire purpose, despite potentially being a great big plot device to help shape the module and give Kalarel flavor, is to be really obviously suspicious, and then bite it in a graveyard.




I was looking for an example to discuss, and this one is better than any I'd thought of. Where the NPCs are supposed to show for five rounds, then bite the dust, that's all they're equipped to do.

Suppose that the PCs decided to lay seige to the stronghold of a powerful evil cult, recruiting a force of lawful-good paladins to aid them in their campaign. If all the DM has is the cultists' combat abilities, he's completely on his own when it comes to their non-combat resources. Do their leaders possess rituals for conjuring food and water? Can they bargain with demonic allies? No one knows, since these are things done outside of combat. Could the cult's fanatic berserkers be ordered to fire crossbows at the beseiging force instead of waiting for the heroes to storm the walls? Can the wily cult leader place a berserk minion on his ferocious warhorse, moving to escape while his men combat the PCs? Such questions default to DM fiat, since the stats don't allow for things like ordering a warhorse to fight without a rider.


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Can't the module writer make an educated guess? Space is at a premium after all.
> 
> I'm sure we all know what the talk/fight axis revolves around for an NPC - attractiveness. The PCs are highly unlikely to negotiate with orcs, way more likely if the NPC is a beautiful woman (assuming typical players).
> 
> There was only one time in my last campaign where the PCs talked when I thought they would fight. Yep, you guessed it, the NPC was a sexy woman.



And amusingly, almost universally if it's a sexy woman (at least as far as the MM or modues are concerned), it's evil and trying to eat you/kill you.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 17, 2010)

That's funny, because I just introduced a character to play to that stereotype.  I *know* that the PCs will be doubly cautious, and yet doubly susceptible.  Even though their divination has suggested that she is not an enemy, and may provide the only means of their surviving past the year's end.

(Moving from rules playtest into full sandbox, she and a group of others intends to move a city from their current plane to another because Cthuloid monsters are escaping, and are probably going to devour this plane.)

Giving players divination abilities (or the means to them) doesn't derail plot, IMHO and IME.....it gives the players a chance to understand scope and background, and make meaningful choices.  What happens when a PC tries divination to determine the motive of the villians in KotS?


RC


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> Sorry, I think there are two slightly different, but related, conversations going in this thread.
> 
> One is about the stat blocks specifically.  I don't have any particular issue with the shortened stat blocks, and while it can occassionally lead to a hiccup in consistency or require a DM handwave, I think the shorter blocks themselves are an improvement.
> 
> The other conversation is in regards to the idea that the opponents in D&D really only "exist" once the PCs encounter them and last for an average of five rounds of combat before they are killed by the PCs, therefore the only thing that matters is what they can and likely will do in those five rounds.  Any deeper writeup including background, motivation and even other abilities is unncessary.  That was what I was speaking to in my post where I agreed with Plane Sailing about uninteresting NPCs.



Agreed.

Or rather, somewhat. This is very usefu to distinguish the statbock issue and the phiosophy behind the monster's purpose. 

I think the second point is ok _in terms of the combat encounter itsef_. Monsters are designed to do their thing within 5 rounds, because that's the expiration date of your average monster. 

The issue is when you consider the encounter in the context of the story around it. If it's a random encounter and/or the PCs have no intention of taking, it's fine. But if there is more to it, then there is more to it.

But the onus is not on the combat encounter or the stats. The onus for depth is on the adventure AROUND the combat encounter. Regardess of how many rounds the bad guy breathes after initiative is cast, the BBEG, the important guys, need to have depth. 

My issue with KotS is not the end fight. It's that the PCs never meet the BBEG before then. They have a tiny perspective (if any) of who is behind it, and so the BBEG is just some unknown monster in an end room. There's no story payoff. 

That's a separate issue from the encounter. 

Even if monsters die in 5 rounds, there needs to be depth around those 5 rounds to make it fee better.

So I do not think the 5 round theory is bad, but it needs to be cohesive with the story around it. And that is on those who write the adventures.


----------



## Scribble (May 17, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If I were going to play 4e, or make a new monster book for 4e, I would want to include more information in the book that isn't necessarily reflected in the statblock....but which is called out to the DM for attention, because the DM can use that information both to plan encounters, and to enhance the RP potential of existing encounters.




Like what?

And how would you include it?




> Yet, OTOH, examine fey creatures.  In 1e, it is clear that fey creatures are supposed to be representative of how fey appear in fairy tales and folklore.  Yet, overwhelmingly, they seem geared to combat (IMHO and IME, at least).  Why is that?  The system is not designed to codify the type of "action" these creatures represent.
> 
> Suddenly, in 3e, it is possible to have fey creatures that actually _*seem like *_fey creatures.  Why?  Both WotC and 3pp codified the necessary types of "action" in the game rules.  There is an example of something that WotC got absolutely right, IMHO.




In what way did 3e do this?

Can you give me an example?


----------



## Zinovia (May 17, 2010)

I think that most of us will concede that Keep on the Shadowfell suffers from a number of flaws, and could stand to be improved.  The flaws are inherent to the module, not the entire system.  There is not enough in the way of suggestions for what to do with a group that likes to negotiate their way through everything.  All too often NPCs and plot devices that should become important later in the adventure are dropped, leaving the players to wonder, "What was that all about?".  NPCs are always carrying incriminating notes in their pockets.  Settings are often bland and poorly described.  There are too many combats that are far too similar to each other in any given mod.  Yup, we know there are things that desperately need improvement, but expanded stat blocks are not the solution.

I feel the stat blocks contain a decent amount of information, and they are well suited to combat encounters.  The issue I have with many modules is the lack of description, including description of monsters and NPCs.  I would like for the  _Monster Manual_ to include a bit more written information in some of the entries, especially size (it may be Medium, but is it 4 feet high, or 8?  The illustrations are nice as far as they go, but it still is useful to know just a little more.  Some entries have this info, but many do not.

In modules space is at a premium.  We don't need great detail about run of the mill baddies, unless they only appear to be ordinary, but are concealing some deep and plot-relevant secret.  It also doesn't do much good to have reams of backstory on the BBEG if the players have no means of discovering that information.  

The idea of NPC roleplaying blocks is a good one, giving us one concise summary of how to RP this character.  As it stands, much of the NPC motivation, description, and other info is hidden in various interlude encounters where the group is apparently wandering the town, interrogating everyone who might have a gold exclamation point over their heads.  Suggestions for how to use some of the NPCs might also be useful; several of those in Thunderspire were interesting, but unclear on exactly what they were intended for, such as Surina.  If the group listens to her too early on, they end up trying to tackle something a bit too hard for them, and bypassing the plot train of the very linear main story. A note in the Tactics section about how baddies will react if they lose morale, or are interrogated would be useful.

It isn't the stat blocks or the idea that most enemies live only five rounds that is the issue.  That is probably true for most of them.  The issue is that in order to make the encounters against the big villains truly memorable, it has to become personal for the PCs.  They need to hate the BBEG and fervently work to bring them down.  Once you can achieve that, the group will go through hell  or high water to reach the BBEG and foil their wicked plans.  Without a personal motivation, it is difficult to make the party care one way or the other-  they are just going through the motions.  In  most of the modules I have seen lately the BBEG doesn't encounter the PCs at all until the bitter end.  The description and motivations of the BBEG are often not communicated well to the players, appearing only in the DM background info.  This is the problem that makes WotC modules play like a series of D&D minis battles rather than an RPG.  There are too many fights with not enough reason to care about any of them.


----------



## Azgulor (May 17, 2010)

Umbran, brings up a good point.  However I think an important distinction is being lost by a few folks here.

As Umbran stated:



Umbran said:


> Then, we had games which had rules (and stats) for almost everything under the sun, and we complained how bloody long it took to stat up the NPCs and monsters so fully.
> 
> So, now they give us a bit of a mix - all the combat stuff is statted out for NPCs, but the non-combat stuff is left to the DMs imagination.  And still we complain.




If you're a GM that hates prepping monsters & NPCs, then _for your home-made adventures_, minimal stat blocks are a very good thing.

However, if you're buying a *pre-made adventure *- regardless of how long the stat block is, the GM isn't the one writing it up.  It's been done for you already.  No time wasted.

As for the 4e module approach, I'd say it leans closer to the opposite end of the "detailed bad guy/monster" than a mix. (YMMV.)  The absence of motive, characterization, etc. *forces* the GM to come up with it such things.  That is unless the game is truly being played as a beer-n-pretzels skirmish game.

There's no right or wrong, here, just differences in taste/style.

If I take a step back from my own preferences for a moment and look at it objectively, though, I have two questions with regards to pre-made adventures:

1. Does the presence of additional, non-mechanical detail in an adventure increase or decrease the utility of the adventure?

2. When I buy a module am I looking for a traditional adventure (synopsis, plot, characters, statistics, maps, & locales) or am I looking for pre-built encounters & maps?

As a consumer, if I'm evaluating a module based on 1 & 2 above, am I getting the bang for my buck with the "lighter" module or the "fuller" module?  

I suspect that there are a far greater number of GMs that would hold up _Crypt of the Everflame _or _Sunless Citadel _against _Keep on the Shadowfell_ as an example of good design.  I also suspect that those same GMs would say the additional info provided better helps them to run the module.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 17, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Like what?
> 
> And how would you include it?




I can give you an example of the kinds of things I did for RCFG.  If it is really important, I could borrow a 4e MM (mine being given away) and try to bring up specific issues on a monster-by-monster basis.



> In what way did 3e do this?
> 
> Can you give me an example?




I have a whole thread devoted to it, around here somewhere.  

Ah, here the thing is:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-house-rules/86637-faerie-encounters.html

Largely, I would say that 3e's introduction of a working skill system meant that you could create creatures that were dealt with using game mechanical requirements, but without requiring combat.  In fact, I would suggest that some of the encounters in the thread could be easily reworked into 4e terms as Skill Challenges.


RC


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (May 17, 2010)

For me longer, detailed statblocks are nice because they provide an explicit starting point for tinkering while maintaining a stated power level.

I'm not one of those people who can look at a given statblock and know exactly how it stacks up power-wise (though I understand this is much easier in 4e).  With a more detailed statblock, I can tinker with a given pre-published NPC/monster to suit my own game's needs in and out of combat, yet still be fairly confident that the resulting modified NPC won't be terribly out of whack with what the author intended.

That said, reducing "extraneous" info from full out numerical stats, down to "DM notes" would be fine with me, as long as mechanically it doesn;t make a difference to the system.  Heck, that's more or less how I stat things out, anyway.  In a fully electronic world, a statblock would have a few of "resolutions" driven by collapse buttons: things like "show all info (hi-res)"; "show only major combat info (lo-res)"; "collapse limited-use combat info"; "collapse social stats"; Etc.


----------



## Mallus (May 17, 2010)

I like the 4e approach to monster design, which is to say it meets my consumer needs. Which are the briefest of descriptions followed by combat-relevant stats and, hopefully, some advice re: tactics.

Everything else I can make up myself. In fact, I enjoy doing so. Really, the idea that fatter stat blocs yield deeper or more interesting antagonists is hard for  me to understand. The _system_ cannot yield well-written and compelling opposition, only a skilled and/or creative DM can. Moreover, looking to the system to provide that leads you down a dead end.

Adding more spell-like abilities to a demon's right-up only makes him more complicated to play, it doesn't necessarily make him any more malevolent or memorable. Give me a manageable list of abilities and my own ham-acting skills any day.

The new bare-bones approach hearkens back to the old bare-bones approach. I dig that. I might be amused by an entry detailing how much copper an efreet can smelt per hour, or how a certain kind of troll eats only goats and prefer Impressionist artwork... but that's the kind of material I like to create myself (in fact, it's _exactly_ the kind of detail I create for my own games).


----------



## Scribble (May 17, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I can give you an example of the kinds of things I did for RCFG.  If it is really important, I could borrow a 4e MM (mine being given away) and try to bring up specific issues on a monster-by-monster basis.




Well, up to you. I'm not outright disagreeing with you or anything, honestly curious. 

Do you have MM2 per chance or just the first one?



> I have a whole thread devoted to it, around here somewhere.
> 
> Ah, here the thing is:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-house-rules/86637-faerie-encounters.html
> 
> ...




When I get a chance I'll check out that thread.


----------



## Dausuul (May 17, 2010)

The way I see it is, a statblock should be trimmed down to showcase only _significant, interesting_ abilities which the creature possesses.

Let's look at a 3E balor's statblock. It has a list of SLAs as long as your arm. Some of those SLAs are interesting; for example, it can drive people permanently insane, take control of their actions, and teleport at will. On the other hand, _blasphemy,_ _implosion_, _power word stun_, and _fire storm_ are just different flavors of "beat you over the head."

4E's designers noticed the latter and decided that statblocks ought to be leaner and more economical. With that, I agree. And for a typical mook, a 4E statblock is perfectly sufficient. I really don't give a damn if Goblin #45 is an exceptionally good wolf-rider. If he ain't on a wolf when the PCs are slated to fight him, it doesn't matter. He's just a sack of hit points. (Or, since he's probably a minion in 4E, a sack of hit point.) There is only so much space on the page, and there is only so much space in the DM's head. Neither should be wasted on trivialities.

But for the big-name monsters and NPCs... a little more detail is warranted. Balors aren't mooks. No, they don't need a million subtle variations on "beat you over the head." But driving people permanently insane? The narrative power of that effect is tremendous. It changes the balor from a mere combat-monster to a _demon_, a fiend capable of shattering mortal minds with the merest glance of its burning eyes.

It's inspiration fodder. I read something like that and it suggests all kinds of possibilities... a trail of raving lunatics and broken minds, building tension and hinting at the big reveal to come. 4E monsters, by and large, don't offer that kind of inspiration. (At least they didn't in MM1. I haven't got around to picking up the more recent MMs; I've heard rumors things have improved.)


----------



## Starman (May 17, 2010)

For adventures, what would be wrong with having small, combat-specific stat-blocks embedded in the adventure, but also having an index that fleshes things out a little more? The people who only need the NPC for combat get just what they want right there. The people needing more info have it, too, but it's not in the middle of the adventure. I suppose you could run into page count issues, but I don't know what other downsides there might be.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 17, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Well, up to you. I'm not outright disagreeing with you or anything, honestly curious.
> 
> Do you have MM2 per chance or just the first one?




I don't even have the first one anymore; the second I've barely glanced through.  As I said earlier, they may have improved.

Examples of monster write-ups intended to inspire:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/4757840-post167.html & http://www.enworld.org/forum/4816085-post179.html .  Far from perfect, I know.



> When I get a chance I'll check out that thread.




I don't know why that got moved to 3e.....There was a lot of "General" stuff in there, and a lot that would be easy to use in 4e.



Dausuul said:


> The way I see it is, a statblock should be trimmed down to showcase only _significant, interesting_ abilities which the creature possesses.




This I agree with.  The statblock is just a "memo"; the full write-up should contain what the statblock does not.


RC


----------



## Barastrondo (May 17, 2010)

Long years of Champions and pre-3e have forged me into one of those GMs who's clearly in the "keep it simple, keep it lean, make it something you can reskin with as few keystrokes as possible" camp -- at least for villains that are supposed to be disposable. And that's the thing about D&D for me, anyhow: it's the kind of game where the players frequently don't want villains to recur. They want to kill them.

If an enemy takes little enough time to create, then you theoretically run the risk of not investing as much effort into his personality when you create him. On the other hand, if an enemy takes a good long while to stat out (or even to get a handle on all the things he can do, if it involves a lot of looking up different spells and such), then you theoretically run the risk of wanting to get the time invested out of him -- which can lead to seeing "killing the bad guy" as an undesirable outcome, at least until you feel satisfied with your investment. I think we've all known, at some point or another, a GM who's been a little too attached to a given villain and who didn't want the players to take him out "prematurely." 

A good GM isn't going to fall into either trap, but I don't think it's unfair to say that they're both potential pitfalls. Wouldn't surprise me if that's part of the philosophy of the "only stat stuff that it's questionable to fudge" approach.


----------



## Scribble (May 17, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I don't even have the first one anymore; the second I've barely glanced through.  As I said earlier, they may have improved.




I think they did actually (at least in my opinion.)  The stuff they're putting into the knowledge checks is pretty neat, and not always related to combat. I think they could use a little more (and in some cases it's still outright bland) but it's decent.  Much better then MMI in my opinion.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 17, 2010)

Umbran said:


> "...all the cap I'm supposed to be paying for"?
> 
> I'm going to venture a guess that "all the crap" is not actually a well defined list of items.
> 
> ...




I don't think you are being fair to Professor Cirno here; you are venturing a guess at something that he actually described quite fairly and comprehensively in an earlier post in the thread http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...issonance-encounter-design-3.html#post5183974

I think that it is reasonable to expect that a module has cohesive plot and relationships, and at least allows for the possibility that there might be some approaches other than fight your way through!

Cheers


----------



## Scribble (May 17, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> I think that it is reasonable to expect that a module has cohesive plot and relationships, and at least allows for the possibility that there might be some approaches other than fight your way through!




I think in a normal module this would be true,  but in the case of KoTS it was designed to preview the new rules, and D&Ds rules are largely combat based rules... 

So in order to showcase them, I would expect it to be mainly pushing combat.


----------



## Xris Robin (May 17, 2010)

It took me until now to realize it, but I just finally followed the link the OP posted.

That quote from David Noonan is from a 2007 article about the Monster Manual... V.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 17, 2010)

Christopher Robin said:


> It took me until now to realize it, but I just finally followed the link the OP posted.
> 
> That quote from David Noonan is from a 2007 article about the Monster Manual... V.



When you read the whole article it's a lot more reasonable. The problem Noonan is talking about, monsters with a dozen or more spell-like abilities, all of which the DM then has to look up in the PHB before he can run a simple combat encounter, is quite real. It's a problem I experienced in 3e.



> Powers unique to the new monster are often better than spell-like abilities. At first glance, this principle seems counterintuitive. Isn’t it easier and more elegant to give a monster a tried-and-true power from the Player’s Handbook? On the surface, sure. But watch how it works at the table. The DM sees the spell-like entry, grabs a Player’s Handbook, flips through it to find the relevant spell, reads the relevant spell, decides whether to use it, then resumes the action. See where I’m going with this? That’s a far more cumbersome process than reading a specific monster ability that’s already in the stat block. Heck, the physical placement of one more open rulebook is a hassle for a lot of DMs.




And Noonan's not saying monsters should have no culture or place in the world.



> Are there exceptions to the “limit your world-building” principle? Of course. It’s easy to conceive of a whole adventure that revolves around the world-creation myth of the hadrimoi. But the play experience at the table is enhanced if the monster entry provides a few cogent details of culture to get the DM pointed in the right direction, then steps back and lets the table run off wherever it likes.




I happen to agree with this. I think the 'world-building' should be brief - a couple of sentences, a para - but suggestive. It should, as Noonan says, point in a particular direction (or several) that DMs can run off in if they want. For example if it's stated that an NPC is 'devoted to the cosmic principle of Law as an ideal but in his quotidian dealings is an absolute pragmatist' this suggests all sorts of things in a short phrase.


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> The way I see it is, a statblock should be trimmed down to showcase only _significant, interesting_ abilities which the creature possesses.
> 
> Let's look at a 3E balor's statblock. It has a list of SLAs as long as your arm. Some of those SLAs are interesting; for example, it can drive people permanently insane, take control of their actions, and teleport at will. On the other hand, _blasphemy,_ _implosion_, _power word stun_, and _fire storm_ are just different flavors of "beat you over the head."



So far we've all been quibbling over the *size* of the block, but I think we're missing something that is the biggest difference to me.

With the 3e Balor, I not only need the monster's statblock. Before the fight I have to look up all those SLAs, and review the Balor's Feats, and see how all of these interact with the rest of the Balor's stat block. Then I have to use all of this to decide its tactics. Then I need copies of all of these spells at the table for reference when the balor uses them.

With the 4e Balor, not only is the statblock smaller, but _all pertinent rules are in the block itself_. I do not have to memorize what a spell does, or have a reference on hand, or shuffle through a stack of papers. It's in *one place*, the same place with its AC.

So it's not just the SIZE of the block, but that all the rules info is located in one reference point. 

If the statblocks were smaller, but _still_ forced me to reference other books just to have the rules for what the monster's abilities do, they'd be just as bad!


----------



## Umbran (May 17, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> I don't think you are being fair to Professor Cirno here; you are venturing a guess at something that he actually described quite fairly and comprehensively in an earlier post in the thread http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...issonance-encounter-design-3.html#post5183974




Yes, that's the post I started with.  What he seems to be looking for is, to me, poorly defined.  It looks to be subjective to the given GM's playstyle.



> I think that it is reasonable to expect that a module has cohesive plot and relationships, and at least allows for the possibility that there might be some approaches other than fight your way through!




No argument there.  But exactly which bits of stat blocks are useful to that end, and which aren't?  Have too many bits, and the thing is cumbersome.  Have too few, and we gripe that possibilities aren't presented.  Damned if they do, and damned if they don't!


----------



## Hussar (May 18, 2010)

Something that has been sort of touched on, but I think really needs to be called out specifically about KotS.  This was the first module produced for a very new system.  And, it was produced by a company that honestly doesn't make very good modules.  There are exceptions out there, but, honestly, would anyone put WOTC at the top of the list for "Great Module Makers"?

So, it's not really a shock when the module is a bit... well... weak.

However, taking the leap from "this module is weak" to "This module proves how bankrupt their design philosophy is" is a bit of a stretch.

Then comparing that module to a Paizo 3e module - a company known for making excellent modules, in a system they've been producing for for years - isn't a particularly fair comparison.

Just a question about the BBEG riding a horse in the Paizo module.  I'm not very familiar with this module, but, since it's germane - is there actually a horse anywhere in her vicinity for her to ride out on?


----------



## Wicht (May 18, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Just a question about the BBEG riding a horse in the Paizo module.  I'm not very familiar with this module, but, since it's germane - is there actually a horse anywhere in her vicinity for her to ride out on?




Actually there is a horse the goblins have captured.


----------



## Rechan (May 18, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Just a question about the BBEG riding a horse in the Paizo module.  I'm not very familiar with this module, but, since it's germane - is there actually a horse anywhere in her vicinity for her to ride out on?



No. I was the one who brought it up, and that was my point: she's at the bottom of a dungeon.


----------



## KidSnide (May 18, 2010)

Rechan said:


> So far we've all been quibbling over the *size* of the block, but I think we're missing something that is the biggest difference to me.
> 
> With the 3e Balor, I not only need the monster's statblock. Before the fight I have to look up all those SLAs, and review the Balor's Feats, and see how all of these interact with the rest of the Balor's stat block. Then I have to use all of this to decide its tactics. Then I need copies of all of these spells at the table for reference when the balor uses them.
> 
> With the 4e Balor, not only is the statblock smaller, but _all pertinent rules are in the block itself_. I do not have to memorize what a spell does, or have a reference on hand, or shuffle through a stack of papers. It's in *one place*, the same place with its AC.




I think the 4e stat block is a thing of (relative) beauty.  There is little more than I would ask of a stat block than to allow me to run the monster/NPC in combat with all the relevant rules in a single location.  4e tends to require more enemies and more complicated GM tactics because - just as a general matter - the combat part of 4e is a much more complicated and tactically rich game than previous editions of D&D.

The problem is that 4e provides less help setting up the world and the internal logic of NPC-to-NPC interaction.  The monster manuals are _much_ better than the WotC modules in this regard, but they are still thin on questions regarding how monsters behave and are organized.  And they are also thin on non-skill/non-combat abilities like what rituals they are likely to know (whether or not these rituals are also accessible to PCs).  To take a demon example mentioned above, it would be useful if there were sets of rituals commonly known to certain types of demons and devils (e.g. turning someone insane, long term mind control, etc...).  

This material isn't completely absent.  We know, for example, that mind flayers collect thralls, that hobgoblins tend to have monstrous "pets", that kobolds love traps and that otyughs like to hang out in giant piles of... well... let's say in gross places.  But there needs to be more.  As much as I found the three-ring binder format of the old 2e Monstrous Compedium annoyingly fragile, the combination of small stat blocks and large sheets allowed the writers to provide fairly substantial descriptions for many monters. 

I like that WotC, as rules designers, have focused on rules that are relevant to PC interactions with the world.  But too much of the "how do the monsters fit into the world" material is relegated to the Open Grave / Draconomicon / Planar books.  And, even in those books, little space is given to non-combat special abilities.

Modules are a special case of this.  General information on how creatures fit into the world is correctly left in the monster manual.  However, there needs to be information concerning how the monsters fit into that particular scenario.  I don't need to know if the 4th hobgoblin on the left knows how to cook, but I do need to know why the hobgoblins are there and what their leader is trying to do.

It's an interesting question whether the 4e philosophy of focusing on the combat stats has lead the same group to write bad modules like KotS.  My guess it that the HPE1-3 modules were designed for "lowest common denominator" games, and that the module authors simply put more of their efforts into the core D&D products than the modules themselves.  I recall a post by Mike Mearls saying that he didn't think KotS was a good module either.  IMHO, it was a really stupid idea to provide a crappy module as the first introduction to 4e, but (as others have noted) it's the module - not the system.

-KS


----------



## Wicht (May 18, 2010)

Rechan said:


> No. I was the one who brought it up, and that was my point: she's at the bottom of a dungeon.




Just as you are mistaken in saying that there are no clues in the module pointing to Nualia until the PCs encounter her, so too you are mistaken here.  The text of the module contains a horse on the top part of the dungeon and discusses the possibility of encountering her somewhere other than the very bottom of the dungeon.  Some DMs allow for fluidity and activity in their dungeons and it is possible for monsters to leave their rooms if they are good.  For one thing, there was no toilet on the bottom floor of the dungeon.


----------



## Rechan (May 18, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Just as you are mistaken in saying that there are no clues in the module pointing to Nualia until the PCs encounter her



Regardless the PCs don't get to meet Nualia. Just like Kalarel they get notes about their plans, but that is sub par to any actual legitimate interaction. 



> so too you are mistaken here.  The text of the module contains a horse on the top part of the dungeon and discusses the possibility of encountering her somewhere other than the very bottom of the dungeon. For one thing, there was no toilet on the bottom floor of the dungeon. [



Look damnit, I have the module in front of me right now. Would you like to read it to me? Since you know it so well, where on the map is the toilet? I have looked over the Thistletop writeup three times now, and see no mention of Nualia's movements. The only mention of her location is in the description of E4: "The primary villain of this adventure is likely encountered here". Everything past that point is going on about her motivations/ritual. 

The module says Nualia is _two floors beneath_ the area where the horse is. Hussar asked if it was in her vicinity. I do not consider something 2 floors above me to be within my vicinity.


----------



## Wicht (May 18, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Look damnit, I have the module in front of me right now. Would you like to read it to me? Where on the map is the toilet?
> 
> The module says Nualia is _two floors beneath_ the area where the horse is. Hussar asked if it was in her vicinity. I do not consider something 2 floors above me to be within my vicinity.




Calm down please.  I thought you appreciated humor.  I even put in a smilie 

While you are correct that the stats for Nualia are attached to room E4, there's a horse in c18, a toilet hole in c24 (I actually assume the humans on the lower level use chamber pots and then dump it up there). Nualia's bedroom is in D5 and one would assume that despite her activities she sleeps there sometime.  There's a chapel in d12 and the text explicitly states she conducts services there and the PCs will encounter her and the whole tribe there if they attack at the wrong time.  

In point of fact, in my home game, I had the PCs meet Nualia in the chapel after fighting the Yeth Hounds instead of downstairs.  There's no reason a DM couldn't have Nualia flee to the horse.  She does, after all know its there one would presume.  Running the game PbP, the PCs rested after wiping out the goblins, the others, alert to the danger had begun to pack and thus the bugbear was helping Lyrie pack the relics.  I frequently move NPCs around if I think there is a logical reason for them not to be in the room with their text.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 18, 2010)

Is there anything in her statblock dealing with what happens if the characters encounter her in the toilet?


----------



## Wicht (May 18, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Is there anything in her statblock dealing with what happens if the characters encounter her in the toilet?




Possibly Concentrate +5 or Intimidate +9. 

  I doubt that encounter would be a pleasant experience.  For anyone.


----------



## Rechan (May 18, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Nualia's bedroom is in D5 and one would assume that despite her activities she sleeps there sometime.



The module says "she's not spent much time here recently". Assumption nothing, that does not establish any routine. 



> There's a chapel in d12 and the text explicitly states she conducts services there and the PCs will encounter her and the whole tribe there if they attack at the wrong time.



This is the place where the module says she will be somewhere beyond E4 and specifies a different routine for the PCs to enter and Nualia's location. I'm glad we isolated the place where the module says she will be somewhere different than she is specified in E4.



> In point of fact, in my home game, I had the PCs meet Nualia in the chapel after fighting the Yeth Hounds instead of downstairs.  There's no reason a DM couldn't have Nualia flee to the horse.



So now we've moved from "Is there a horse in her vicinity" to "If the PCs enter the dungeon during the single time of day that the NPC is in 1 room, then it's possible that she could seek a horse that is one level above her, closer to her vicinity". 

Glad we cleared that up. 

If the DM chooses to set her down in the area right next to the horse, then of course she can go for it. But that's the DM deviating from the obvious. Hussar didn't ask "Where might the DM put her that a horse is in her vicinity?"



> *I frequently move NPCs around* if I think there is a logical reason for them not to be in the room with their text.



Emphasis mine. I'm glad you admit that you move them around, not the module. That is your decision to deviate from the text. 

The issue here is what the module says. Not how you divert from it. If I make rewrites of KotS, that doesn't change the module's design.


----------



## Azgulor (May 18, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Regardless the PCs don't get to meet Nualia. Just like Kalarel they get notes about their plans, but that is sub par to any actual legitimate interaction.
> 
> Look damnit, I have the module in front of me right now. Would you like to read it to me? Since you know it so well, where on the map is the toilet? I have looked over the Thistletop writeup three times now, and see no mention of Nualia's movements. The only mention of her location is in the description of E4: "The primary villain of this adventure is likely encountered here". Everything past that point is going on about her motivations/ritual.
> 
> The module says Nualia is _two floors beneath_ the area where the horse is. Hussar asked if it was in her vicinity. I do not consider something 2 floors above me to be within my vicinity.





I think the toilet reference was a jibe to illustrate something you might consider wasted space.

At this point, people are just talking past each other.  I get what you're saying - Nualia having a ride skill is of no value to you.  For those of us who like our NPCs to be built according to the rules, if Nualia didn't have skill points in Ride, she'd be lacking skill points b/c that's the way characters are built in 3.5.

While the idea that omitting those ranks and the background/character text might satisfy your "it's wasted space" point, at the end of the day, that's just your preference.

Is it likely the PCs will/can interact with Nualia?  No.  Is it likely she could escape to fight the PCs?  No.  _However_, if either of those unlikely scenarios does occur the GM of Burnt Offerings is in a position to run that without missing a beat or having to improv or rule by GM fiat.  If you don't need that or like GM fiat, that's great.  Other GMs like that kind of detail and want in when they're paying for a module.

And as for the Ride skill being a shining example of wasted space cluttering up the stat block - you're talking about *Ride +2*.  *THAT'S 7 FRAKKIN' CHARACTERS!* (if I include the space).

At this point, you're right.  She doesn't need those ranks in Ride - the darn horse has been beaten to death!


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 18, 2010)

As a DM, there are two things I need to know to run any monster.  Its rough capabilities and how it thinks.  The way it thinks can be broken into two things - its tactical sense and its motivation.

Where WoTC excels with the monster manual is the tactical sense of the monsters.  The MM and particularly the MM2 are outstanding about this.  They tell me how the various monsters move, how they think, how they react, and how they organise.  And do so far more clearly than in any other edition of D&D - just the difference between Goblin Tactics and the Kobold's Shifty makes Goblins and Kobolds more different in 4e than Kobolds are than Half-Orcs in any previous edition.  They react differently, move differently, and behave differently.  And all this despite a small statblock.

The second part of the information I need as a DM is best summed up as the old actor's question "What's my motivation?"  And here is where WoTC sucks.  For unnamed characters, pay, fear, or group loyalty are just fine.  But more important ones need both foreground and background (to borrow Weem's description) - and WoTC seems to make these thin whereas Paizo excels most of the time.  If I have a history, I can work out whether someone is likely to have e.g. good riding skills.  If I have a motivation I can tell how someone will act mid term (rather than short term - which the statblock covers) when a PC throws the inevitable spanner in the works.  And no module writer can cover everything.

Questions of motivation don't belong in the MM (except as minor hooks) unless it's for a specific world (Privateer's excellent Monsternomicon for 3e is the best single world monster manual I've read).  They belong in the module.  Or the worldbook.

I wonder whether it is because the 4e monster manuals are so good and provide so outstanding a mix of fluff and rules that WoTC is so weak on the motivation side.  On the other hand, the 3e statblocks are dire (hell, they make you look up other books, which defeats the _point_) - which forces Paizo modules to be good at the motivations because they aren't doing much with the tactical reactions.


----------



## Rechan (May 18, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> For those of us who like our NPCs to be built according to the rules, if Nualia didn't have skill points in Ride, *she'd be lacking skill points b/c that's the way characters are built in 3.5.*



Emphasis mine. There is the difference.

They have formula for HP, Defenses, and Attack bonuses. NPCs work different than PCs. *That's how NPCs are built in 4e*. It's not that "she's missing skill points". In 4e, she has no skill points to spend. For 4e, no superfluous details are _NPCs built by the rules_.

I don't think 3e statblocks should be smaller, should have the things omitted. Because I don't play 3e. The rules of 4e state how statblocks are written, and I don't want 4e statblocks that break the rules any more than you want 3e statblocks that break the rules.


----------



## pemerton (May 18, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Here we have another part of the problem. Skill challenge mechanics issues tend to mask the skill challenge concept issues.
> 
> I don't know if any interaction between the players and an NPC/monster will involve skill use, combat, neither, or both. As DM I do not dictate how the PC's interact with elements of the game world, that is the player's job.
> 
> I can make notes on the relative difficulty of certain courses of action, such as an overly paranoid and suspicious guard being very hard to bluff but writing out a lengthly encounter on the premise that the players will attempt this tactic is a waste of time.





ExploderWizard said:


> Pre-defined encounter types are the antithesis of meaningful choice. If an encounter involves an NPC that the players may come into conflict with, then combat stats as well as some notes about how the NPC behaves
> in non-combat interaction are both needed.
> 
> <snip>
> ...



I agree with all the above, but can't give more XP at this time!



AllisterH said:


> the 4e stat block ALREADY includes the Monster's skill levels.





Thornir Alekeg said:


> I have no desire to return to the page long statblock, but in modules I purchase, I would like to see some depth given to NPCs and BBEGs beyond their combat stats.  It isn't really needed for the 35 orc guards scattered around the stonghold, but for the chieftain and his shamen, a litle more information would be great to give me ideas about how to use them other than as a tool for beating on the PCs.
> 
> And no, I'm not talking about wanting to know whether they have allergies to strawberries or use their left hand.



I agree with this too - and it answers AllisterH's question.

But I don't blame this on Dave Noonan. I don't think Noonan's comment is about removing plot elements - at least as I read him, he's just talking about stat blocks. In the original essay, he even referred to plot elements as a substitute for stat blocks (eg a Marilith has minions to animate dead if it needs them).

WotC seems to me to have had trouble with plot elements in its modules more-or-less from the get-go. Look at the widespread criticism of the Heart of Nightfang Spire, the Andy Collins and Skip Williams modules in the same series, Bastion of Broken Souls, etc.

What is needed is not more stats, but more presentation of plot elements - and not as background scenery for the GM and perhaps the players to enjoy, but as game elements that the players can engage with and potentially change. (For examples, look at the Penumbra modules from Atlas Games for 3E. Or even What Evil Lurks, from Necromancer games.)


----------



## Dark Mistress (May 18, 2010)

I think you guys should strip down and oil up to fight about this. It would be more fun to watch.


----------



## Wicht (May 18, 2010)

Rechan said:


> I don't think 3e statblocks should be smaller, should have the things omitted. Because I don't play 3e.




If you don't think that the 3e stat blocks should be smaller, why are you criticizing a stat block from a 3e module for having things you don't want?  

As for calling me out for "deviating from the text," I've read plenty of DMing advice telling me to do just that, and its part of the reason I like modules that have that "extra information."  I enjoy games with vibrant dungeons as opposed to static dungeons.  Paizo throws that extra bit in to allow DMs to do just what I routinely do.  I'm not doing something strange with the module, I'm using it more or less as its intended, to present a vibrant world in which things happen for a reason.  

Again, my main point is that what one person considers wasted ink, another might consider relevant information.


----------



## pemerton (May 18, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Here's the problem, and it's the direct opposite of the hammer/nail.  _When everything is a nail, the only tool players will use is a hammer_.  When every monster in every 4e module exists only as a combat blob, yes, the players are always going to do nothing more then "Initiative, attack!"  When monsters are written to be _incapable_ of doing anything but dying on the players' sword, then the players will - rightfully so - assume that's the entire purpose of *all* the monsters.
> 
> Kalarel has a spy in Winterhaven.  Ignoring how _hilariously_ obvious that spy is, what can the players do with her?  Well, they can kill her.  That's it.  There's no convincing her to switch sides.  There's no talking to her.  You can't trick her out of giving more information then she meant to.  You can't spy on her and watch for her communicating with Kalarel.  We don't even know why she serves Kalarel in the first place.



The problem here isn't only a module-writing one. It's a GMing one.

The 4e rules give ample support to turning spies, interacting with monsters and so on. If players of the module try this sort of thing and the GM says "No you can't" then it is the GM's fault if the players do nothing other than attack. Of course, a well-written module will offer the GM some support for this sort of scenario. But just because the module doesn't offer that support, it doesn't follow that players _can't_ do anything but fight.

When I ran Bastion of Broken Souls, the PCs ended up befriending the imprisoned god after persuading the guardian angel to let herself be killed in order to open the gate. When I ran the Chamber of Eyes from Thunderspire Labyrinth, the PCs ended up negotiating with the duergar slave traders to ransom the slaves (on the theory that this would save them the hassles of having to find and invade a duergar stronghold, and thus be cheaper and easier for everyone concerned). The modules don't provide for this sort of thing because they're poorly written modules. But that doesn't mean that it can't be done.


----------



## Wicht (May 18, 2010)

Re toilets... (I've told this story before but its been a few years)

One of the first times I DM'd my sons, they were like around 4 and 5 and it was a "halloween game" (the first in what is now a semi-tradition) I crafted a haunted's wizard tower for them to explore.  Because its the way I think when I design a place, I added a toilet, complete with a portal that shunted the waste somewhere else utilizing magic, in a small room on the first floor.  

Their PCs found the toilet.  They were fascinated that there would be such a thing in a haunted wizards tower.  It made them laugh and then they went on to explore the rest of the place.

Their mother joined the game with a character of her own after about an hour and we worked her into the adventure.

My sons' PC's first statement to her PC was, "This place has a bathroom!  Want to see?"  My wife still laughs about it to this day.  We've forgotten the rest of the adventure, but the toilet remains the one aspect of the tower that we still talk about.


----------



## Rechan (May 18, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> As a DM, there are two things I need to know to run any monster.  Its rough capabilities and how it thinks.  The way it thinks can be broken into two things - its tactical sense and its motivation.
> 
> Where WoTC excels with the monster manual is the tactical sense of the monsters.  The MM and particularly the MM2 are outstanding about this.  They tell me how the various monsters move, how they think, how they react, and how they organise.  And do so far more clearly than in any other edition of D&D - just the difference between Goblin Tactics and the Kobold's Shifty makes Goblins and Kobolds more different in 4e than Kobolds are than Half-Orcs in any previous edition.  They react differently, move differently, and behave differently.  And all this despite a small statblock.
> 
> ...



Heh. At this stage in my DMing, all I need is the mechanics. "I need something that can do X mechanically." When I reskin the stats to use for something I came up with, the fluff of what its place in the world is sitting on the page beside it really doesn't matter. All the fluff I have all ready - a lot of which I've changed for my own purposes, so for the most part, the text is a place where more blocks could be. Besides, much of the fluff sucks. Back when the Metallic Dragons book came out, a thread on ENworld generated way better ideas for using Draconians than what the text fluff was.

Although occasionally I agree that some of that info can be useful, because it can spark ideas. Such as the Kuthrik; in the "Roll high and you get this info", it mentions that they were created by Bael Turath to work sort of as offensive termites biological weapon; burrowing underneath enemy communities and plaguing them. 

And on occasion there'll be a monster I have no idea what the hell the idea behind it is. The Barbalang is a good example. I understand its' combat stats, but I don't understand its point.


----------



## Rechan (May 18, 2010)

Wicht said:


> If you don't think that the 3e stat blocks should be smaller, why are you criticizing a stat block from a 3e module for having things you don't want?



Because people are saying "4e statblocks should be bigger! With Ride skills and non-combat stuff!" And I'm pointing to a 3e statblock, to something as an example of what _I don't want in 4e_.

Folks are saying what 4e should be like, and I am arguing against it. 



> As for calling me out for "deviating from the text," I've read plenty of DMing advice telling me to do just that, and its part of the reason I like modules that have that "extra information."  I enjoy games with vibrant dungeons as opposed to static dungeons.  Paizo throws that extra bit in to allow DMs to do just what I routinely do.  I'm not doing something strange with the module, I'm using it more or less as its intended, to present a vibrant world in which things happen for a reason.



That's nice. But my argument has hinged on what the module says, not how a module changes after the DM gets it. The Module As Written. I change modules too, but we're comparing one Module As Written to another Module as Written. Regardless of what I did to make KotS awesome, that doesn't help a discussion of what the module says.

This whole thing is about how bad 4e modules are written, and I am comparing what many consider a Good module that makes several of the same mistakes, hidden under all those extra details that people love.


----------



## pemerton (May 18, 2010)

Sir Wulf said:


> Could the cult's fanatic berserkers be ordered to fire crossbows at the beseiging force instead of waiting for the heroes to storm the walls?  Can the wily cult leader place a berserk minion on his ferocious warhorse, moving to escape while his men combat the PCs?  Such questions default to DM fiat, since the stats don't allow for things like ordering a warhorse to fight without a rider.



I don't think these particular claims are true. The beserkers can use a basic ranged attack (+DEX to hit, weapon die + DEX damage), warhorses are statted out in the monster manual, and the DMG has detailed rules on how mounts work in combat with and without a rider.


----------



## Starman (May 18, 2010)

Dark Mistress said:


> I think you guys should strip down and oil up to fight about this. It would be more fun to watch.




I'm not sure we can do that since I don't see any sort of combat abilities listed in either of their statblocks.


----------



## Wicht (May 18, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Because people are saying "4e statblocks should be bigger! With Ride skills and non-combat stuff!" And I'm pointing to a 3e statblock, to something as an example of what _I don't want in 4e_.
> 
> Folks are saying what 4e should be like, and I am arguing against it.
> 
> ...




For the record, I'm not arguing against 4e statblocks one way or the other.  I don't care because I don't play 4e.

However, I see your point and agree:  If one stripped Burnt Offerings of all those extra little details that people love, it would be considered a mediocre module at best, nothing but one encounter after the other with no plot, subtext or window dressing to make it attractive.


----------



## pemerton (May 18, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If I were going to play 4e, or make a new monster book for 4e, I would want to include more information in the book that isn't necessarily reflected in the statblock....but which is called out to the DM for attention, because the DM can use that information both to plan encounters, and to enhance the RP potential of existing encounters.
> 
> If the writing isn't enough to make a largish group (but not all) of the WotC adventure designers to think in terms other than simply "combat slog", then what chance does the average DM have?



I don't know how familiar you are with the 4e monster manuals - but in my view they are excellent as the stand. Most entries have ample detail on monster history (both prosaic and mythical), politics and religion (if appropriate), origin, alliances (either expressly stated, or signalled via sample encounters), etc. The same is true for the campaiging books like Open Grave, Underdark and The Plane Above. The problem is that the modules don't reflect this depth, and don't give the GM any help in transitioning it from out of the books and onto the table.



Raven Crowking said:


> this is certainly a problem with WotC module design, and I think with the 4e design philosophy in general.



I agree with the first clause, but absolutely not with the second. As others have said (eg in the long "better modules" thread) the 4e modules utterly fail to realise the potential that is inherent in the system, and that the other books (DMGs, Monster Manuals, campaign books etc) all do a good-to-excellent job of establishing. I mean, look at the campaign arcs suggested in DMG2, the Underdark or The Plane Above - I don't know that I'd try and run any of them as written, but they're full of ideas that really show what the system can do - and then compare them to the pedestrian moduels that WotC is serving up (and in my view was serving up in 3E as well).



Zinovia said:


> It isn't the stat blocks or the idea that most enemies live only five rounds that is the issue.  That is probably true for most of them.  The issue is that in order to make the encounters against the big villains truly memorable, it has to become personal for the PCs.  They need to hate the BBEG and fervently work to bring them down.  Once you can achieve that, the group will go through hell  or high water to reach the BBEG and foil their wicked plans.  Without a personal motivation, it is difficult to make the party care one way or the other-  they are just going through the motions.  In  most of the modules I have seen lately the BBEG doesn't encounter the PCs at all until the bitter end.  The description and motivations of the BBEG are often not communicated well to the players, appearing only in the DM background info.  This is the problem that makes WotC modules play like a series of D&D minis battles rather than an RPG.  There are too many fights with not enough reason to care about any of them.



Agreed. And this is completely contrary to the advice given in the DMGs, which (among other things) gives advice on how to set up villains in a way that engages the PCs.


----------



## Hussar (May 18, 2010)

Wicht said:


> For the record, I'm not arguing against 4e statblocks one way or the other.  I don't care because I don't play 4e.
> 
> However, I see your point and agree:  If one stripped Burnt Offerings of all those extra little details that people love, it would be considered a mediocre module at best, nothing but one encounter after the other with no plot, subtext or window dressing to make it attractive.




But how does this relate to MONSTER design.  Which is what the Noonan post was about.  Not encounter design, MONSTER design.

Paizo makes better modules than WOTC.  There's a statement I think most people will agree with.  Paizo is known for making some damn fine adventures.  

But, that's got nothing to do with MONSTER design.  The Paizo modules are great because they take those designed monsters and go beyond what's in the Monster Manual - giving them motivations, backgrounds, history - and then placing them in an adventure with context and whatnot.

WOTC adventures tend to suck because, while they have great monsters and some really fun fights, they don't go beyond the Monster Manual and often don't include motivations or context.  

But, in both cases, nothing is being drawn from the Monster Manual.  What makes a Paizo module great has nothing to do with the stat block or the mechanics of the monster.  It has to do with what they've done beyond that.  

Which has nothing to do with how the monsters are built in the first place.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 18, 2010)

So, I've gotten ahold of a few Paizo adventures, including _Burnt Offerings_, and looked through them, reading some parts here and there...

These are WAY better than WotC adventures!

The people saying that Paizo makes great adventures are right.  Paizo's adventures are far superior.  Why isn't WotC making modules like these?

It's too bad, because I like 4E and really can't stand 3.5 anymore.  I wish WotC would start writing adventures like this.


----------



## Rechan (May 18, 2010)

Hussar. I brought up Paizo's Modules and I was talking about them in comparison to 4e modules, because two things were being discussed in this thread:

Monster statblocks.

The notion that monsters live for 5 rounds, and the supposed disconnect between the emphasis on combat and the monster's role in the story. 

I was bringing up Paizo/WotC's modules to make a point that 1) a lot of the good stuff about the NPC is in the written text of the NPC, not the statblock (referencing the first point), and 2) that even great modules can have the same flaws as a clearly bad module, both ignoring what I considered important to an adventure module. I was pointing out a mistake that *both* made.

Wicht has been arguing with Me over my interpretation of Paizo's module. He's not really been participating in anything else.


----------



## Hussar (May 18, 2010)

Rechan - I mostly agree with what you're saying.  

What makes Paizo modules great is most certainly not contained in the stat-blocks or in the monster design.  It's in the flavour and whatnot.  What makes WOTC modules generally bad is a lack of flavour and whatnot.

My point is, this whole thing has zero to do with monster design which is what David Noonan is talking about.  Several people are trumpeting adventure design as showing what's wrong with monster design. 

On a totally side note, just 'cos it's bugging me.  It was mentioned that the goblins captured a horse.  So, the BBEG, despite having a ride skill, doesn't ACTUALLY have her own horse.  But, this level of detail is seen as a good thing.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 18, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Yes, that's the post I started with.  What he seems to be looking for is, to me, poorly defined.  It looks to be subjective to the given GM's playstyle.




Clearly you _haven't_ read it if you think it has anything to do with a given GM's playstyle.



> No argument there.  But exactly which bits of stat blocks are useful to that end, and which aren't?  Have too many bits, and the thing is cumbersome.  Have too few, and we gripe that possibilities aren't presented.  Damned if they do, and damned if they don't!




Let me requote myself then.

When everything is a hammer, the only thing players get out is a hammer.

We've been comparing one of Paizo's earlier modules with the first 4e module.  Let's jump ahead a few years.

Have the 4e modules changed?  Nope.  Enemies exist just to die.  This is very much a part of monster creation - if monsters are just blobs of combat, and in 4e they are indeed blobs of combat, that's all they do.  They serve their function, and their function is nothing more then "Oh hey an enemy *splorch*"  As cool as skill challenges can be, because they're so structured, there's no sudden case of bluffing your way past the monster.  Look at Revenge of the Giants.  Skill challenges, just like combats, are their own separate encounters, taking place *outside* the narrative instead of alongside or inside.  They give you two or three skills you can use, and that's it - when you flop them, woops, combat time.  

Compare this to how open ended Stolen Land makes it on sneaking into a bandit fort, even telling you the players could indeed simply bide their time and try to assassinate the Stag Lord while he sleeps, or how they might kill one bandit and set the others in the camp against each other with accusations.  Don't have the best bluff or disguise?  Taking an enemy captive and getting information from them earlier can help you there, scoring you code words and the secret that the bossman has a weakness for alcohol.

Look at the 4e statblock for the monster.  Look at how much is dedicated to the combat blob part.  Now look at what's dedicated to everything else.  Do you see it?  That small block on skills?  _That's it._  And even that doesn't say much, as the only time you'll see those skills come into play is if the enemy has a skill power or if your set a skill challenge up around it.

Instead of Burning, let's look back at Stolen Land.  Let's skip ALL flavor entirely and just jump to the Stag Lord's stats.  Literally, just the numbers.  What do we get?

We know that he has a penalty to his stats due to being sickened from too much booze.  We know that his favored targets are other humans.  We know that, as a ranger, he has bow skills and is built to his terrain.  He has high stealth and acrobatics, which gives some major clues on how he would fight.  His physical stats are good with a very good dexterity, but his mental stats are low, with his wisdom being especially bad and his charisma being slightly better, which is reflected in how easily his bandits abandon him as soon as he falls (which is, in turn, in their stat blocks).  

Do you see what happened there?  Even the stuff based purely on combat told you things about the Stag Lord's character.  Even just the strict combat blob bits gave hints and hooks on how to play him _outside_ of the actual fight.  That one stat block tells you more then *entire modules* in 4e tells you about their bad guys.

Once you go just one step beyond the pure numbers, it gets even worse.  Still sitting in the stat block, now we look at the words.  His sickness is gone once he sobers up, suggesting a number of ways to help keep him weaker.  In melee he moves around a lot to flank with his bandits, so he knows and uses teamwork (the bandits themselves had a note that they'd often use terrible tactics due to being poorly trained.  You'd never see that in a 4e creature).  Most importantly, the fight isn't segregated from the narrative - you can wait for him to pass out and then just coup de grace him.  No battlemat needed!


----------



## Lanefan (May 18, 2010)

Can I raise a practical question at this point?







Wicht said:


> The text of the module contains a horse on the top part of the dungeon [that has been captured by goblins] ...  Some DMs allow for fluidity and activity in their dungeons ...



Then why does this horse even exist?  Surely the goblins, if true at all to their kind, would have eaten it at the first opportunity...

As for the rest, I suspect most of the issues raised could be solved by simply making the modules longer and more detailed, via either more pages or (preferably) more efficient use of space.

Lan-"yum, horsemeat"-efan


----------



## Sir Wulf (May 18, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Can I raise a practical question at this point?Then why does this horse even exist? Surely the goblins, if true at all to their kind, would have eaten it at the first opportunity...



In the scenario, the horse had already killed several goblins. Others managed to lure it into a shed and pen it in. Frightened by the angry stallion, they didn't yet dare to face it again. 

While it's unlikely that Nualia would try to ride this particular horse, it's very possible that Nualia could escape the party's clutches, heading overland to gather new allies. Her "irrelevant" abilities allow the scenario to be more than just a dungeon crawl: Surviving NPCs can resurface later in the series, becoming resources for future encounters.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 18, 2010)

Rechan said:


> So far we've all been quibbling over the *size* of the block, but I think we're missing something that is the biggest difference to me.
> 
> With the 3e Balor, I not only need the monster's statblock. Before the fight I have to look up all those SLAs, and review the Balor's Feats, and see how all of these interact with the rest of the Balor's stat block. Then I have to use all of this to decide its tactics. Then I need copies of all of these spells at the table for reference when the balor uses them.
> 
> ...




It's funny, but my experience is almost the opposite of yours. In the 3e statblock I glance down at the feats and powers of the Balor and I know immediately how they work. Part of it is having a good memory for details, and part of it is the conscious decision to standardise the way that effects worked in 3e, and I think it was a good thing. (nb, in 3.5e they even gave tactics blocks for the Balor and similar creatures to help DMs run them)

In the 4e statblock, I can't do that. Everything is a special case for everything. Nothing I know about something else can be transferred. I have to read whole statblocks every time to see how something is supposed to work rather than just -know- it.

Can you imagine how frustrating that was for me? 

I can fully understand how 4e would be better for people who needed to look things up every time; it was worse for people like me though!




The other issue is, and I apologise for reiterating my earlier point, that in 4e the paragon and epic creatures have a severely limited palette of options to choose from. If you've seen one Pit Fiend, you've seen them all - there is pretty much only a few things he can do in a fight, ever. Sure, he could be given DM Fiat rituals for funky things out of the combat, but when the fight starts, he's only got a few approaches (and IIRC it might be quite easy for a fire resistant party to shut him down).

Ironic that in 3e creatures struggled to last more than 5 rounds and do 5 things, while in 4e they tend to last much longer and have less options so have to repeat tricks more often! It is almost as if the designers decided to stretch two axis (how long a fight lasts goes up, number of available options go down) when they really wanted to stretch one.

Regards,


----------



## pemerton (May 18, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Let's skip ALL flavor entirely and just jump to the Stag Lord's stats.  Literally, just the numbers.  What do we get?
> 
> We know that he has a penalty to his stats due to being sickened from too much booze.  We know that his favored targets are other humans.  We know that, as a ranger, he has bow skills and is built to his terrain.  He has high stealth and acrobatics, which gives some major clues on how he would fight.  His physical stats are good with a very good dexterity, but his mental stats are low, with his wisdom being especially bad and his charisma being slightly better, which is reflected in how easily his bandits abandon him as soon as he falls (which is, in turn, in their stat blocks).



Unless I'm missing something, all of this but for the favoured enemy would be present in the equivalent 4e statblock - I haven't seen intoxication done, but presumably it would be -2 to attacks and checks.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Once you go just one step beyond the pure numbers, it gets even worse.  Still sitting in the stat block, now we look at the words.  His sickness is gone once he sobers up, suggesting a number of ways to help keep him weaker.  In melee he moves around a lot to flank with his bandits, so he knows and uses teamwork (the bandits themselves had a note that they'd often use terrible tactics due to being poorly trained.  You'd never see that in a 4e creature).  Most importantly, the fight isn't segregated from the narrative - you can wait for him to pass out and then just coup de grace him.  No battlemat needed!



I don't see why this couldn't be done in 4e.


----------



## delericho (May 18, 2010)

Rechan said:


> To drive home my point, let's compare two modules. Paizo's _Burnt Offerings_ and WotC's _Keep on the Shadowfell_. The first, most think is a good module, the second most think is a bad module. Let's look at the villains, and the amount of effort put into them. In Burnt Offerings, the background of the entire module revolves around the main villain.




There's a lot more to the villains in "Burnt Offerings" than just that BBEG. The most memorable ones, and the ones that really make the adventure what it is, are actually the Goblins. Just standard goblins, and yet by presenting them a little differently (including that "goblin song"), Paizo turn them into something quite special. And it's _that_ that makes "Burnt Offerings" a great adventure, and it is that that is largely missing from WotC adventures (Meepo being the most notable exception).



Lanefan said:


> As for the rest, I suspect most of the issues raised could be solved by simply making the modules longer and more detailed, via either more pages or (preferably) more efficient use of space.




Agreed. A big part of the problem is space, and a factor in that is the Delve format, as used by WotC. This turns even the simplest battle against the simplest foes into a one- or two-page spread.

I found this particularly noticable when recently reading through "Whispers of the Vampires Blade" and then "Eyes of the Lich Queen". Both are 3.5e Eberron adventures, but one predates the Delve format while the other uses it. Each adventure has four parts, with each part taking place in a different location, and each had a mix of combat and non-combat encounters. "Eyes..." has a page count four times that of "Whispers...", but it most certainly doesn't feel like four times the adventure. And, in fact, it is "Whispers..." that handles the villain better (both mechanically and in terms of the story).


----------



## Rechan (May 18, 2010)

delericho said:


> There's a lot more to the villains in "Burnt Offerings" than just that BBEG.



Sure. But that has nothing to do with my point.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 18, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Can I raise a practical question at this point?




Are we gonna do Stonehenge tonight?


----------



## Wicht (May 18, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Sure. But that has nothing to do with my point.




Rechan, if I may ask: might your point be summarized as "From the Player's perspective, the villain in Burnt Offering's is just as shallow as the Villain in WotC's Keep on the Shadowfell.  They don't care about her or meet her until they kill her."


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 18, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Have the 4e modules changed? Nope. Enemies exist just to die. This is very much a part of monster creation - if monsters are just blobs of combat, and in 4e they are indeed blobs of combat, that's all they do. They serve their function, and their function is nothing more then "Oh hey an enemy *splorch*" As cool as skill challenges can be, because they're so structured, there's no sudden case of bluffing your way past the monster. Look at Revenge of the Giants. Skill challenges, just like combats, are their own separate encounters, taking place *outside* the narrative instead of alongside or inside. They give you two or three skills you can use, and that's it - when you flop them, woops, combat time.




In short, WoTC module designers implementation of skill challenges suck.  If skill challenges aren't part of the narrative, what the hell are they doing there?  The issue here is one of implementation.



> Compare this to how open ended Stolen Land makes it on sneaking into a bandit fort, even telling you the players could indeed simply bide their time and try to assassinate the Stag Lord while he sleeps, or how they might kill one bandit and set the others in the camp against each other with accusations. Don't have the best bluff or disguise? Taking an enemy captive and getting information from them earlier can help you there, scoring you code words and the secret that the bossman has a weakness for alcohol.




All prime skill challenge fodder.



> Look at the 4e statblock for the monster. Look at how much is dedicated to the combat blob part. Now look at what's dedicated to everything else. Do you see it? That small block on skills? _That's it._ And even that doesn't say much, as the only time you'll see those skills come into play is if the enemy has a skill power or if your set a skill challenge up around it.




The thing is that with 4e design, the camera is centred on the PCs.  Monsters don't _need_ that level of detail in their statblocks for anything other than Perception, Insight, or Stealth.  All you need to know is rough level of training and level of difficulty the PCs are attempting  to know whether to use the easy, the medium, or the hard DCs and for what skill challenge level.



> Instead of Burning, let's look back at Stolen Land. Let's skip ALL flavor entirely and just jump to the Stag Lord's stats. Literally, just the numbers. What do we get?




Less than should be in a normal 4e statblock, I expect.



> We know that he has a penalty to his stats due to being sickened from too much booze.




Wouldn't be in a normal 4e statblock, granted.



> We know that his favored targets are other humans. We know that, as a ranger, he has bow skills and is built to his terrain.




Would be in many 4e statblocks.  Quick question: How does he shoot his bow?  Extremely fast but not that hard, trying to turn the air black with arrows (At Will double attack)?  Fairly normally, but occasionally picks out a target and fires an extra powerful attack at them (encounter or recharge power)?  Exploiting opportunities (immediate action with trigger)?  Almost up to melee then dancing out of reach (one of a number of skirmisher powers)?



> He has high stealth and acrobatics, which gives some major clues on how he would fight.




And are simply laughable compared with how much skirmisher or lurker powers tell you in 4e about how people fight.



> His physical stats are good with a very good dexterity, but his mental stats are low, with his wisdom being especially bad and his charisma being slightly better,




So you think that 4e stat blocks don't have _attributes_?



> which is reflected in how easily his bandits abandon him as soon as he falls (which is, in turn, in their stat blocks).




Do tell how?



> Do you see what happened there? Even the stuff based purely on combat told you things about the Stag Lord's character. Even just the strict combat blob bits gave hints and hooks on how to play him _outside_ of the actual fight. That one stat block tells you more then *entire modules* in 4e tells you about their bad guys.




On the contrary.  With the single exception of the alcoholism (and arguably morale) it tells you less than the 4th edition Monster Manual (and particularly the Monster Manual II) tells you about _generic_ bad guys of a given type who aren't minions.



> Once you go just one step beyond the pure numbers, it gets even worse. Still sitting in the stat block, now we look at the words. His sickness is gone once he sobers up, suggesting a number of ways to help keep him weaker.




Here, you're getting somewhere.



> In melee he moves around a lot to flank with his bandits, so he knows and uses teamwork (the bandits themselves had a note that they'd often use terrible tactics due to being poorly trained. You'd never see that in a 4e creature).




Really?  I'd do something like:
Terrible Tactics (no action): The bandit gains no bonus from flanking.

Plus the tactics block of text.



> Most importantly, the fight isn't segregated from the narrative - you can wait for him to pass out and then just coup de grace him. No battlemat needed!




Yes, Paizo's adventure fluff beats WoTC's.  I don't think anyone disputes this.



Plane Sailing said:


> It's funny, but my experience is almost the opposite of yours. In the 3e statblock I glance down at the feats and powers of the Balor and I know immediately how they work. Part of it is having a good memory for details, and part of it is the conscious decision to standardise the way that effects worked in 3e, and I think it was a good thing. (nb, in 3.5e they even gave tactics blocks for the Balor and similar creatures to help DMs run them)




The thing is that in 4e, most of the building blocks _are_ standardised.  It just takes several to make a monster.  Skirmishers tend to rely on shift or move-without-provoking-from-target.



> In the 4e statblock, I can't do that. Everything is a special case for everything. Nothing I know about something else can be transferred. I have to read whole statblocks every time to see how something is supposed to work rather than just -know- it.




I read 4e stat blocks and just know it afterwards.  It's all in the stat block for most monsters.




> The other issue is, and I apologise for reiterating my earlier point, that in 4e the paragon and epic creatures have a severely limited palette of options to choose from.




Compared to what?  The 3e Ettin?.  The 3e Kyton?  (CR6 would probably map to low paragon in 4e).  Even 3e cloud giants are little better.

The only monsters in 3e with anything resembling a normal 4e palette of options are those with some form either of magic or of spell like abilities.



> If you've seen one Pit Fiend, you've seen them all




And if you see one 3e goblin you've seen them all unless the DM adds templates or levels.  The difference is you're going to meet a lot more goblins than you are pit fiends unless you are doing something really weird.



> - there is pretty much only a few things he can do in a fight, ever. Sure, he could be given DM Fiat rituals for funky things out of the combat, but when the fight starts, he's only got a few approaches (and IIRC it might be quite easy for a fire resistant party to shut him down).




In short, Pit Fiends are 3e Spellcasters rather than 3e Spear-carriers.  In 4e this more or less makes them Solos partly from complexity and partly from threat.



> Ironic that in 3e creatures struggled to last more than 5 rounds and do 5 things, while in 4e they tend to last much longer and have less options so have to repeat tricks more often! It is almost as if the designers decided to stretch two axis (how long a fight lasts goes up, number of available options go down) when they really wanted to stretch one.




Except, as I believe I have illustrated, the number of available and substantially different options has increased massively for anyone who wasn't a spellcaster.  For spellcasters it's shrunk - but the monsters only normally need to repeat their default attack modes while waiting for an opening.

And this doesn't get into the whole issue of differentiation - where monsters would pick their spells from the same list.  Meaning that a lot more felt like different looking reskins than they do with monsters who literally move differently on the battlemat.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 18, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> The thing is that in 4e, most of the building blocks _are_ standardised.  It just takes several to make a monster.  Skirmishers tend to rely on shift or move-without-provoking-from-target.
> 
> I read 4e stat blocks and just know it afterwards.  It's all in the stat block for most monsters.




Then you are a god among men in memory terms, and I presume you can't have had any problem in 3e along those lines! The fact that every power in every creature is likely to be different in the way it works is what I find stumping. The gaze attack of the medusa, the basalisk, the bodak and everything else that gazes in 4e is a special case. I can't remember all of those (and you've got to remember a lot in terms of the detail too - not just save and effect but range, defence that is targetted, duration (is it save ends? is it save for secondary effect?) condition applied/healing surges lost/damage done/whatever? Some kuo-toa use a kind of harpoon that stops people it hits from moving, and there is at least one other creature that does the same; in one case the attack can't recharge until the target is no longer immobilised, in another case the attack can recharge at any time (and the DM has to handwave a reason for this).

Don't get me wrong - I quite like the idea of 4e creatures having a variety of attacks. I quite like the way that kobolds are more shifty, that goblins are more evasive, that hobgoblins are more disciplined. However, I do think that it would be a far stronger system if they had thought more about standardising certain kinds of attack, rather than take the (IMO) lazy approach of just writing something down without thinking it through (e.g. how does an immobilising attack with a weapon actually work).

I don't think 3e was perfect by any means. I've never thought there was much value in attempting to specify the exact skill ranks and feats which a creature should have based on its type and HD, for instance. That is a situation where it is better to just give it what it needs.



Neonchameleon said:


> Compared to what?  The 3e Ettin?.  The 3e Kyton?  (CR6 would probably map to low paragon in 4e).  Even 3e cloud giants are little better.
> 
> The only monsters in 3e with anything resembling a normal 4e palette of options are those with some form either of magic or of spell like abilities.
> 
> ...




I thought it was rather obvious that I was talking about complex, typically high level 3e creatures with quite a number of powers or spells - y'know, the stuff that we're actually talking about. I didn't realise that I should have spelled that out, but mea culpa.

Now that is settled, we come back to the point in question. In 4e there is nothing really analogous to the '3e spellcasters' as you put it. Nothing with the variety of options available.

Regards


----------



## Rechan (May 18, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Rechan, if I may ask: might your point be summarized as "From the Player's perspective, the villain in Burnt Offering's is just as shallow as the Villain in WotC's Keep on the Shadowfell.  They don't care about her or meet her until they kill her."



Your first sentence is part of my point. Rather, the module doesn't _make_ the PCs care. Or give them an incentive to care (aside from the fact Sandpoint is threatened, but that's beside the point). Some groups might. Some groups might _try_ to find out more about Nualia. But the same is true for KotS; the PCs might care why this is happening. The same group, ran through both adventures, responding the same way to the villain and there would be little difference[/b].

The awesomeness of the Paizo adventure comes in the little details. Sandpoint, the Goblins behavior, etc. But _those_ things are things the PCs see and interact with and love. At the end of the day, the backstory and rich detail put into something that the PCs don't engage with is just the DM talking to himself. That's great if that's what a DM wants, but a great module is what the PCs come into contact with. It's the stuff they _do_ come into contact with, their reactions, that create great experiences. And to me, the detail put into Nualia (while a compelling story!) is a waste because the module as written doesn't offer a lot of opportunity for the PCs to appreciate it. And so Nualia is no better than Kalarel because they are not set up to be appreciated. 

To put it another way, if I wrote the DM a great epic of pie and orc, what is it worth if all the PCs see, all the players know, is an orc in a room with a pie, the end?


----------



## Wicht (May 18, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Your first sentence is part of my point. Rather, the module doesn't _make_ the PCs care. Or give them an incentive to care (aside from the fact Sandpoint is threatened, but that's beside the point). Some groups might. Some groups might _try_ to find out more about Nualia. But the same is true for KotS; the PCs might care why this is happening. The same group, ran through both adventures, responding the same way to the villain and there would be little difference[/b].




I think where I disagree then, in a nutshell, is your statement the module does not give them an incentive to care.  While it is true that the module does not implicitly bring the PCs into a relationship with Nualia, it brings them into a relationship with those she is attacking.  Furthermore, it provides plenty of hooks for the DM, if he chooses, to tie the PCs into her background in some way (or the background of her henchmen, etc.).  Each DM is going to want to tell the story a different way but the richness of the module allows that and encourages it.  My players cared a lot,even about learning who was behind the attacks.  You might say its just because I'm a good DM, but I think its because its such a rich module its easy to run it well.

Anyway, we can leave it at that.


----------



## billd91 (May 18, 2010)

Rechan said:


> The awesomeness of the Paizo adventure comes in the little details. Sandpoint, the Goblins behavior, etc. But _those_ things are things the PCs see and interact with and love. At the end of the day, the backstory and rich detail put into something that the PCs don't engage with is just the DM talking to himself. That's great if that's what a DM wants, but a great module is what the PCs come into contact with. It's the stuff they _do_ come into contact with, their reactions, that create great experiences. And to me, the detail put into Nualia (while a compelling story!) is a waste because the module as written doesn't offer a lot of opportunity for the PCs to appreciate it. And so Nualia is no better than Kalarel because they are not set up to be appreciated.
> 
> To put it another way, if I wrote the DM a great epic of pie and orc, what is it worth if all the PCs see, all the players know, is an orc in a room with a pie, the end?




Here, we really are getting into style issues. If the players are the type who just breaks down the doors to hack and loot, then the Epic of the Orc and Pie is irrelevant. But if the party is struck by the oddity of the situation of an orc sitting there with a pie and willing to parley, then the epic can come out.

It's the players who determine how they interact with the environment. Their orientation to the adventure will have a tremendous impact on whether or not that backstory comes into play. With Paizo's approach, as DM, I have a lot more information about the main villains or the movers and shakers of the NPC-side of the module and can devise a response that's more in character.


----------



## Rechan (May 18, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Here, we really are getting into style issues. If the players are the type who just breaks down the doors to hack and loot, then the Epic of the Orc and Pie is irrelevant. But if the party is struck by the oddity of the situation of an orc sitting there with a pie and willing to parley, then the epic can come out.
> 
> It's the players who determine how they interact with the environment. Their orientation to the adventure will have a tremendous impact on whether or not that backstory comes into play. With Paizo's approach, as DM, I have a lot more information about the main villains or the movers and shakers of the NPC-side of the module and can devise a response that's more in character.



If that is the case, then the module should do more to offer that Option for the players. That it should present more of an opportunity, and more of that information, sooner, so that those who _do_ want to parlay are piqued much more, much earlier. Instead of sticking her in a room in a dungeon and those that want to parlay have to yell "WAIT DON'T SHOOT" when they walk in the door. Because they may be more LIKELY to want to interact if they have more to go on before they show up. 

I contrast Burnt Offerings with say, the Crimson Throne, where the PCs get to meet the BBEG way early, way earlier then they know that person is the BBEG. Their friction has the opportunity to build. (Yes I know one is a single module and one is an AP villain, but the same principle of exposure is there).

I also think this is important because in so many modules, the only time the PCs get any information about the villains, it's via letters and/or other writing of the villains themselves. There are just _better ways to do it[/b]._


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 18, 2010)

I think that the reason modules tend to put the BBEG in a room at the end is to avoid having the PCs slay the BBEG earlier, thus ending the "plot".  Thus the general reveal through secondary artifacts of the BBEG/leaving it up to the GM to determine how the reveal is arranged.

The point, though, is that the GM needs to have something to reveal in order to arrange any reveal at all.

I personally prefer a game to have a number of divination abilities, which allow the players to gain access to information.  The "mystery" becomes knowing what questions to ask, rather than what the answers to those questions might be.  This worked to great effect, IMHO, in my last game session, when one PC consulted the Akashic Memory about a character they thought was the BBEG, as well as about their employer.

Players like meaningful information, for the obvious reason that it allows them to make meaningful choices.  I say, _*give it to them*_.  However, the information must be there to give, and I am finding that this lack of motive is the hardest part of converting WotC at this point.

RC


----------



## MrMyth (May 18, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Have the 4e modules changed? Nope. Enemies exist just to die. This is very much a part of monster creation - if monsters are just blobs of combat, and in 4e they are indeed blobs of combat, that's all they do.




I'm not sure how true this is - it was my understanding several of the later adventures have been a lot more engaging than the early one. 

Even if the 4E mods remain these failures, I think you are making a _massive _assumption that the issue is the statblock rather than the encounter design. My home game uses 4E stat blocks, sometimes stripped down even further. Focused entirely on combat details. That has not translated to it being nothing but a hackfest. PCs have bargained with enemies, joined forces with them, got involved in intrigues, trading - all sorts of roleplaying. I suspect many other home games are the same. I suspect there are even more than a few WotC adventures where this is true. 

Similarly, I've seen some excellent conversions of Paizo adventures into 4E. Using 4E statblocks. I don't think that reduces those adventures to one long string of combat encounters. 

I can understand the desire for more flavorful enemies - and I think that is found in their lore, as well as in the design of the encounter itself and the adventure as a whole. I don't think adding useless elements to combat stats would serve to particularly enhance things out of combat, and _would_ make things less straightforward for the DM in combat. At least, in my opinion. 

Similarly, your understanding of skill challenges is very, very, _very_ different from my own. 



ProfessorCirno said:


> Compare this to how open ended Stolen Land makes it on sneaking into a bandit fort, even telling you the players could indeed simply bide their time and try to assassinate the Stag Lord while he sleeps, or how they might kill one bandit and set the others in the camp against each other with accusations. Don't have the best bluff or disguise? Taking an enemy captive and getting information from them earlier can help you there, scoring you code words and the secret that the bossman has a weakness for alcohol.




Yeah, I've seen more than a few skill challenges along these lines. Maze of Shattered Souls, a recent dungeon adventure, is a good example. The entire point of skill challenges is to provide a framework for this sort of thing without reducing it to one or two rolls - to provide options. Maybe the skill challenges in some adventures are poorly designed. But the sort of approach you describe is a core tenet of 4E philosophy. The idea that there are approaches any party can take to get past obstacles, rather than needing a rogue to get past the locked door, or a bard to bargain with the bandits. And in most 4E games I've seen, listed skills in a skill challenge are the primary and expected skills, but many other approaches tend to be allowed if they seem reasonable. 



ProfessorCirno said:


> Look at the 4e statblock for the monster. Look at how much is dedicated to the combat blob part. Now look at what's dedicated to everything else. Do you see it? That small block on skills? _That's it._ And even that doesn't say much, as the only time you'll see those skills come into play is if the enemy has a skill power or if your set a skill challenge up around it.




Well, yes. I get the sense that most skills are there to show the flavor of the enemy. As, often, the abilities do as well. Look, your following example makes no sense at all - a 4E stat block could _also_ show that the Stag Lord hates humans, is good with a bow and dealing with terrain, has good stealth and acrobatics, high dex, low wisdom/charisma. The only thing I wouldn't expect to see in a standard stat block would be the note on being sickened by booze - and that's hardly a given. 

I mean, even when I've wanted more expansion on the flavor of certain monster abilities, often the names alone give just the same sort of RP guidance you are looking for. 



ProfessorCirno said:


> Do you see what happened there? Even the stuff based purely on combat told you things about the Stag Lord's character. Even just the strict combat blob bits gave hints and hooks on how to play him _outside_ of the actual fight. That one stat block tells you more then *entire modules* in 4e tells you about their bad guys.
> 
> Once you go just one step beyond the pure numbers, it gets even worse. Still sitting in the stat block, now we look at the words. His sickness is gone once he sobers up, suggesting a number of ways to help keep him weaker. In melee he moves around a lot to flank with his bandits, so he knows and uses teamwork (the bandits themselves had a note that they'd often use terrible tactics due to being poorly trained. You'd never see that in a 4e creature). Most importantly, the fight isn't segregated from the narrative - you can wait for him to pass out and then just coup de grace him. No battlemat needed!




I really think you are looking at things from a distorted perspective. Why would you be unable to build in this sort of sickness into a 4E character? Why would a 4E monster never have notes about not using good tactics? Why would you need to put down a battlemat if PCs sneak up on him and simply stab him death while unconscious? 

ProfessorCirno, I really get the sense - now more than ever - that you aren't arguing against 4E, you are arguing against some imaginary perception of 4E that neither matches the game that WotC has written, nor the game that people are playing. I can understand your concerns, certainly. But I don't see these problems supported or encouraged by the rules. I see tactics blocks and lore entries for monsters, and lately in significant detail. 

I just don't understand how when 4E lists skills, they "don't say much", but when 3.5 stat blocks show he has "high stealth and acrobatics,"
it "gives some major clues on how he would fight". 

Identical pieces of information, yet you somehow see one of these are completely useless, and the either as evidence of a fully developed character. Are you certain there is no bias at hand in your perception of the game?


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 18, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Then you are a god among men in memory terms, and I presume you can't have had any problem in 3e along those lines! The fact that every power in every creature is likely to be different in the way it works is what I find stumping.




The thing there is that the exact way the power works is right down there in front of me in the statblock.  (Or it references one of the dozen or so conditions on the DM's screen).  I normally run three monster types per encounter (four with minions).  This means I need to remember off turn the immediates/triggers and opportunity actions.  In turn I can glance at the statblock - and remember how the monsters operate for their basic plans.  And I need to remember the statuses (with the help of coloured paperclips we hang on weapons).

All these are bitsized chunks - and all prompted (assuming good design) by who the monster actually _is_.  And yes, I'm good at that sort of thing, especially with the prompts right in front of me.



> However, I do think that it would be a far stronger system if they had thought more about standardising certain kinds of attack, rather than take the (IMO) lazy approach of just writing something down without thinking it through (e.g. how does an immobilising attack with a weapon actually work).




My problem with this approach is that to me there are too many variables.  Harpoon, bolas, net, or tazer?  All immobilise - for different durations and in different ways.  (And a weighted net is a different article to an unweighted one).  We're into five ways (plus grappling) of immobilising with a weapon.  Then multiply up for the number of conditions.  You're probably pushing fifty such methods - little improvement in systematisation while closing off some design space.  (How many ways can you think of of inflicting _slowed_ with weapons?)  Frankly I'd rather leave it as more elemental building blocks.



> Now that is settled, we come back to the point in question. In 4e there is nothing really analogous to the '3e spellcasters' as you put it. Nothing with the variety of options available.




The thing is you don't _need_ that range of options.  And they very seldom actually add something unless you're planning on taking on multiple instances of the same big enemy.  (Give a solo seven distinct standard action spells, a bloodied recharge power, a couple of minor powers and an interupt and you're way past what's needed).


----------



## Dark Mistress (May 18, 2010)

At this point you guys are just arguing past each other. I will say in my own personal experience. That the 4e adventures i have seen are written honestly horribly and it wouldn't matter if they had 4e or 3e mobs in them, they still would have been bad adventures.

As for the stat blocks I think both sides have fair points. I think their is a middle ground between 4e and 3e stat blocks that would be very good. 4e tends to be different from monster to monster on how their powers work in everything, while 3e honestly adds more details than is needed. Like some of the feats could just be bonuses add on with out the need to listing the feat. So I think there is a happy middle ground between the two. But of course that is just my own simple opinion and nothing more.


----------



## Benimoto (May 18, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Then you are a god among men in memory terms, and I presume you can't have had any problem in 3e along those lines! The fact that every power in every creature is likely to be different in the way it works is what I find stumping. The gaze attack of the medusa, the basalisk, the bodak and everything else that gazes in 4e is a special case.




I find this kind of statement slightly surprising because back when I was DMing 3e a lot, I considered myself somewhat of a god among men for remembering how gaze attacks worked.  Almost inevitably, and especially at conventions, whenever I would try to adjudicate them it would result in a mess of rules lawyering.  Almost _nobody, ever_, had remembered the rules correctly.  And this kept coming up, with gaze attacks, with grappling, with blindness/invisibility, with relatively simple conditions like dazed, stunned, shaken, etc.

I find the 4e way, with most everything spelled out in the stat block aside from a reduced set of fairly simple conditions a vast improvement.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 18, 2010)

Benimoto said:


> I find this kind of statement slightly surprising because back when I was DMing 3e a lot, I considered myself somewhat of a god among men for remembering how gaze attacks worked.  Almost inevitably, and especially at conventions, whenever I would try to adjudicate them it would result in a mess of rules lawyering.  Almost _nobody, ever_, had remembered the rules correctly.  And this kept coming up, with gaze attacks, with grappling, with blindness/invisibility, with relatively simple conditions like dazed, stunned, shaken, etc.
> 
> I find the 4e way, with most everything spelled out in the stat block aside from a reduced set of fairly simple conditions a vast improvement.





This matches my experience.


----------



## Sir Wulf (May 18, 2010)

So far this thread has wandered between two related topics. I see the first as "How much background detail and motivation is ideal for NPCs, monsters, and villains?" Some people find such information useful for visualizing the creature's behavior and motives, while others feel it clutters adventures with material irrelevant to actual game play.

The second debate seems to be "Is ancillary information in NPC or monster stat blocks positive or detrimental?" Some find it a distraction, preferring 4th Edition's more tightly focused stat blocks; others claim that the additional detail facilitates more varied encounters.

To riff off of the original poster's question: How can we get the best of both worlds, building efficient descriptions and stat blocks while avoiding the temptation to pigeonhole encounters into particular play styles?


----------



## firesnakearies (May 19, 2010)

I think that the stat blocks themselves should be lean and trim, and only contain the most mechanically combat-relevant information.  Like the 4E stat blocks.

But the adventure text outside of those stat blocks should contain tons of information beyond _"how will the creature use its powers in a five-round fight"_.  More background and details on the locations, events, and inhabitants of the adventure can only be a good thing, and can help equip the DM to deal with a much wider range of possible choices by the PCs, rather than just writing with the assumption that _"they're going to kick in every door and roll initiative"_.

Paizo-style adventures with 4E-style stat blocks would be my preference.


----------



## FireLance (May 19, 2010)

It is perhaps a legacy of 3E's comprehensive stat blocks, but I think that many DMs have come to look to a monster or NPC's stat block for information on how it interacts with the PCs and with the rest of the game world. This has led to an attitude of "if it isn't in the stat block, it doesn't exist," which was arguably absent from 2E and earlier editions. 

The upshot of this is that stat blocks may need to contain more than basic combat information, if only to hint to a less experienced DM that the PCs can interact with at least some monsters or NPCs in ways other than direct combat. So, conclusion #1: Stat blocks need to contain more non-combat information. This can be separate from the combat stats so that DMs who only need the combat stats can ignore this part of the stat block.

That said, there is an implementation issue. Certain information such as personality, motivations, and unique non-combat interactions would tend to be specific to individual creatures. They would be great additions to the stat blocks of a specific monster or NPC in a module, but they would not be appropriate for a book on generic monsters (unless you are willing to accept that every adult red dragon has exactly the same personality and motivations). Conclusion #2: Non-combat stat blocks in modules need to be more comprehensive and detailed than non-combat stat blocks in generic monster books. Certain types of non-combat information should be an integral part of the stat blocks in generic monster books if the very nature of the monster suggests certain non-combat interactions are likely, e.g. skill challenges to communicate with a slaad or to discover a doppleganger's true identity.


----------



## FireLance (May 19, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> The other issue is, and I apologise for reiterating my earlier point, that in 4e the paragon and epic creatures have a severely limited palette of options to choose from. If you've seen one Pit Fiend, you've seen them all - there is pretty much only a few things he can do in a fight, ever. Sure, he could be given DM Fiat rituals for funky things out of the combat, but when the fight starts, he's only got a few approaches (and IIRC it might be quite easy for a fire resistant party to shut him down).



Actually, I wonder if a menu of alternate abilities is the way to go here, similar to what WOtC has done for dragons in Draconomicon I and II. There's a generic pit fiend in the MM for groups who encounter pit fiends only rarely (and hence, would not be bored by seeing the same abilities used each time they meet one) and a separate list of alternate abilities for pit fiends so that groups who encounter them often can get more variety in their fights.


----------



## Umbran (May 19, 2010)

Sir Wulf said:


> To riff off of the original poster's question: How can we get the best of both worlds, building efficient descriptions and stat blocks while avoiding the temptation to pigeonhole encounters into particular play styles?




Or, should we try to get the best of both worlds?

Consider - while most games are applicable to a wide variety of play styles, they don't claim to specifically cater to all of them.  Sometimes, to use a system for a certain style of play, you might have to do some extra work with it.

Why should adventures be all that different?  Would we be better off if those who produced adventures took the effort to specialize them to particular modes?


----------



## Rechan (May 19, 2010)

Sir Wulf said:


> So far this thread has wandered between two related topics. I see the first as "How much background detail and motivation is ideal for NPCs, monsters, and villains?" Some people find such information useful for visualizing the creature's behavior and motives, while others feel it clutters adventures with material irrelevant to actual game play.



Actually I don't think anyone is saying NPCs/Monsters/villains need less written about them in a module.

The argument put forward, to ME, has been that because a monster's statblock focuses on combat and how long it lasts in a round, that means that its role in the adventure is overlooked because it's not expected to live past interaction with the PCs. That because a monster is meant for combat, it is not given detail in the adventure. Imo detail an Adventure gives an NPC is good _as long as_ the adventure makes use of the information it presents. 

A separate argument is if those details in *The Monster Manual*, and then, in their statblocks, are a waste or not. 



			
				Firelance said:
			
		

> It is perhaps a legacy of 3E's comprehensive stat blocks, but I think  that many DMs have come to look to a monster or NPC's stat block for  information on how it interacts with the PCs and with the rest of the  game world. This has led to an attitude of "if it isn't in the stat  block, it doesn't exist," which was arguably absent from 2E and earlier  editions.



Huh. It never occurred to me that this could be an issue for some people. That would explain some of the push for putting non-combat info in the statblock, I suppose.


----------



## billd91 (May 19, 2010)

FireLance said:


> It is perhaps a legacy of 3E's comprehensive stat blocks, but I think that many DMs have come to look to a monster or NPC's stat block for information on how it interacts with the PCs and with the rest of the game world. This has led to an attitude of "if it isn't in the stat block, it doesn't exist," which was arguably absent from 2E and earlier editions.




I think the 3e designers made the conscious decision (and I think late 2e module writers did too) to put enough into the stat blocks so that the DM wouldn't have to juggle books quite so much. In the 1e/early 2e days with one-liner stat blocks, DMs would have the Monster Manual open fairly often if the monster included any funky special abilities.


----------



## FireLance (May 19, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Huh. It never occurred to me that this could be an issue for some people. That would explain some of the push for putting non-combat info in the statblock, I suppose.



I must admit that it was an issue for me. Prior to 3E, I would occasionally read a module, look at a monster or NPC's stat block, and experience a vague sense of dissonance because it didn't seem possible for it to do what it had done according to the module's backstory or was supposed to do if the module unfolds as planned. It was for that reason that I welcomed the 3E stat block when it was first introduced, but after several years of experience with the system, I subsequently decided that I would prefer a more streamlined way to present information that was purely relevant to combat. The 4E stat block gave me that, but at the cost of removing almost all non-combat information. IMO, there is a happy medium between the two, and a separate section for non-combat information in the stat block might be one way to do it.


----------



## FireLance (May 19, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I think the 3e designers made the conscious decision (and I think late 2e module writers did too) to put enough into the stat blocks so that the DM wouldn't have to juggle books quite so much. In the 1e/early 2e days with one-liner stat blocks, DMs would have the Monster Manual open fairly often if the monster included any funky special abilities.



3E might have done so for unique abilities, but spell-like abilities required the DM to reference the base spell in the PH (if he did not already have it memorized ) and common abilities (such as swarm traits, damage reduction and blindsight) required the DM to reference either the DMG or the MM Glossary for details (again, unless he has already memorized it).


----------



## Rechan (May 19, 2010)

FireLance said:


> I must admit that it was an issue for me. Prior to 3E, I would occasionally read a module, look at a monster or NPC's stat block, and experience a vague sense of dissonance because it didn't seem possible for it to do what it had done according to the module's backstory or was supposed to do if the module unfolds as planned. It was for that reason that I welcomed the 3E stat block when it was first introduced, but after several years of experience with the system, I subsequently decided that I would prefer a more streamlined way to present information that was purely relevant to combat. The 4E stat block gave me that, but at the cost of removing almost all non-combat information. IMO, there is a happy medium between the two, and a separate section for non-combat information in the stat block might be one way to do it.



Well, when I think about non-combat info found in the statblock... It's like this:

There is no stat that represents how much wealth an NPC has. However, if the statblock doesn't tell me the NPC's wealth, then how can I reconcile the NPC being a noble, or being able to fund an army, or being able to bribe/hire assassins? There's no stat for Political Authority, so how can I account that this NPC is seated Senator or has the ear to the king? Nothing in the numbers can account for the NPC being a trust fund baby or being the childhood friend of the King.

To me, that is identical to what rituals the NPC can cast and what the NPC is doing behind the scenes to other NPCs. It's all story. I shouldn't need to check the math to make sure that the NPC should be allowed to hire assassins; he just does. I don't need a mechanic to declare "A comet falls from the sky" or "It's raining", so I shouldn't need a mechanic to tell me if an NPC can do something off screen to another NPC that he can't do to the players. It doesn't matter how he brainwashed those NPCs; if he can't brainwash a PC, then what's the point of the rule? He just Does. 

And ultimately, here's the crux of the matter: I think the fewer rules, the better. Rules are simply there to answer the question: "does it succeed or not?" And since you can't have a rules light system AND a rules dense system, it has to be one or the other. As someone said earlier in the thread, if the 3e NPC just "lacks" the  ride skill, then those are skill points the NPC is missing, and  therefore the thing is wrong. That therefore builds an expectation that  the NPC must have everything accounted for, and that if it  _doesn't_, the DM is cheating or it's just not Right. 

So if the Rule exists, it's one step closer to rules heavy, one step closer to being the norm/expected that one SHOULD/MUST account for it, and a shift towards that sort of way of thinking in the design. The more accounting for something you need, the further you move away from what I want out of the game. Which is putting things at odds with those who want more accounting, more rules to account for possibilities.

One thing that really grabbed me first in 4e was very little things. "This is a magic pool of cool water. If you dunk yourself in the pool, it gives you Resist fire 5 until you take a short rest". "These statues are touched by the power of Piety; standing next to them gives you a +1 to your will defense". If I tried to do this in 3e, I would feel the need to Account for where this stuff is coming from, and players would be more likely to go "really? Wow, I want to make one of those. How do I do that?" and now it's a balance issue. With 4e, just saying "it's magic" is good enough for the design philosophy and I can move on.


----------



## Rechan (May 19, 2010)

FireLance said:


> 3E might have done so for unique abilities, but spell-like abilities required the DM to reference the base spell in the PH (if he did not already have it memorized ) and common abilities (such as swarm traits, damage reduction and blindsight) required the DM to reference either the DMG or the MM Glossary for details (again, unless he has already memorized it).



And Grapple. Don't forget Grapple.


----------



## FireLance (May 19, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Well, when I think about non-combat info found in the statblock... It's like this:
> 
> There is no stat that represents how much wealth an NPC has. However, if the statblock doesn't tell me the NPC's wealth, then how can I reconcile the NPC being a noble, or being able to fund an army, or being able to bribe/hire assassins? There's no stat for Political Authority, so how can I account that this NPC is seated Senator or has the ear to the king? Nothing in the numbers can account for the NPC being a trust fund baby or being the childhood friend of the King.
> 
> To me, that is identical to what rituals the NPC can cast and what the NPC is doing behind the scenes to other NPCs. It's all story. I shouldn't need to check the math to make sure that the NPC should be allowed to hire assassins; he just does. I don't need a mechanic to declare "A comet falls from the sky" or "It's raining", so I shouldn't need a mechanic to tell me if an NPC can do something off screen to another NPC that he can't do to the players. It doesn't matter how he brainwashed those NPCs; if he can't brainwash a PC, then what's the point of the rule? He just Does.



That's not really the type of non-combat information I would put in a stat block though. I would certainly put information about the NPC's personality and motivations, and some favored non-combat modus operandi so that if he escapes and the PCs encounter him again, they could have the opportunity to recognize him from the way he goes about achieving his goals. Think about some of the memorable characters from fiction and what makes them distinctive. IMO, this is one type of information that should go into a non-combat stat block.

The other type of information is significant non-combat interactions. If the NPC has been brainwashed, and the PCs can remove that brainwashing with a skill challenge, that sort of information should go there, too.


----------



## Rechan (May 19, 2010)

A non-combat statblock would be very useful/interesting. But for a while now, I've been thinking non-combat situations (social or mental conflicts mainly) should have a combat-like system. The DFRPG does this, and so far it's my favorite system.


----------



## Hussar (May 19, 2010)

firesnakearies said:


> I think that the stat blocks themselves should be lean and trim, and only contain the most mechanically combat-relevant information.  Like the 4E stat blocks.
> 
> But the adventure text outside of those stat blocks should contain tons of information beyond _"how will the creature use its powers in a five-round fight"_.  More background and details on the locations, events, and inhabitants of the adventure can only be a good thing, and can help equip the DM to deal with a much wider range of possible choices by the PCs, rather than just writing with the assumption that _"they're going to kick in every door and roll initiative"_.
> 
> Paizo-style adventures with 4E-style stat blocks would be my preference.




I'd love to see that too.

I think, and this is purely a gut feeling and I have no proof of it, that the reason we don't see this is because we're not the target audience for WOTC modules.  Dungeon mod's probably, but not the stand alone mod's.  

The reason I think this is that the WOTC mods are primarily meant for very new gamers.  You buy your basic set, you've hardly gamed at all, maybe you've run the adventure in the back of the 4e DMG, and you head down to your FLGS and see this shiny adventure book.

Now, you or me, with years of experience gaming, want a totally different product than that guy.  Bombing that guy with pages of details can be very bewildering.  What's important?  What's necessary?  How do all these details work?  What can I do with them?

A new gamer doesn't have the experience to discriminate between what's required by the game and what might be safely ignored.  So, everything's important.  Without all that extra detail, the DM can run the module, it might not be fantastic, but it will be fun.  It won't suck (hopefully).  KotS might not be the best module in the world, but, it's no Forest Oracle either.  Running it straight up is a fun time in a beer and pretzels sense.

IMO, one of the real strengths of the classic modules is that they were pretty sparse on detail.  I mean, what are Lareth the Beautiful's motivations?  How does he want to achieve those goals?  What are his goals?  Reading T1, you'd have no idea.

Yet, Lareth the Beautiful remains a very memorable NPC.  Probably largely due to the art associated with him and his name.

I would argue that he remains memorable simply because DM's weren't buried under tons of details about him.  Hommlet has massive amounts of details when looked at as a whole.  But, each location is only about a paragraph long.  Most are not all that detailed at all.  Just a few words here and there, and nothing contained in anything resembling a stat-block.

Honestly, I think that it's not a case that WOTC modules suck.  They just suck for me.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 19, 2010)

Rechan said:


> There is no stat that represents how much wealth an NPC has. However, if the statblock doesn't tell me the NPC's wealth, then how can I reconcile the NPC being a noble, or being able to fund an army, or being able to bribe/hire assassins? There's no stat for Political Authority, so how can I account that this NPC is seated Senator or has the ear to the king? Nothing in the numbers can account for the NPC being a trust fund baby or being the childhood friend of the King.
> 
> To me, that is identical to what rituals the NPC can cast and what the NPC is doing behind the scenes to other NPCs. It's all story. I shouldn't need to check the math to make sure that the NPC should be allowed to hire assassins; he just does. I don't need a mechanic to declare "A comet falls from the sky" or "It's raining", so I shouldn't need a mechanic to tell me if an NPC can do something off screen to another NPC that he can't do to the players. It doesn't matter how he brainwashed those NPCs; if he can't brainwash a PC, then what's the point of the rule? He just Does.
> 
> One thing that really grabbed me first in 4e was very little things. "This is a magic pool of cool water. If you dunk yourself in the pool, it gives you Resist fire 5 until you take a short rest". "These statues are touched by the power of Piety; standing next to them gives you a +1 to your will defense". If I tried to do this in 3e, I would feel the need to Account for where this stuff is coming from, and players would be more likely to go "really? Wow, I want to make one of those. How do I do that?" and now it's a balance issue. With 4e, just saying "it's magic" is good enough for the design philosophy and I can move on.





These are some good thoughts.  I feel the same way.

I don't need rules or stats for how an NPC (or location, or magical phenomenon, or whatever) interacts with the _story_ or the _world_.  I'd rather just _make that up_, or have a published adventure _tell me_ that.

I just want rules and stats for how they interact with the _players_, in a mechanics-driven conflict-resolution situation specifically.  Outside of that, I'd rather just narrate it and have the players accept it as the in-game reality.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Honestly, I think that it's not a case that WOTC modules suck.  They just suck for me.





Yep.  This.


----------



## Lanefan (May 19, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think that the reason modules tend to put the BBEG in a room at the end is to avoid having the PCs slay the BBEG earlier, thus ending the "plot".



Noted, but it's not the end of the world if the PCs kill the boss right at the start of the adventure without realizing what they've done.  This happened rather spectacularly once in my last campaign; they knew the boss was a Giant, probably Frost; and they knew his name...but they didn't have anything to connect the name to any particular Frost Giant.  So, before the PCs ever reach the actual adventure (the point of which was to remove the threat he presented to the locals) they get in a brawl with some of his underlings, one runs for help, brings back the boss (and some others), and the PCs take him (but not all the others) down.

Without knowing what they've done they carry on into the adventure anyway.  (I had another Giant step up and become the replacement boss but he was nowhere near as potentially interesting to play as the first one was)

In fact, it could be an interesting twist to a module if the PCs keep hearing rumours about some named BBEG, go and invade the lair of said BBEG, and find all the rumours are just rumours and they already killed this guy some time ago without realizing the significance of said act.

Lan-"then again, I'm an evil rat bastard anyway"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (May 19, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Why should adventures be all that different?  Would we be better off if those who produced adventures took the effort to specialize them to particular modes?



Quite the opposite, the mood I'm sensing here is that people would like to see effort taken to account for numerous different modes and write on that basis.

Let's say you're setting out to write a module.  You've got a good story and background, a fine BBEG, a few excellent set-piece scenes, a map, and a bunch of bad guys.

So go ahead.  Write it as if it's going to be all brawl, all the time; no quarter asked or given.

But don't stop there!  Go back and write it again, this time as if the PCs are expected to try to talk their way past every encounter.

Then write it again assuming the PCs will try to sneak past or completely avoid every encounter and will never enter any room by its front door.

Then write it a fourth time, to account for anything missed in the first three passes, and you're done Step 1.  You should by now have four - well, at least three - different written versions of every encounter and location.

Step 2 is to combine the different versions of each encounter or location into one coherent write-up which, if done right, now accounts for at least 3 significant modes of play and maybe catches quite a few more.

Tie 'em all together with a bit of story and you've got a module.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (May 19, 2010)

Rechan said:


> There is no stat that represents how much wealth an NPC has.



Er...isn't it (in any edition) listed under "possessions" if carried or "treasure" in the write-up for the room in which it may be found if not carried? 


> One thing that really grabbed me first in 4e was very little things. "This is a magic pool of cool water. If you dunk yourself in the pool, it gives you Resist fire 5 until you take a short rest". "These statues are touched by the power of Piety; standing next to them gives you a +1 to your will defense". If I tried to do this in 3e, I would feel the need to Account for where this stuff is coming from, and players would be more likely to go "really? Wow, I want to make one of those. How do I do that?" and now it's a balance issue. With 4e, just saying "it's magic" is good enough for the design philosophy and I can move on.



Just like 1e.  I completely agree with this as design philosophy.

Lan-"it's magic"-efan


----------



## pemerton (May 19, 2010)

FireLance said:


> I would certainly put information about the NPC's personality and motivations, and some favored non-combat modus operandi so that if he escapes and the PCs encounter him again, they could have the opportunity to recognize him from the way he goes about achieving his goals.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The other type of information is significant non-combat interactions. If the NPC has been brainwashed, and the PCs can remove that brainwashing with a skill challenge, that sort of information should go there, too.





FireLance said:


> stat blocks may need to contain more than basic combat information, if only to hint to a less experienced DM that the PCs can interact with at least some monsters or NPCs in ways other than direct combat.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Certain types of non-combat information should be an integral part of the stat blocks in generic monster books if the very nature of the monster suggests certain non-combat interactions are likely, e.g. skill challenges to communicate with a slaad or to discover a doppleganger's true identity.



In a sense, the basics of this already exist - page 42 of the DMG gives us level-appropriate DCs. But it would be very helpful for the MM (in respect of the generic skill challenges) and the modules (in resepct of scenario-specific possibilities) to give some suggestions for particular skills, particular DCs (easy, medium, hard) etc.

And I certainly agree with your comments about motivation and methods. It is hard to frame a social or political skill challenge without knowing this sort of info. I'd go so far as to say that it is the failure to present this sort of information, and hence to properly support the framing of skill challenges, that leads to the perception that skill challenges are just meaningless dice rolling exercise.


----------



## Rechan (May 19, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Er...isn't it (in any edition) listed under "possessions" if carried or "treasure" in the write-up for the room in which it may be found if not carried?



No.

1) The "Treasure" in a room writeup isn't in the statblock.  I'm talking about The statblock. The adventure module doesn't matter for the purposes of discussing NOn-Combat Stuff In The Statblock. 

2)  In the MM2, there's a monster called a Human Insane Noble. He's a 23 elite. In the statblock, his listed Equipment: Scepter (mace). 

How much land does this noble own? How much stock? What about the trade his family does? How many possessions in his house he could ransack? That's not represented by any stat, anything in the statblock. His wealth cannot be measured by what's in his pockets.

Granted, in 2e, statblocks had the treasure this monster had listed.


----------



## pemerton (May 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> The reason I think this is that the WOTC mods are primarily meant for very new gamers.



Maybe. Given that WotC have gone to the trouble to produce an edition that can do so much more, though, it's a pity that they don't have introductory modules promoting this. A properly written module should not be avoiding providing beginners with an awesome adventure story because it's too hard - it shoud be making it _easy_ to produce that story. 4e has the tools - skill challenges, quests, etc, as well as a dramatic combat system that (in my experience) needn't produce grind. The modules just aren't using those tools.

It's almost as if the designers - all very experienced roleplayers with experience of a lot of systems other than D&D in its various iterations - have designed a game that would be fun for them to play, but then can't quite imagine that their module purchasers are looking for the same sort of fun.


----------



## pemerton (May 19, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think that the reason modules tend to put the BBEG in a room at the end is to avoid having the PCs slay the BBEG earlier, thus ending the "plot".  Thus the general reveal through secondary artifacts of the BBEG/leaving it up to the GM to determine how the reveal is arranged.
> 
> The point, though, is that the GM needs to have something to reveal in order to arrange any reveal at all.
> 
> ...



I agree with this - both your diagnosis, and your admonition to "give the players the information".

Interesting, DMG 2 tackles this head on - it has suggestions for vignettes, and it has suggestions about using GM fiat to prevent the villain being killed in early presentations (this latter approach I think would have to be handled with care among traditional D&D players!). I doubt that you (ie Raven Crowking) would want to use these particular techniques, but they add to the repertoire, which includes the divination methods you mention.

Why are the module designers not following the advice in their own rulebooks?


----------



## Lanefan (May 19, 2010)

Rechan said:


> 1) The "Treasure" in a room writeup isn't in the statblock.  I'm talking about The statblock. The adventure module doesn't matter for the purposes of discussing NOn-Combat Stuff In The Statblock.



I'm looking at it on a slightly more wholistic level, with the room write-up as the primary "unit" and the statblocks of its occupants as a subset of that.  The non-combat info doesn't have to be in the statblock but it had better be on the same page in the room write-up so I can find it. (3e's idea of putting the statblocks on a separate page at the back of the module was *very* annoying)


> 2)  In the MM2, there's a monster called a Human Insane Noble. He's a 23 elite. In the statblock, his listed Equipment: Scepter (mace).
> 
> How much land does this noble own? How much stock? What about the trade his family does? How many possessions in his house he could ransack? That's not represented by any stat, anything in the statblock. His wealth cannot be measured by what's in his pockets.
> 
> Granted, in 2e, statblocks had the treasure this monster had listed.



I haven't bought or read the (I assume you mean 4e) MM2, but if they're reduced to writing up Insane Noble Humans as monsters I don't think I'm missing much. 

Of course, it's possible to assume the noble is insane enough to have had her lands and titles placed in regency; and thus she in effect owns nothing other than what she carries.  But yes, even noting this as a baseline assumption would be helpful.

Lan-"landless *and* insane lord"-efan


----------



## Beginning of the End (May 19, 2010)

FireLance said:


> It is perhaps a legacy of 3E's comprehensive stat blocks, but I think that many DMs have come to look to a monster or NPC's stat block for information on how it interacts with the PCs and with the rest of the game world. This has led to an attitude of "if it isn't in the stat block, it doesn't exist," which was arguably absent from 2E and earlier editions.




I was recently chatting with somebody about this, and the truth is: System Does Matter.

The simple example we were talking about is torches being blown out by gusts of wind. If you read older modules, you find this kind of thing being referenced all the time. Why? Because the OD&D rulebooks prominently featured this mechanic. When the rule got shuffled off to an obscure corner of the rulebook, references to gusts of winds that would blow out torches disappeared from the published modules (and I'm guessing they similarly disappeared from most people's games).

They're roleplaying *games*, and they have been since 1974. The mechanics are, and always have been, an important part of the interface between the players and the game world. And they have a particularly potent effect on shaping the core elements that define a game in the mind of its players.

OTOH, I would agree that 4th Edition's dissociated mechanics do make it inherently more difficult to use the mechanics to interface with the game world instead of using the mechanics in order to interact with the mechanics: When the mechanics no longer exist to model the game world, but are merely there to create hypothetically interesting mathematical exercises, you _are_ in fact forced to interface with the mechanics instead of interfacing with the game world and then figuring out how to model that mechanically.


----------



## FireLance (May 19, 2010)

Rechan said:


> 2)  In the MM2, there's a monster called a Human Insane Noble. He's a 23 elite. In the statblock, his listed Equipment: Scepter (mace).
> 
> How much land does this noble own? How much stock? What about the trade his family does? How many possessions in his house he could ransack? That's not represented by any stat, anything in the statblock. His wealth cannot be measured by what's in his pockets.



Slight tangent, but nothing in the Human Insane Noble stat block requires him to be a noble or even implies that he is one. I could use the same stat block for a Human Possessed Cultist and save myself the trouble of the PCs asking if they can get his lands.

Then again, if that noble isn't particularly high-ranking, the total value of his possessions may be pocket change to 23rd-level PCs.


----------



## Beginning of the End (May 19, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I think where I disagree then, in a nutshell, is your statement the module does not give them an incentive to care.  While it is true that the module does not implicitly bring the PCs into a relationship with Nualia, it brings them into a relationship with those she is attacking.  Furthermore, it provides plenty of hooks for the DM, if he chooses, to tie the PCs into her background in some way (or the background of her henchmen, etc.).  Each DM is going to want to tell the story a different way but the richness of the module allows that and encourages it.  My players cared a lot,even about learning who was behind the attacks.  You might say its just because I'm a good DM, but I think its because its such a rich module its easy to run it well.




I would say:

(1) PCs running through _Burnt Offerings_ will learn a lot about the villain without particularly trying to learn those things. The same is not true of PCs running through _Keep on the Shadowfell_. This doesn't mean, of course, that the module is going to "make them care"; but nothing and nobody can "make them care" about anything. All you can do is give them the opportunity to do so: _Burnt Offerings_ does; _Keep on the Shadowfell_ doesn't.

(2) In addition to the personal details of the villains, there's also the importance of what you talk about: The palpable impact of the villain's actions on the world and the people around the PCs. In _Burnt Offerings_, the villain's plan has a major impact on the world and the people around the PCs. If the PCs care about _anything_ in their environment, the villain's plan is going to have an impact on things they care about.

OTOH, the villain in _Keep on the Shadowfell_ has virtually no impact on the world around him. The local village doesn't even realize there's a problem unless the PCs bring it to their attention.

Personally, I don't think _Burnt Offerings_ is an instant classic or a perfect module (nor does anyone seem to be saying that except for Rechan). It's not a masterpiece, IMO. Although compared to _Keep on the Shadowfell_ it certainly looks like one.



MrMyth said:


> Look, your following example makes no sense at all  - a 4E stat block could _also_ show that the Stag Lord hates  humans, is good with a bow and dealing with terrain, has good stealth  and acrobatics, high dex, low wisdom/charisma.




Theoretically that's true.

But the point is that 4th Edition's monsters were explicitly designed to support 5 rounds of combat and nothing more. (We know that because the designers told us it was true.) Those same designers who said "monsters are good for 5 rounds of combat and nothing more" are the same designers working on WotC's modules.

Shockingly, the opponents in these modules are good for 5 rounds of combat and nothing more.

This isn't really a matter of connecting the dots. It's a matter of looking at the huge, blazing neon signs.

To reiterate: The problem here is not that Premise A gave us Stat Block B and then Stat Block B gave us Problem C. It's that Premise A results _directly_ in Problem C. The fact that Premise A also results in a flawed stat block which contributes to Problem C is practically irrelevant: The faulty premise, and every conclusion resulting from it, needs to be re-analyzed before ANY of the problems can be solved.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 19, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Quite the opposite, the mood I'm sensing here is that people would like to see effort taken to account for numerous different modes and write on that basis.
> 
> Let's say you're setting out to write a module.  You've got a good story and background, a fine BBEG, a few excellent set-piece scenes, a map, and a bunch of bad guys.
> 
> ...





God, yes.  THIS is exactly the kind of adventure I want to be buying.  This is what a pre-written, published, for-sale adventure module should BE.  _Every time_.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 19, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I haven't bought or read the (I assume you mean 4e) MM2, but if they're reduced to writing up Insane Noble Humans as monsters I don't think I'm missing much.




You are missing a _Lot_ in the MMII.  The balance is superb and so is much of the fluff.  Sure there's a bit of silliness there and the Insane Noble certainly qualifies - but there has always been silliness in D&D (flumphs?  Owlbears?)



Beginning of the End said:


> Theoretically that's true.
> 
> But the point is that 4th Edition's monsters were explicitly designed to support 5 rounds of combat and nothing more. (We know that because the designers told us it was true.) Those same designers who said "monsters are good for 5 rounds of combat and nothing more" are the same designers working on WotC's modules.
> 
> ...




Except that the problem isn't that Statblock B is remotely bad.  Statblock B is the single most usable statblock and produces the most interesting results in any tactical tabletop roleplaying game I have ever played.  And most monsters _do_ last five rounds or fewer and don't do anything.

The problem as I see it is that what the design philosophy produces is an absolutely superb tool for the five rounds or fewer monsters.  And something that's no better than average for anything else.  The designers would rather use the masterwork tools than the cheap ones.  So follow the five rounds or fewer model.


----------



## Xris Robin (May 19, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> But the point is that 4th Edition's monsters were explicitly designed to support 5 rounds of combat and nothing more. (We know that because the designers told us it was true.)



When and where, exactly, were we told this?


----------



## bagger245 (May 19, 2010)

FireLance said:


> Slight tangent, but nothing in the Human Insane Noble stat block requires him to be a noble or even implies that he is one. I could use the same stat block for a Human Possessed Cultist and save myself the trouble of the PCs asking if they can get his lands.
> 
> Then again, if that noble isn't particularly high-ranking, the total value of his possessions may be pocket change to 23rd-level PCs.




The monster stats are supposedly interchangeable or "refluffed", so you can have a variety of humanoids with Human Insane Noble stats. Heck, the name of the creature doesn't mean anything. 

Of course, when used in a module, the Insane Noble is fully living and breathing in the game world, so besides his combat stats, he does need non-combat stats as well. But if we follow closely to the devs design goal, the Human Noble only lives for 5 rounds when you meet him ie 30 seconds of game time.


----------



## Umbran (May 19, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> So go ahead.  Write it as if it's going to be all brawl, all the time; no quarter asked or given.
> 
> But don't stop there!  Go back and write it again, this time as if the PCs are expected to try to talk their way past every encounter.
> 
> ...




Fine.  Let us assume, for the moment, that the "mood" is actually representative of what the DMs want on a more broad scale. 

Now, remember that time is money.  Effort is money.

How much do you want to pay for this module that has been written 4 times over?


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 19, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Noted, but it's not the end of the world if the PCs kill the boss right at the start of the adventure without realizing what they've done.




I agree.  In module writing, though, there seems to be a sense that if the "story" doesn't unfold in a certain manner, catastrophe will occur.  That leads to "the Boss" lurking in the deepest, darkest pit he can find....sometimes without any real plan at all!  

I would rather play in games where the NPCs are....shall we say....more likely to react in a believable fashion.  Even if that means some potential villian is killed before his time.  



pemerton said:


> I agree with this - both your diagnosis, and your admonition to "give the players the information".




Cool.



> Interesting, DMG 2 tackles this head on - it has suggestions for vignettes, and it has suggestions about using GM fiat to prevent the villain being killed in early presentations (this latter approach I think would have to be handled with care among traditional D&D players!). I doubt that you (ie Raven Crowking) would want to use these particular techniques, but they add to the repertoire, which includes the divination methods you mention.




You are correct in thinking that I would not think much of them.  Many a villian has survived encounters with my PCs without requiring fiat.  All that is required is something the PCs need more than killing the villian at that time, i.e., some reason to _*not*_ kill the villian.

Heck, lowly orc mooks have managed to save themselves by offering reasons not to simply kill them.  I do this, among other reasons, to encourage the players to consider similar tactics when it becomes obvious that they are not going to win some fight.



> Why are the module designers not following the advice in their own rulebooks?




Perhaps they haven't read those sections yet?  



Umbran said:


> How much do you want to pay for this module that has been written 4 times over?




Much more than I would for a module that wasn't written properly once.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## Sir Wulf (May 19, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Fine. Let us assume, for the moment, that the "mood" is actually representative of what the DMs want on a more broad scale.
> 
> Now, remember that time is money. Effort is money.
> 
> How much do you want to pay for this module that has been written 4 times over?



I don't think that it takes four full rewrites to figure out whether a scenario has enough detail to accommodate different play styles. It just requires consideration that such styles may occur and a few lines of text to address them. 

As an example, if a guard room holds 12 orc guards, we've been told nothing but what we need for a brawl. If it holds 12 orc mercenaries, grousing because they haven't been paid in two months, we have a hook for another approach than combat. The party's half-orc barbarian might just try to bribe them to abandon their leaders.

That didn't take much effort.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 19, 2010)

I think the Delve Format might be to blame. It has the advantage of allowing the DM to run each encounter very easily, without the need to flip pages to look at the map, look up monster stats in the MM and monster abilities in the PHB. But the drawback is there's a lot less space for background, setting, NPC motivation and personality, etc.

Hussar has a point that the current WotC format is better for newbies, though I can see that it also works well for those DMs who like to write all their own 'fluff'. Indeed these DMs may well feel they do a better job of it than any module writer would.


----------



## Dausuul (May 19, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Fine.  Let us assume, for the moment, that the "mood" is actually representative of what the DMs want on a more broad scale.
> 
> Now, remember that time is money.  Effort is money.
> 
> How much do you want to pay for this module that has been written 4 times over?




More than I'll pay for a module like Keep on the Shadowfell, but that's not saying much since the latter amount is zero.

It's not like the four-times approach is going to be a complete rewrite every time. If there's an encounter with a hydra, you don't really have to worry about what happens if the PCs try to talk to it:

PC: "Pardon us, old chap, but we were wondering if you could assist us in our quest?"
Hydra: "GRRAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHH!" "RRRAAAAAARRRRRGGGH!" "GRRRRRHHH!" "MRRAAAAAAAWWWWRRRR!" *two heads grab PC by arms and legs and start trying to pull him in half*
PC: "Right-ho, we'll just be moving along then, shall we?"

(Because apparently my hypothetical players learned how to speak English from reading P.G. Wodehouse.)

Let's say the four-times approach doubles the writing time involved in the module, and let's say the writing time makes up 50% of the module's cost, with the rest being devoted to printing costs, warehousing, shipping and distribution, et cetera. So that's a total increase of 50% in the cost of the module. I can live with that.


----------



## Hussar (May 19, 2010)

Actually, there's a few easier ways of doing this than rewriting the entire module.

  Add in BETTER maps.  Have a small copy (or hell, make it a free download as a supplement) of the main map of the adventure.  Let's assume a dungeon of some sort to keep it simple.  One map shows the basics.  The next map plots movements over time.  A third map maybe shows an Alert status dungeon vs a "standard" readiness level.

I honestly think that in this case, a picture really is worth a 1000 words.  Those two extra maps would go miles towards bringing an adventure location to life and wouldn't require a whole lot of extra work.

Certainly not a 50% price bump on modules.  If you think the increased quality would get people to buy modules that expensive, I think you're mistaken Dausuul.


----------



## MrMyth (May 19, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Theoretically that's true.




What is theoretical about it? Why _wouldn't_ a 4E stat block include the key skills of the enemy, the weapon and tactics they use, character-specific bonuses and their ability scores?



Beginning of the End said:


> But the point is that 4th Edition's monsters were explicitly designed to support 5 rounds of combat and nothing more. (We know that because the designers told us it was true.) Those same designers who said "monsters are good for 5 rounds of combat and nothing more" are the same designers working on WotC's modules.
> 
> Shockingly, the opponents in these modules are good for 5 rounds of combat and nothing more.




Look, that's a complete misrepresentation of the designers' views. The approach they set out for, in 4E, was to include the information for monsters and NPCs that was relevant to their role in the game. 

This means that if an adventure has a wise old sage you can ask for advice? It will likely include his ability scores, skills, and any rituals he can cast for the party. It won't include combat stats because, no matter how smart he is, if the PCs want him dead _they'll just kill him_. You should neither need to have the DM waste time statting those elements out, nor an adventure waste space listing them. 

The condensing of combat stats in the 4E stat block is built on the same philosophy. Namely, that monsters don't need a list of twenty abilities that will never be used in battle. That doesn't mean they don't need personality, nor does it mean they shouldn't exist out of combat. 

I ran H3: Pyramid of Shadows. An adventure that many criticize as simply being filled with one combat after another. Which can be true. But it also has plenty of room for those monsters to come alive outside of combat - there are various factions the PCs can work with (if they desire), and NPCs they can interact with. 

In my game, they recruited one NPC as an ally (until he inevitably betrayed them), and hired others as mercenary guards rather than fight them. They were tricked by a succubus into freeing her from the pyramid. They dined in a village of far realm cultists, and joined forces with the spirit of a dragon to close a rift to the far realms. 

They interacted with the mocking sendings of the main villain, and unravelled his past through dreams and books found in the pyramid's library, and the entrapped spirit of his dead wife. 

And this is a group whose typical approach is to simply hack their way through everything. There was plenty of room for a more intrigue focused group to play the factions against each other in a far more elaborate game. 

None of which was somehow made impossible due to stat-blocks slimmed down to be useful in combat. 



Beginning of the End said:


> To reiterate: The problem here is not that Premise A gave us Stat Block B and then Stat Block B gave us Problem C. It's that Premise A results _directly_ in Problem C. The fact that Premise A also results in a flawed stat block which contributes to Problem C is practically irrelevant: The faulty premise, and every conclusion resulting from it, needs to be re-analyzed before ANY of the problems can be solved.




I don't see any actual support for your theory, though. What faulty premise? That stat blocks shouldn't have a dozen spell-like abilities the monster won't use? 

Ok, I admit it - having a few more ideas of what a monster is capable of can give the DM more ability to adapt it to the different approaches of the PCs. If a monster can cast invisibility, fly, charm person, true seeing, and meteor swarm, it has all sorts of ways it can interact with the PCs. 

And... 4E doesn't really change that. Monsters can still have invisibility powers, charm powers, flight, truesight and attack spells. The key is that they don't need _another twenty spells, _most of which are trivial. How much does it matter that they can cast _Aid, Bless, Cause Fear, Entropic Shield, Inflict Light Wounds, Eagle's Splendor, etc, etc, etc. _

Ok, having all these spells gives it a list of buffs it could provide PCs. I suppose. But those sort of buffs have largely gone away in 4E, anyway. You _can_ still have a monster that can offer smaller bonuses or healing to friendly PCs, or perform rituals for them as well. 

But you don't need pages of spell lists and spell-like abilities. You don't need your CR 16 angel to have "Use Rope +4 (+6 with bindings)". That isn't there because using ropes is a fundamental part of the character - it is there because they had leftover skill points, or needed to reflect a synergy bonus from some other skill, or something entirely meaningless to the actual NPC. 

Look, ProfessorCirno gave an example of an enemy whose 3.5 statblock revealed all sorts of character information. I commented that pretty much everything relevant found in the 3.5 statblock would also be in the 4E version. You can't just dismiss that as theoretical. 

If people have an issue with 4E adventures and the role of enemies within them, that is one thing. But saying that the statblocks are flawed at the core requires a significantly higher burden of proof. I'm seeing a lot of biased perspectives and false claims, but not anything actually demonstrating a problem. 

Indeed, in my own experiences, the stat blocks - even the adventures themselves - have had the room for monsters to certainly exist "outside the battlemat". I don't imagine that is the case for everyone, but the claim that 4E fundamentally forbids this - or prevents it - simply isn't true.


----------



## MrMyth (May 19, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> More than I'll pay for a module like Keep on the Shadowfell, but that's not saying much since the latter amount is zero.
> 
> ...
> 
> Let's say the four-times approach doubles the writing time involved in the module, and let's say the writing time makes up 50% of the module's cost, with the rest being devoted to printing costs, warehousing, shipping and distribution, et cetera. So that's a total increase of 50% in the cost of the module. I can live with that.




On the other hand, people who have been happy with some of the modules probably would object to a 50% increase in cost.

I'm just trying to understand how much additional material we really need. Are you just looking for the modules to allow for PCs to approach NPCs in different ways, and the DM to have some advice on how those NPCs might react? Because some of them have that already. 

As I mentioned in my last post - H3, Pyramid of Shadows, is the only one I've run on my own. It includes a section on the different factions within it - their motivations, the personalities of their key NPCs, and ways they might be willing to work with the PCs. I mean, none of them are _good guys, _but alliances can still be made. 

It is my understand that H2, Thunderspire Mountain, is even more robust in the NPCs and factions that can be interacted with.

These are WotC adventures, and already have these elements people claim are missing. I don't think this is the difference between these modules and Paizo's. 

From what I understand, the main issues are more the fundamental plots and designs. Pyramid of Shadows is pretty straightforward - the PCs are trapped in an extradimensional prison. They need to escape. 

Keep on the Shadowfell: A bad guy is doing bad things. Get through the keep and stop him. 

Thunderspire Mountain: A bad guy is doing bad things. Find him and stop him. 

Now, it sounds like some of the Paragon and Epic ones may get more involved. I would be a fan of that. I haven't played any Paizo adventures, but I get a similar sense from them - the plots are more intricate, and there are more elaborate events going on. 

But I don't think I can agree that the actual NPCs and monsters are the issue - that 3.5 enemies had detail that let them come to life, while the 4E enemies are simply blocks of stats. Nothing stops you from having some hooks and interesting motivations connected to different NPCs. Nothing stops them from being able to bargain with the PCs. And nothing prevents their stat-blocks from including the necessary elements to flesh them out and bring them to life.


----------



## Wicht (May 19, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> This means that if an adventure has a wise old sage you can ask for advice? It will likely include his ability scores, skills, and any rituals he can cast for the party. It won't include combat stats because, no matter how smart he is, if the PCs want him dead _they'll just kill him_. You should neither need to have the DM waste time statting those elements out, nor an adventure waste space listing them.




So you are saying the 4e stat blocks predetermine the NPC's role in the adventure?


----------



## MrMyth (May 19, 2010)

Wicht said:


> So you are saying the 4e stat blocks predetermine the NPC's role in the adventure?




The stat block reinforces the NPC's primary role, yes. Why shouldn't it? 

What benefit would be served by saying the sage has 12 hitpoints, AC 15, and fleshing out a full stat block? Would that encourage the PCs to drag him along on their adventures? Would that make it more useful when they decide to kill him for his books? 

If he is someone they should reasonably have a challenge with in combat - say, a powerful wizard rather than a simple sage - then you can give him combat stats as well. If he is somehow who might be persuaded to join them on their adventures, then you could include a companion stat block. 

If not, then why would you need those things?

Characters can interact with NPCs and monsters in a variety of ways. Some, more ways than others. You generally only need the elements for the ways in which the characters will interact with them. 

Do you need complete stat blocks for the sage, the shopkeeper, the bartender? I don't particularly think so. 

Of course, this is all largely a diversion from the actual argument at hand. The enemies that get full stat blocks are the ones you do actually engage in combat. And, as previously determined, those generally include everything you need to handle them in and out of combat.


----------



## Scribble (May 19, 2010)

Wicht said:


> So you are saying the 4e stat blocks predetermine the NPC's role in the adventure?




I'd say they predetermine the NPCs ability to cope with PCs hacking his skull off...

If said NPC is essentially a commoner with no hope of harming or surviving against the PCs should they turn on him... why waste space with stats that would be meaningless anyway?

He can't fight the PCs, so why bother providing combat stats for him to fight them?

He can offer valuable info, rituals, equipment, etc... so list that stuff.

Sure, if the PCs decide they want to recruit him to attack other commoners or something, the module makes that DM less prepared for that outcome... but then we get back to what it seems like Umbran was saying. Sooner or later you have to just prepare for the "most likely" outcome, and let the DM do the DM's job- (Dealing with option z.)

Do I think some modules could do a better job listing other things the NPCs can do aside from fighting... sure- but I don't think that stuff needs to be in a stat block. It just jumbles things up for all options, making it a mess for the DM to decide just what the heck this dude can actually effectively do in any given scenario.


----------



## Wicht (May 19, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> The stat block reinforces the NPC's primary role, yes. Why shouldn't it?




I wasn't arguing, just wanting a position clarified.  Back in the beginning of this thread there were those who complained that 4e overly codified the role of a monster or npc through the way the stat blocks were presented.

I think the two sides, if they were honest, could be summarized as...

"I want each stat block to be as flexible as is reasonably possible."

and

"I want each stat block to be as short and to the point as is reasonably possible."

There is of course middle ground, but I think that is more or less what it boils down to.


----------



## Benimoto (May 19, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Let's say the four-times approach doubles the writing time involved in the module, and let's say the writing time makes up 50% of the module's cost, with the rest being devoted to printing costs, warehousing, shipping and distribution, et cetera. So that's a total increase of 50% in the cost of the module. I can live with that.




Realize that personally, I think Lanefan's approach sounds good, and I'm mostly plying Devil's advocate here. But, there have to be constraints here.  Let's look at what those constraints might be.


*Cost*: Sure you say that you'd buy a better module at 150% the price, but would everybody?  Keep on the Shadowfell was an expensive module.  Amazon.com shows the list price at $29.99.  I remember a lot of people complaining about that price.  Would it be worth it if it contained more non-combat options, but listed for $44.99?  I doubt it.
*Page count*: We're not in the electronic era yet, and so modules have to be printed.  I'm not an expert, but as I understand it, 32 pages is not a random number.  There are some sort of mechanical constraints, such as the fact that modules are actually printed on 3 or 4 foot-long sheets of paper, then cut and folded into a booklet.  We can't just increase the page count to 37.  Instead it has to be something like 48 or 64 pages as the next step.  This increases all the other costs associated with the module.
*Complexity*: More content means more editing, playtesting, and a greater chance for errors to slip in.  When a module has 4 paths through it, it's more complicated to make sure all the paths are the same difficulty and to keep the pacing correct.  And then there's DM complexity.  You have to make sure that a module that contains 4 times the options is as easy to read and run as a module that's more focused on one path.
*Player's expecatations*:  If I get a 64 page module for twice the price, I expect it to last me twice as long as the 32 page module.  You're advocating that we give 3-4 times as many options to players, but really that just means that every single group is wasting 2/3rds to 3/4s of the module.  That's going to make some people unhappy.
*Talent*: Let's face it, certain writers may just not be as good at writing for certain types of play.  2-4 different paths through a module means that every module writer needs to be more skilled at writing.  More skill means more money, or it may mean writing teams with managers.  The cost here may end up increasing at a greater rate than the benefit.

The whole debate here is kind of silly.  Of course we would prefer to have more options rather than less.  To use a food-related analogy, I'm sure we would say that we prefer a restaurant to have 4 times as many options on a menu.  But, contradictorily, many successful restaurants actually work to reduce the size of their menus.  A successful module has to be simple to read and understand and also it has to fit in a certain page count.  Some of these things indicate it should have less complexity, not more.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 19, 2010)

Benimoto said:


> Realize that personally, I think Lanefan's approach sounds good, and I'm mostly plying Devil's advocate here. But, there have to be constraints here.  Let's look at what those constraints might be.




If it were not proven that someone can produce far better, cheaper modules (Paizo, I'm looking at you), the rest would carry.



RC


----------



## Wicht (May 19, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If it were not proven that someone can produce far better, cheaper modules (Paizo, I'm looking at you), the rest would carry.




Yeah the paizo modules and APs give the lie to the idea that a good module has to run $50.


----------



## MrMyth (May 19, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I wasn't arguing, just wanting a position clarified. Back in the beginning of this thread there were those who complained that 4e overly codified the role of a monster or npc through the way the stat blocks were presented.
> 
> I think the two sides, if they were honest, could be summarized as...
> 
> ...




Yeah, I think that is a good summation of the two ends of the spectrum. I tend to be in agreement with Scribble's comment - that there is room to expand on other ways to interact with NPCs, but the place for those is rarely in the stat block.


----------



## Beginning of the End (May 19, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Except that the problem isn't that Statblock B is remotely bad.




The real problem seems to be an inability to convince you that we're not looking at the underlying design philosophy behind both the stat blocks and the combat-happy WotC modules.

I'm saying that you have a stuffy nose and a nasty cough because you have the flu. You're saying, "I don't see how a stuffy nose could possibly be giving me a nasty cough!"

But since you want to talk about stat blocks...



> And most monsters _do_ last five rounds or fewer and don't do  anything.




Ignoring the flawed premise that monsters never do anything in the game outside of combat, there are still at least three flaws in Noonan's logic:

(1) It assumes tactical inflexibility. It assumes that the monster should always do the exact same thing no matter what the PCs do. By saying "they'll only be around for 5 rounds so they should only have 5 rounds worth of stuff to do", you are concluding that they should never have multiple options (which would allow them to respond to a variety of situations).

(2) It assumes monsters will never be re-used. Because if they were going to be re-used, it might be valuable to have some variety between those encounters.

(3) It assumes that multiple versions of the same monster will never appear in the same combat. Monsters only last 5 rounds and nothing they do outside of those 5 rounds matters? Even if we accept the premise, if we have an encounter with 5 of those monsters at the same time and each of them survives an average of 5 rounds, then that stat block actually needs to fill up 25 rounds worth of actions.

There are lots of reasons why combat in 4th Edition has gotten the "grind" level, but one of the problems are the shallow, bland, inflexible stat blocks.



Christopher Robin said:


> When and where, exactly, were we told  this?




Seriously? No offense, but you might want to try reading the thread before posting to it. Start with Post #1. The quote in question is literally the entire basis for the thread.



Doug McCrae said:


> I think the Delve Format might be to blame.  It has the advantage of allowing the DM to run each encounter very  easily, without the need to flip pages to look at the map, look up  monster stats in the MM and monster abilities in the PHB. But the  drawback is there's a lot less space for background, setting, NPC  motivation and personality, etc.




It's not just an issue of space: The Delve Format (and, to a large extent, the entire design of 4th Edition) is about the "perfectly balanced tactical encounter". 

This quest for "perfect balance" inherently limits interactivity and minimizes player impact on a strategic level.



MrMyth said:


> > Those same designers who said "monsters are good for 5 rounds of combat  and nothing more" are the same designers working on WotC's modules.
> 
> 
> 
> Look, that's a complete misrepresentation of the designers' views.




What Noonan said: "Until the moment they interact with the PCs,       they’re in a state of  stasis. And five rounds later, they’re done."

I'm not sure what you think is being misrepresented here. The NPCs don't do anything until the PCs see them, as soon as the PCs see them combat will start, and "five rounds later, they're done".



> Look, ProfessorCirno gave an example of an enemy whose 3.5 statblock  revealed all sorts of character information. I commented that pretty  much everything relevant found in the 3.5 statblock would also be in the  4E version. You can't  just dismiss that as theoretical.




I just got done telling you that the problem is the underlying design premise that NPCs don't do anything outside of combat, but you're still trying to distract the issue by talking about stat block methodology.



> I don't imagine that is the case for everyone, but the claim that 4E fundamentally forbids this -  or prevents it - simply isn't true.




It's probably a good thing that nobody is making that claim. Lemme know when you want to stop beating that pack of strawmen to death and have an actual conversation.


----------



## Scribble (May 19, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Ignoring the flawed premise that monsters never do anything in the game outside of combat, there are still at least three flaws in Noonan's logic:




Personally I think you're reading/thinking about the statement incorrectly.

I think you seem to be reading it from the standpoint that they designed the game to make the statement true... whereas I feel they designed the game based around an already truthful statement. (if that makes sense.)



> (1) It assumes tactical inflexibility. It assumes that the monster should always do the exact same thing no matter what the PCs do. By saying "they'll only be around for 5 rounds so they should only have 5 rounds worth of stuff to do", you are concluding that they should never have multiple options (which would allow them to respond to a variety of situations).




Instead I think the real statement is saying- on average, no matter how many options it has, the monster only ever stays around for 5 rounds. (And this is assuming a "perfect fight" where the PCs and monsters do things which would be the best tactics.

So, assuming this, we don't need more then 5 rounds of options, because they just won't be used.  It's wasted space that just causes confusion.

We can take out the extra options for each individual monster, and make it easier to work with because of the next part:



> (2) It assumes monsters will never be re-used. Because if they were going to be re-used, it might be valuable to have some variety between those encounters.




This ignores the fact that monsters in 4e, unlike 3e aren't designed to be the "typical" of the species. They're designed more to be one type of a whole. So the next time you see X monster it probably won't be the same, because the DM is using another one of many versions of X monster. (You notice this even more in the monsters that show up frequently like orcs and goblins and stuff...)

So rather then make one monster with lots of stuff in the stat block to meet various uses and ideas, you make a variation of the monster for those different demands.



> (3) It assumes that multiple versions of the same monster will never appear in the same combat. Monsters only last 5 rounds and nothing they do outside of those 5 rounds matters? Even if we accept the premise, if we have an encounter with 5 of those monsters at the same time and each of them survives an average of 5 rounds, then that stat block actually needs to fill up 25 rounds worth of actions.




I don't get your math. 5 monsters at the same time that last 5 rounds is still only 5 rounds.. unless each one is popping out 1 at a time from the monster vendomatic.




> There are lots of reasons why combat in 4th Edition has gotten the "grind" level, but one of the problems are the shallow, bland, inflexible stat blocks.




Well all are entitled to an opinion... I think the stat blocks are extremely flexible, in that swaping out powers is pretty simple. (Which makes making different monsters unique quick and easy.)

To each his own though!


----------



## Umbran (May 19, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Let's say the four-times approach doubles the writing time involved in the module, and let's say the writing time makes up 50% of the module's cost, with the rest being devoted to printing costs, warehousing, shipping and distribution, et cetera. So that's a total increase of 50% in the cost of the module. I can live with that.




Color me... skeptical that your position is held by enough of the public to make the idea fly.

There's one thing that seems to be fairly common about gamers - we are stingy.  We complain about the price of rulebooks.  We complain about the price of pdfs.  You're expecting that they can charge more for a new presentation, three quarters of which any particular group won't use?  

Remember, for any given encounter, it is probably getting played once, and that's it.  The party will find one way through it.  Three of your four are now wasted.  And the person who bought this adventure is sitting there thinking, "Why did I pay more, when I didn't use most of the extra?"

I think we are forgetting that the GM is there, in part, to adjudicate that which isn't expressed in the given material - to give the game greater flexibility.   We (gamers and GMs, broadly) buy materials so that we don't have to do _everything_ ourselves, but that's not the same as having the adventure do everything for us. At some point, the adventure's given us enough to work with, and we can carry it from there, even if the players step outside what the material describes.  Material beyond that point is gives us diminished returns on our investment, so we won't pay much for it.


----------



## MrMyth (May 19, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> (1) It assumes tactical inflexibility. It assumes that the monster should always do the exact same thing no matter what the PCs do. By saying "they'll only be around for 5 rounds so they should only have 5 rounds worth of stuff to do", you are concluding that they should never have multiple options (which would allow them to respond to a variety of situations).




I don't know about that. Could you be able to give some examples? Stat blocks might only have a few rounds worth of powers, but they do include the creature's ability modifiers, relevant skill, perception abilities and special senses, and movement capabilities. I would think that pretty much everything you need to respond to the various possible scenarios outside of combat - chase scenes, negotiations, trying to sneak past enemies, etc. 

if you are talking about their ability to respond tactically in combat, I think that comes down to how the DM plays them. I certainly don't want each monster to have a seperate stat block for dealing with PCs using hit-and-run tactics vs direct combat - I think the DMs ability to use their movement and positioning, ranged attacks vs melee attacks, and various skills should be enough to play them differently in different scenarios. 



Beginning of the End said:


> (2) It assumes monsters will never be re-used. Because if they were going to be re-used, it might be valuable to have some variety between those encounters.




I really haven't had a problem with a lack of variety amongst enemies in 4E. I can see it being a problem if a DM just runs the same monsters against PCs in combat after combat, but with the options out there, the ability to customize monsters, and the opportunity to always fall back on stunts, terrain attacks, and even just grabs and the like... I think there is plenty of room to keep things interesting. 

In my experience, at least, 4E provides far more variety in the encounters with far less work for the DM to make it happen. A dungeon filled with different types of kobolds is a lot more exciting than one filled with 50 kobold level 1 warriors. 



Beginning of the End said:


> (3) It assumes that multiple versions of the same monster will never appear in the same combat. Monsters only last 5 rounds and nothing they do outside of those 5 rounds matters? Even if we accept the premise, if we have an encounter with 5 of those monsters at the same time and each of them survives an average of 5 rounds, then that stat block actually needs to fill up 25 rounds worth of actions.
> 
> There are lots of reasons why combat in 4th Edition has gotten the "grind" level, but one of the problems are the shallow, bland, inflexible stat blocks.




Again, I see 4E stat blocks as potentially a lot more exciting than some have been in other editions. In my experience, monsters in 3rd Edition either tended to have issues, like you say, with inflexibility (in that their typically approach was to spend every round full-attacking), or they tended to have lots of complex spell-like abilities and similar options. 

And the first type tended to be the ones you fought in groups. 

Now, its true that this issue isn't entirely absent in 4E. If you have a fight with 5 Orc Raiders, it is likely going to come down to the same running around and charging throughout the fight. 

Of course, 4E tries to actively discourage that sort of encounter design. And as soon as you've gotten to 2 or 3 different types of monsters in the fight - Orc Raiders, Drudges, and an Eye of Gruumsh - things start to get more interesting. 

I agree that I don't like to see a stat block with only 1 or 2 attack options. It does make a monster dull. But that seems to have been more an issue with a handful of MM1 monsters than an overall goal - I see a lot more who have enough abilities to have options during the combat, though by the end of the fight PCs have generally gotten to see most of what the enemy can do. 

Will all monsters be able to tactically respond to different approaches by the players? Of course not - and the same holds true in every edition. But some monsters certainly can. The vast majority of monster stat blocks, in my opinion, don't fit the claim of "shallow, bland, inflexible."



Beginning of the End said:


> What Noonan said: "Until the moment they interact with the PCs, they’re in a state of stasis. And five rounds later, they’re done."
> 
> I'm not sure what you think is being misrepresented here. The NPCs don't do anything until the PCs see them, as soon as the PCs see them combat will start, and "five rounds later, they're done".




It's a pretty damning quote. But I think it is indeed being misrepresented as an absolute. 

I don't think he is saying that monsters cannot be interacted with outside of combat. The vast majority of the time, yes, combat is the default interaction - and that 95% of the time is what we need the stats for. 

The article with that very quote even goes into the fact that part of the goal is to help focus on the key elements of the creatures in question, that "the play experience at the table is enhanced if the monster entry provides a few cogent details of culture to get the DM pointed in the right direction, then steps back and lets the table run off wherever it likes."

That seems explicitly counter to the idea that a monster's context is isolated only to its combat relevance. 

More than that, let's look at a bit more of the quote: 

"Giving a monster _detect thoughts_ or _telekinesis_, for example, makes us feel like those monsters are magically in the minds of their minions and are making objects float across the room all the time. But they aren’t! Until the moment they interact with the PCs, they’re in a state of stasis. And five rounds later, they’re done."

He isn't saying that the monster should not have those abilities. The mind flayer mastermind can still be keeping his minions in thrall and plundering their minds all he wants out of combat. If the DM wants the creepy psionic monster to be in mental control of his minions, he just gets to decide that is the case - he does not need to know the actual mechanics of how these NPCs interact. He can simply take the natural flavor of the monster and extend it as desired to NPC interactions. Those mechanics that aren't important for interaction with the PCs aren't needed - they just distract from what actual options are on the table. 

Now, here is where I see the heart of the actual debate - what abilities qualify as important against the PCs? _Detect Thoughts _wasn't particularly relevant in combat, given it took several round to start picking up useful info. On the other hand, it does give the mastermind a potential edge out of combat against the PCs, which can have interesting ramifications - though its use could also be detected and expose the mastermind's threat. 

Of course, just giving the monster Telepathy in 4E goes a good distance towards preserving the flavor, without needing to get into how much it can probe the mind of PCs out of combat. The more extreme 4E approach might be to simply have the DM decide how much information it can glean using its mental powers out of combat. Many might object to this as arbitrary - on the other hand, Detect Thoughts already had issues with that, since isn't the DM the one who has to decide what 'surface thoughts' the PCs might reveal anyway?

These corner cases are where I think the real disagreement lies. But I think it is missing the point to try and drag the argument down to the core principles of 4E based on a single quote by one designer, taken out of context. 

You are saying the problem is that there is a flawed premise in 4E that monsters don't exist outside of combat. That they exist solely to be killed over the course of 5 rounds, and that as long as this premise exists, people will have an issue with stat blocks. 

I don't agree that this is a premise in 4E. I don't think any designer would agree with your interpretation of Noonan's words. And I think focusing on them distracts from the real discussion - where to draw the line on what abilities are worth preserving, and which should fall into the realm of off-screen ability.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 19, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Seriously? No offense, but you might want to try reading the thread before posting to it. Start with Post #1. The quote in question is literally the entire basis for the thread.



I think Christopher Robin's point is that Noonan's quote was with regards to 3e (Monster Manual 5), not, as innerdude says, 4e. 



> *For Monster Manual V*, we wanted to create really focused monsters. We told our designers: “Make us monsters that deliver on the promise of one really memorable encounter.” Then we handed the developers some pruning shears, and said: “Trim anything that doesn’t deliver a really memorable encounter.”
> 
> Our underlying reason was pretty simple: We wanted our presentation of monsters to reflect how they’re actually used in D&D gameplay. A typical monster has a lifespan of five rounds. That means it basically does five things, ever, period, the end. (Forgive me if that seems like a totally obvious insight.)
> 
> Too often, we designers want to give our intelligent, high-level monsters a bunch of spell-like abilities—if not a bunch of actual spellcaster levels. Giving a monster detect thoughts or telekinesis, for example, makes us feel like those monsters are magically in the minds of their minions and are making objects float across the room all the time. But they aren’t! Until the moment they interact with the PCs, they’re in a state of stasis. And five rounds later, they’re done.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 19, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Color me... skeptical that your position is held by enough of the public to make the idea fly.





Yeah....So long as you ignore the companies that prove it can fly, including Paizo right now, and both Goodman Games and Necromancer for 3e, there is no reason to believe it would work.


----------



## billd91 (May 19, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Personally I think you're reading/thinking about the statement incorrectly.
> 
> I think you seem to be reading it from the standpoint that they designed the game to make the statement true... whereas I feel they designed the game based around an already truthful statement. (if that makes sense.)
> 
> ...




I think what you're doing here is show us how Noonan's statement leads to 4e's design making his statement true. If your analysis indicates that the NPC lives an average of 5 rounds and you then give it no more than 5 options, you really are making Noonan's statement into the truth. Before, some of these NPCs had a dozen or more options. The fact that they got to pick 5 of them to use before dying doesn't change the fact that they had a broader set to choose from. Cutting those down to 5 in the interest of getting rid of "extra" stuff means cutting down the NPC's flexibility and constrains its scope.



Scribble said:


> This ignores the fact that monsters in 4e, unlike 3e aren't designed to be the "typical" of the species. They're designed more to be one type of a whole. So the next time you see X monster it probably won't be the same, because the DM is using another one of many versions of X monster. (You notice this even more in the monsters that show up frequently like orcs and goblins and stuff...)
> 
> So rather then make one monster with lots of stuff in the stat block to meet various uses and ideas, you make a variation of the monster for those different demands.




Yes, but now NPC figure #1 has a limited scope. The stat block determines how he will be used before even encountering the PCs and their approach to the impending meeting. I think it's great that some 4e creatures (particularly humanoids) have specialties. Humanoids can use them well and it fits well with different gear they may be kitted out with.
But compare specialists with 3e multi-purposers like a lot of the demons and devils or even a rival adventurer kitted out with multiple interesting items and tactical choices. The specialist's limited scope severly hampers flexibility as the encounter unfolds but the multi-purpose NPCs can adjust to have something interesting and effective to do even if the encounter moves away from their primary strengths. 
I compare this effect to hyperspecialized PCs in 3e who are at their best with a limited tactical suite (the spiked chain tripper, for example) but who is completely flumoxed by a flying opponent because they didn't have the foresight to pack a bow. I believe games suffered because players chose to do this sort of thing, got frustrated, and complained. I don't think the game's better because it now arbitrarily extends to more NPCs as well.


----------



## MrMyth (May 19, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Yeah....So long as you ignore the companies that prove it can fly, including Paizo right now, and both Goodman Games and Necromancer for 3e, there is no reason to believe it would work.




Have we established that this is the one fundamental difference between Paizo and WotC adventures? Does Paizo charge 50% more for their products? I honestly don't know the answer to these questions - I'm genuinely curious if that is an actual mirror for the specific example Umbran was discussing. 

I think his point was that the proposal to take existing WotC adventures and provide multiple approaches for every encounter, along with a 50% increase in price, would probably not win over more customers than it would use.


----------



## Wicht (May 19, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Have we established that this is the one fundamental difference between Paizo and WotC adventures? Does Paizo charge 50% more for their products? I honestly don't know the answer to these questions - I'm genuinely curious if that is an actual mirror for the specific example Umbran was discussing.
> 
> I think his point was that the proposal to take existing WotC adventures and provide multiple approaches for every encounter, along with a 50% increase in price, would probably not win over more customers than it would use.




Paizo APs (96 pages) are $20 minus whatever discounts you might get.
Paizo Modules (32 pages) are $14 minus whatever discounts you might have.

Thats for print.  They are all available in PDF for less and subscribers get the PDF free.

The point I think Mr. Crowking was trying to make was that Paizo provides more for less and does so successfully, giving DMs adventures that cater to a variety of playstyles. They are far more than hack and slash. The storys are engaging and the NPCs are memorable.  The Adventure Paths, in my opinion, are some of the best role-playing buys I've ever made. At their worst their better then most other things I've bought and at their best they are stellar.


----------



## Scribble (May 19, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I think what you're doing here is show us how Noonan's statement leads to 4e's design making his statement true. If your analysis indicates that the NPC lives an average of 5 rounds and you then give it no more than 5 options, you really are making Noonan's statement into the truth.




Maybe, but I see it as Chicken vrs egg in that it doesn't really matter, as in the end, it only needed those 5 rounds worth of options. (And that doesn't mean 5 options.) Especially if the rest just confused the situation and made using it effectively more of a hassle.

You're not designing it to last 5 rounds- that was already happening... You're just making it easier to work with in those 5 rounds.

True, you're not giving it more rounds to work with- but that's a different problem if it's a problem for you (it's not for me.)




> Before, some of these NPCs had a dozen or more options. The fact that they got to pick 5 of them to use before dying doesn't change the fact that they had a broader set to choose from. Cutting those down to 5 in the interest of getting rid of "extra" stuff means cutting down the NPC's flexibility and constrains its scope.




Sure, but thats why I was saying before, adding more options doesn't always make it "better." It just makes it, more confusing. Especially if those options aren't always useful to the situation at hand.




> Yes, but now NPC figure #1 has a limited scope. The stat block determines how he will be used before even encountering the PCs and their approach to the impending meeting.




Well see I agree and disagree. I think the stat block SHOULD have a limited scope. And it's not the stat block that makes the determination, but you determining to use said stat block.

IE if I think Human Noble number 223 should be a credible combat threat, I give him a combat stat block. If not, I put some notes about how he CAN interact with PCs. What stuff he has, what stuff he knows, etc... If both, I put both.

I just don't like jumbling stat blocks together.




> I think it's great that some 4e creatures (particularly humanoids) have specialties. Humanoids can use them well and it fits well with different gear they may be kitted out with.
> But compare specialists with 3e multi-purposers like a lot of the demons and devils or even a rival adventurer kitted out with multiple interesting items and tactical choices. The specialist's limited scope severly hampers flexibility as the encounter unfolds but the multi-purpose NPCs can adjust to have something interesting and effective to do even if the encounter moves away from their primary strengths.
> I compare this effect to hyperspecialized PCs in 3e who are at their best with a limited tactical suite (the spiked chain tripper, for example) but who is completely flumoxed by a flying opponent because they didn't have the foresight to pack a bow. I believe games suffered because players chose to do this sort of thing, got frustrated, and complained. I don't think the game's better because it now arbitrarily extends to more NPCs as well.




I guess I haven't seen it to be as big an issue as you seem to feel it is in my games? Maybe you're encountering it, but I'm not.

In fact, the games I've run have been a lot smoother then my 3e games ever were. Maybe the game just fits ME better.


----------



## Xris Robin (May 20, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Seriously? No offense, but you might want to try reading the thread before posting to it. Start with Post #1. The quote in question is literally the entire basis for the thread.




Seriously?  No offense, but you might want to try reading the article the quote came from before you try talk about it.  The quote in question is NOT ABOUT 4E.

As I pointed out ALREADY, back on like page seven.


----------



## billd91 (May 20, 2010)

Christopher Robin said:


> Seriously?  No offense, but you might want to try reading the article the quote came from before you try talk about it.  The quote in question is NOT ABOUT 4E.
> 
> As I pointed out ALREADY, back on like page seven.




True, it's not about 4e, per se. It's about WotC's monster design philosophy which they developed over the course of 3e and have pretty clearly used in 4e. So really it's about a foundational philosophy of 4e.


----------



## Xris Robin (May 20, 2010)

billd91 said:


> True, it's not about 4e, per se. It's about WotC's monster design philosophy which they developed over the course of 3e and have pretty clearly used in 4e. So really it's about a foundational philosophy of 4e.



So the fact the quote is misattributed and out of context just doesn't matter as long as you can stretch it to argue about something?  Because I see very little discussion about what was actually said in the article, in relation to 4E or otherwise.


----------



## Umbran (May 20, 2010)

Wicht said:


> The point I think Mr. Crowking was trying to make was that Paizo provides more for less and does so successfully, giving DMs adventures that cater to a variety of playstyles.




Yes, well, then Mr. Crowking is arguing somewhat to the side of my point.  I was being pretty darned specific, talking about a very specific approach to adventure design.

Is Paizo using that system?  I don't expect so.

Is Paizo publishing adventures for 4e?  No.

We should compare apples to apples.

Every ruleset has its strengths and weaknesses.  Paizo is working with a ruleset that has a strength in that much of the multiple-approach comes for free when you fully stat out a monster or NPC.  It has the weakness that this means you have to fully stat out the baddie - a process that can take a whole lot of time and effort, and makes quick reference not so quick.

WotC is working with a ruleset that gives you much less for free when you stat out a monster or NPC.  That's a weakness.  The strength is that quick reference really is quick, and a DM can fully stat things himself lickety split.

So, what we are asking of WotC is not so much to create adventures that are approach-agnostic, but to create adventures that avoid the systems inherent weaknesses for us, without losing the strengths.

So, to be fair - can Paizo create an adventure that overcomes its system's weaknesses, without losing the strengths?  That'd be an adventure that maintains its approach-agnosticism, but has the speed and ease of use of 4e, even at high level.


----------



## Lanefan (May 20, 2010)

For clarity, while I presented what is being called the "four-times approach" in its most labour-intensive form (actually writing the module four times) I really don't expect any writers to do it that way...though props to 'em if they do.  But I sure as shootin' expect them to *think* that way and to have that thinking reflected in the finished product.







Benimoto said:


> *Cost*: Sure you say that you'd buy a better module at 150% the price, but would everybody?  Keep on the Shadowfell was an expensive module.  Amazon.com shows the list price at $29.99.  I remember a lot of people complaining about that price.  Would it be worth it if it contained more non-combat options, but listed for $44.99?  I doubt it.



This might be a non-issue, depending how the writer gets paid.  Page count can stay the same, just with more words, less pictures and white space, and less slavish adherence to the delve format...no extra cost there.  I don't know how writers get paid, but if the writer's on contract to produce a module the pay will be the same no matter what gets written as long as it passes inspection; so no extra cost there either.


> *Page count*: We're not in the electronic era yet, and so modules have to be printed.  I'm not an expert, but as I understand it, 32 pages is not a random number.  There are some sort of mechanical constraints, such as the fact that modules are actually printed on 3 or 4 foot-long sheets of paper, then cut and folded into a booklet.  We can't just increase the page count to 37.  Instead it has to be something like 48 or 64 pages as the next step.  This increases all the other costs associated with the module.



No idea of the mechanics involved, but page counts divisible by 8 seem to be the norm.  That said, you can increase the page count by one or two or three provided the extras are on loose sheets (cough *maps* cough) and not increase the cost very much.


> *Complexity*: More content means more editing, playtesting, and a greater chance for errors to slip in.  When a module has 4 paths through it, it's more complicated to make sure all the paths are the same difficulty and to keep the pacing correct.  And then there's DM complexity.  You have to make sure that a module that contains 4 times the options is as easy to read and run as a module that's more focused on one path.



The paths do *not* have to be the same difficulty!!!  Why not have a module where there's an easy way to solve it, a hard way to solve it, and a way that won't solve it at all?  And the pacing is entirely up to the DM and group at the table and probably won't ever be the same twice.

But you're quite right that it still needs to be easy to read and understand.


> *Talent*: Let's face it, certain writers may just not be as good at writing for certain types of play.  2-4 different paths through a module means that every module writer needs to be more skilled at writing.



Good. 

And, please don't get into an idea of the four-times writing idea producing four different paths through a module.  The intent is to merely account for four (or more) ways a group might logically try to play through it, rather than just one.  The best of modules would see the most successful groups use all kinds of different modes of play during the adventure, at those points where each made sense.



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> 5 monsters at the same time that last 5 rounds is still only 5 rounds.. unless each one is popping out 1 at a time from the monster vendomatic.



The concept of a monster vendomatic is giving me all kinds of evil ideas right now.

Scribble, please prepare for my players not to like you very much... 

Lan-"but does it give back change?"-efan


----------



## pemerton (May 20, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I think the two sides, if they were honest, could be summarized as...
> 
> "I want each stat block to be as flexible as is reasonably possible."
> 
> ...



I don't think this captures my view, or that of some of the others who are trying to explain their experiences with 4e.

In 4e I don't _need_ a stat block to help me with non-combat encounters, because (to the extent that these are handled mechanically) these are resolved via skill challenges, with DCs set in accordance with the rules in the DMG and DMG2.

What I want is a stat block that will work for combat, _plus_ information about an NPC's motivation/personality/social context etc that will help me frame any skill challenges that are necessary, plus a suggestion for the complexity and DCs of some of the obvious skill challenges that might arise (eg persuading a monster to give over its treasure as a ransom for its life).



Beginning of the End said:


> (1) It assumes tactical inflexibility.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Is this based on actual play experience with 4e? It certainly doesn't fit with my own 4e play experience. My game has featured encounters with many, probably dozens, of goblin warriors and sharpshooters, but has not suffered from tactical inflexibility. Because each encounter has a different combination of goblins, with or without non-goblin allies, different terrain, and a different entry-point for the PCs into that terrain, there has been a wide degree of variety even though each individual goblin warrior or sharpshooter has the same (fairly straightforward) statblock.

In short, tactical flexibility and variety is not just a function of a monster's statblock. It's also a function of something closer to the ordinary meaning of "tactics" - combination of forces, terrain etc.

And combat in my 4e game has not suffered to date from any grind issues. I think that it might have, if I had used WotC encounters as written - they tend to feature smaller numbers of higher level foes, whereas I have been building and running encounters with larger numbers of lower level foes and minions. I find that not only does a larger number of foes lead to a more dynamic fight - it also tends to increase the importance of terrain, simply because the PCs have to move about to try to engage all their enemies.


----------



## Lanefan (May 20, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Is Paizo publishing adventures for 4e?  No.
> 
> We should compare apples to apples.



To raise a bigger question: why does any of this need to be edition-specific?  Good adventures in one edition tend to translate pretty well into other editions (says he from experience, and the reverse is also true); so shouldn't we be looking for an edition-neutral or edition-combining solution here by taking what works in each and starting from there?

And yes, I know WotC is only going to write to the current edition they are producing, and that's fair enough; but the rest of us are not so constrained and *can* go edition-neutral if we want.

Lanefan


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 20, 2010)

> In other words, the two earlier quotes seem to be saying, "You can have high context, character-driven satisfying encounters, you can have truly engaging combat encounters, and you can have very little GM prep time--but you can only ever have two of the three."




I think this is a false dichotomy.

If you take Noonan's quote to the critique of WotC adventures, you get that *context is part of how the monster is used at the table*. 

That, functionally, during game play, it is more satisfying to have a villain built up, to have a world breathe, and to have moments of "down time" to explore the environment.

Think of it like a rest in a song or simple colorspace in a painting or paragraphs of description in a fantasy novel. They increase tension. They set the stage. They provide contrast. They provoke anticipation. By projecting high-octane thrilling encounters against a background like this, the encounters have the effect you want to achieve at the table (that is, the players are into them, and not bored by them). They shouldn't be hard to build into the writing for an adventure: rooms without monsters, forex. 

The idea that fluff is only for the DM and worldbuilding is a naive idea. There is certainly such a thing as useless and overabundant and unnecessarily limiting fluff, but that is not all fluff. That is just the *badly designed* fluff. Well-designed fluff has an impact, even if that impact is "catch your breath as I describe this harmless room with the grand waterfall and the fish and the quiet, because in the next three rooms, you are going to be hit in the face several times." 

Games, like many creative works, are about maintaining and resolving tension. A game that is all smash all the time is like a horror movie that becomes numbing with all the startles and BOO-scares. Good horror movies -- and good creative works in general, including D&D adventures -- master pacing to deliver time to breathe, time for thought, time to speculate on the broader significance of what's going on. In a horror movie, this eventually builds a sense of dread. In a D&D game, this should build a sense of heroism and adventure. And you don't achieve that simply by rolling dice over and over again. You achieve that *with context*.

That's important. At the table.


----------



## billd91 (May 20, 2010)

Christopher Robin said:


> So the fact the quote is misattributed and out of context just doesn't matter as long as you can stretch it to argue about something?  Because I see very little discussion about what was actually said in the article, in relation to 4E or otherwise.




It's not a stretch at all. Unless you don't believe that their design philosophy at Point A (late 3e MM) affected concurrent designs and designs at Point B (4e) very shortly thereafter. That strikes me as a very extraordinary position to hold, particularly since the results of 4e monster design align so well with it.


----------



## Hussar (May 20, 2010)

On a side note about grindiness.  We have several hours of play on record with both the Robot Chicken and the two Penny Arcade podcasts.  Yet, none of those grind.

I mean, in the Robot Chicken podcast, with at least one player who had never gamed anything before, never mind never gaming D&D, you had a 4 hour session, the first combat doesn't come up until after an hour of role play (listen to the DM commentaries about Chris Perkin's opinion of claims that 4e has no role playing  ).  In the next three hours, they go through five encounters - the trap room with the fire ballista, the bat lurker thing in the cave, the zombies that come out of the walls, the elemental thingie, and finally a bunch of spiders at the end.

And there's a fair bit of role play time in that three hours as well.

So, in 180 minutes, they get through five encounters.  That's not a bad run in ANY edition.  And certainly not a grind.

I'm not saying that grind never exists or anything like that.  But, the idea that the game ALWAYS grinds and there's nothing you can do about it doesn't really fly in the face of pretty clear evidence.  Three podcasts, two different groups, both containing complete newbies, all capable of getting through several encounters in a four hour span.


----------



## Beginning of the End (May 20, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> I think Christopher Robin's point is that  Noonan's quote was with regards to 3e (Monster Manual 5), not, as  innerdude says, 4e.




So we're hypothesizing that Christopher Robin is unaware that they were  designing 4th Edition at the point? And similarly unaware that the  designers have stated that the latter day products of 3.5 were being  impacted by 4th Edition design philosophies?

Oh, I see reading further that Christopher Robin himself is making that  claim.

Well, fair enough.



Scribble said:


> I think you seem to be reading it from the standpoint that they designed the game to make the statement true... whereas I feel they designed the game based around an already truthful statement. (if that makes sense.)




Well, if you agree with the statement that NPCs will never interact with PCs except for 5 rounds of combat, then there's really not much else to be said.

The original post talked about the disparity between Noonan's statement and the statement: "Combat is a part of stories and fiction solely there to provide drama,  but endless slogs with monsters and NPCs I don't care about have zero  drama."

I disagree with Noonan and agree with the other guy. You obviously disagree with the other guy and agree with Noonan.

*Admin here. Don't tell other people what they must think or feel. It's a guaranteed way to start an argument instead of discussing the topic, and it's a good way to get yourself booted from a thread. ~ PCat*



> This ignores the fact that monsters in 4e, unlike 3e  aren't designed to be the "typical" of the species. They're designed  more to be one type of a whole. So the next time you see X monster it  probably won't be the same, because the DM is using another one of many  versions of X monster. (You notice this even more in the monsters that  show up frequently like orcs and goblins and stuff...)




I keep hearing how easy it is to reskin in 4th Edition, but now you're telling me that you never re-use a stat block? Weird.

(You're about to tell me that that isn't what you said. But it is. Re-read your post until you figure out why.)

*Again. Dismissive sarcasm doesn't work well. A good rule of thumb: after you write a post, reread it and ask yourself "are people going to think I'm being a jerk?" If the answer is yes, don't hit submit. *



> > (3) It assumes that multiple versions of the same monster  will never appear in the same combat. Monsters only last 5 rounds and  nothing they do outside of those 5 rounds matters? Even if we accept the  premise, if we have an encounter with 5 of those monsters at the same  time and each of them survives an average of 5 rounds, then that stat  block actually needs to fill up 25 rounds worth of actions.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get your math. 5 monsters  at the same time that last 5 rounds is still only 5 rounds.. unless each  one is popping out 1 at a time from the monster vendomatic.




And each round each of those monsters gets to take an action. What's five times five?



MrMyth said:


> Stat blocks might only have a few rounds worth of  powers, but they do include the creature's ability modifiers, relevant  skill, perception abilities and special senses, and movement  capabilities. I would think that pretty much everything you need to  respond to the various possible scenarios outside of combat - chase  scenes, negotiations, trying to sneak past enemies, etc.




Oh c'mon! You guys are trolling me right?

I say, "I'm not talking about how stat blocks are used in combat." And I get somebody replying to everything as if I were talking about how stat blocks are used in combat.

So then I say, "Fine, let's talk about stat blocks in combat." And I get somebody replying to my post as if I were talking about scenarios outside of combat.



> Now, here is where I see the heart of the actual debate - what abilities  qualify as important against the PCs? _Detect Thoughts _wasn't  particularly relevant in combat, given it took several round to start  picking up useful info.




... unless, of course, a compound went on alert and they were trying to track down the PCs.

This is exactly what I'm talking about: You remove non-combat options from the game because they're "not particularly relevant in combat" and then you wonder why your modules don't have any non-combat options. Geez, I wonder if there might be a connection!


----------



## TikkchikFenTikktikk (May 20, 2010)

What we need to settle this for once and for all is some science. Some god-and-gary-gygax-forsaking science.

Now, I'm just a guy with a math degree so I don't actually know from real science. But to lay out my rough sketch we would need:

* A DM who has only ever run 3.5 games to run 4 players who have only ever played 3.5 published adventures through Keep on the Shadowfell.

* A DM who has only ever run 4E games to run 4 players who have only ever played 3.5 published adventures through Keep on the Shadowfell.

* A DM who has only ever run 3.5 games to run 4 players who have only ever played 4E published adventures through Keep on the Shadowfell.

* A DM who has only ever run 4E games to run 4 players who have only ever played 4E published adventures through Keep on the Shadowfell.

* A DM who has only ever run Paizo games to run 4 players who have only ever played 4E published adventures through Burnt Offerings.

* A DM who has only ever run Paizo games to run 4 players who have only ever played 4E published adventures through Burnt Offerings.

* A DM who has only ever run 4E games to run 4 players who have only ever played 4E published adventures through Burnt Offerings.

etc., etc. I don't have a government grant to keep this post going.

OK, I'll do a couple more off the clock:

* A DM who has never run an RPG game to run 4 players who have never played published adventures through Keep on the Shadowfell. (as a control group)

* A DM who has never run an RPG game to run 4 players who have never played published adventures through Burnt Offerings. (as a control group)

Then we do a phone poll on all the players, run the results through some statistics magic, and find out once and for all what is the one, true way to write up adventures, encounters, NPCS, and monsters.

All published adventures to follow will stand on the shoulders of this groundbreaking study of the proper way to write a professional D&D-style RPG adventure.


** Note that the adventures must be run exactly as published with no extemporaneous adlibbing by either the DM or the players. The adventures must be run exactly as written to ensure scientific fidelity.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 20, 2010)

_Keep_ gets as much crap as it does because for many people that _was_ their introduction to 4e.  For a good number of people it came out before the Core books did.

If it weren't for that it would just be another lousy adventure in WotC's long standing history of them.

But because it was in many ways the "face" of 4e, it's given a much harsher treatment.

I don't hate 4e.  I think at least combat wise 4e can be lots of fun.  But I can't find a 4e game going amongst my friends because, for many of them, _Keep_ was their introduction - and they want nothing to do with the game after it.

On the other hand, it's easy to find a Pathfinder game, because the DM can easily buy a Paizo adventure for it, run it as it is, and have a damn good time with the group.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 20, 2010)

*Piratecat here. While I understand what inspired this post, please report problematic posts instead of responding to them. You can report a post using the small triangular "!" at the bottom left of every post.*



Beginning of the End said:


> The real problem seems to be an inability to convince you that we're not looking at the underlying design philosophy behind both the stat blocks and the combat-happy WotC modules.




No.  The real problem seems to be your inability to accept that the WoTC approach has huge advantages as well as disadvantages.



> I'm saying that you have a stuffy nose and a nasty cough because you have the flu. You're saying, "I don't see how a stuffy nose could possibly be giving me a nasty cough!"




No.  I'm saying I don't have a cough at all.  I have a stuffy nose, you have the cough.  But you are trying to claim I have one and then trying to diagnose my hayfever as flu.



> Ignoring the flawed premise that monsters never do anything in the game outside of combat, there are still at least three flaws in Noonan's logic:
> 
> (1) It assumes tactical inflexibility. It assumes that the monster should always do the exact same thing no matter what the PCs do. By saying "they'll only be around for 5 rounds so they should only have 5 rounds worth of stuff to do", you are concluding that they should never have multiple options (which would allow them to respond to a variety of situations).




This is a mixture of a misunderstanding and a deception.

The misunderstanding is that the relevant skills are anything other than the protagonist ones in the way you run 4e.  If it's opposed, the PCs roll at a target number based on the monster's approach and abilities.  Saves time and a dice roll and is mathematically the same.  If it's unopposed, it's DM fiat.  And did you seriously make every monster interact with every other monster when the PCs weren't on the screen?

The deception is that except in rare cases (spellcasting monsters), 4e isn't a hell of a long way ahead of 3e in terms of options for the monsters.  For one thing it has actually different options for different monsters.  It's not that I'm ill.  It's that you're trying to transfer the illnesses you have onto me.



> (2) It assumes monsters will never be re-used. Because if they were going to be re-used, it might be valuable to have some variety between those encounters.




Um.  You are talking about 4e here rather than 3.X/Pathfinder?  A non-caster in 3.X can ... attack.  Or possibly sunder or trip.  Same as every other damn 3.X monster in the game.

There is more difference between a generic 4e goblin and kobold than a 3e kobold and orc (and arguably a 3e kobold and ettin).  Yet you mysteriously aren't saying that you can't re-use 3e goblins.



> (3) It assumes that multiple versions of the same monster will never appear in the same combat.




Except they do and this isn't a problem.  Yet mysteriously there isn't a problem using multiple 3e Chain Devils in an encounter, let alone multiple ogres.



> Monsters only last 5 rounds and nothing they do outside of those 5 rounds matters?




Nothing the monsters do when offstage needs rolling for.



> Even if we accept the premise, if we have an encounter with 5 of those monsters at the same time and each of them survives an average of 5 rounds, then that stat block actually needs to fill up 25 rounds worth of actions.




Um...  Anything you say.  Me, I find that if every monster does a completely different action every time you aren't fighting monsters so much as random grab bags of abilities with no coherence.  (And high level 3e spellcasting monsters are Wizards in a Skin Suit - the part that matters is that they can cast the same skills as other wizards).  Ogres should move like ogres.  And that means they _should_ repeatedly bash people over the head with clubs.  But they do do different things in different situations and the situation changes over the rounds and based on their positioning.

The statblock for a 3e goblin fills up precisely one round of actions.  So you only ever use one goblin once?



> There are lots of reasons why combat in 4th Edition has gotten the "grind" level, but one of the problems are the shallow, bland, inflexible stat blocks.




Bland?  There's more fluff in the difference between Shifty and Goblin Tactics is than between the entire Goblin and Ettin statblocks in 3e.

Inflexible?  It's a hell of a lot easier IME to customise monsters in 4e than 3.X (the Monster Builder helps, admittedly).

Shallow?  Compared to 3e?  Where all the monsters move the same?

No, grind's not to do with the statblocks on those counts.  It's to do with the MMI giving far too little damage to many critters, DMs going outside competence, and a lack of focus.



> It's not just an issue of space: The Delve Format (and, to a large extent, the entire design of 4th Edition) is about the "perfectly balanced tactical encounter".
> 
> This quest for "perfect balance" inherently limits interactivity and minimizes player impact on a strategic level.




The quest for every encounter to be balanced does, I agree.  On the other hand, the quest for every encounter to provide the DM with sufficient information to know what will work simply provides the DM and module writer with much better tools and knowledge to be able to know what will work.  And to then throw the unbalanced ones at the PC.



> What Noonan said: "Until the moment they interact with the PCs, they’re in a state of stasis. And five rounds later, they’re done."




They are in narrative stasis.  No dice are being rolled for them.  And success or failure is a matter of DM fiat.



> I'm not sure what you think is being misrepresented here. The NPCs don't do anything until the PCs see them, as soon as the PCs see them combat will start, and "five rounds later, they're done".




The big question is what happens to characters when the actors aren't on stage - and it is a pretty open one.  Watch Rozencrantz and Gildenstern are dead.  The answer 4e has taken is that they are at that point in the mind of the DM and players and don't need rolling for.  And the statblock contains the things you roll for.  Physical Stasis != Narrative Stasis.  (Or do you seriously roll for all your monsters when DMing when they aren't interacting with PCs?  For that matter do you DM?)



> I just got done telling you that the problem is the underlying design premise that NPCs don't do anything outside of combat, but you're still trying to distract the issue by talking about stat block methodology.




No.  We're pointing out that you are talking out of your hat.  And the stat blocks demonstrate this.


----------



## Rechan (May 20, 2010)

It's been well dissected that Paizo and WotC are two very different beasts, especially when it comes to adventure writing.

Paizo:
Smaller, dedicated fanbase.
Online focused model (Subscription based, strong PDFs)
Extensive customer service.
Staff dedicated to interacting with fans and responding on the internet. 
Talented staff with lots of resources on module writing. 
Weight of Dungeon and Dragon magazines as reputation.
*Fewer staff.*

WotC
Largest RPG company.
Dead-tree focused. 
Resources put all over the place (D&D rules, boardgames, M:tG)

Saying that Paizo doesn't charge much for a module means that WotC doesn't need to charge much is just not a fair comparison. 

WotC has to appeal to a wider audience, newbies and people who do not use the Internet at all. Their modules need to stay in print longer and sit on the shelves at FLGSs. WotC is the _largest gaming company_ and thus, for a product to break even or be profitable, it must sell *many more* units than a Paizo module to be considered a success. By Paizo's modules being in PFRPG rather than the broader 3.5, they've ensured that fewer people are going to buy their modules, so they have designed their business strategy around that. Cultivate a loyal fanbase and keep getting them to buy, vs WotC's business model 'throw it out there and get the most to buy it as possible'. 

In the link I provided above, someone gave a quote from an FLGS owner in how he doesn't sell Paizo products because Paizo offers so many incentives for customers to buy online, compared to WotC who does free events at FLGSes and otherwise tosses support to the FLGS. 

Not only does WotC expect more, but they've been given less room to work with; the new module (HS1) is 36 pages! In the thread "Help WotC make Better Modules", it was stated that 36 is the new limit for WotC modules. Considering the amount of detail and effort and re-writing 4 times folks want, you just _cannot_ churn out gold in 36 pages and expect it facilitating everyone.

There is way more going on than just "What people will pay for a module". Brand loyalty and yes, edition. But also, I suspect that people who buy Paizo modules may very well be different kinds of gamers, different people, compared to those who are going to buy a WotC module.  

Simply put, Paizo is the best of the best, and saying "Well I expect everyone to operate on the bar set by the best" isn't a fair expectation. Nor is "I expect the biggest gaming company's prices to compare to a small third party company's".


----------



## Wicht (May 20, 2010)

Rechan said:


> By Paizo's modules being in PFRPG rather than the broader 3.5, they've ensured that fewer people are going to buy their modules, so they have designed their business strategy around that.




I hate to keep arguing with you about Paizo but I don't think they have done any such thing.  I get the feeling that they are selling many more modules now than they were 2 years ago.  While it may be true that WotC is the bigger company and sells more Core Rulebooks (at the moment) I would love for you to show me what proof you have that WotC sells more modules more regularly.

Furthermore, smaller print runs cost more, not less.  Therefore it would be logical to assume the smaller company, printing less books must sell for a higher price.  You have it exactly backwards.

Also, also - You seem to be implying that Paizo's focus on the PDF somehow lessens their cost for print, but that doesn't work.  Printing still cost money and Paizo gives the PDFs away for free to us subscribers, after knocking 15% of their prices. 

So I get more from Paizo for less and you are telling me its because as a smaller company it doesn't cost them as much.  I'm not sure I believe that. Paizo pays for good artists.  They pay their freelance writers (I am told) as much as just about anybody in the business, excepting WotC in their hayday. They print on quality stock.  And they still manage to keep their prices down.  I would suspect it has more to do with management and less to do with company size.


----------



## Wicht (May 20, 2010)

Incidentally Rechan, Where you aware that Paizo, in the last few years has put out...

Card Games,
Board games,
Map tiles,
Game aids in the form of card decks, 
a line of republished sf/fantasy novels,
a successful new rule set with 2 books out and 2 more on the way this year,
they have entered into a license agreement to have their own line of miniatures
and that their gameworld novel line starts up later this year.
They have their own small convention, a major online store and a successful Pathfinder Society.

Paizo does a little more than just modules.


----------



## Umbran (May 20, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> To raise a bigger question: why does any of this need to be edition-specific?




Because the presentation of the adventure is edition specific.  It is not enough to say, "design an adventure that has these specific qualities".  Any of us GMs can probably do it for ourselves, for either edition, and run it at our table.  But a hefty portion of it would never make it into notes - it'd remain in our heads.

For publication, at the end there needs to be a real, usable document that contains all of it.  The real challenge doesn't lie in the adventure design, but in the expression of that design in each edition.

Now, add onto that a bit of game design (not adventure design) philosophy:  4e does not seem to be designed for the DM to have "stats for everything" (for an NPC or otherwise).  The intent seems to be that like in much earlier editions, the DM is supposed to handle a lot of stuff with less explicit mechanical support, and be "old school" about it, if you will.

But you seem to want mechanical support expressed for that same stuff.  See the conflict?


----------



## BryonD (May 20, 2010)

pemerton said:


> In 4e I don't _need_ a stat block to help me with non-combat encounters, because (to the extent that these are handled mechanically) these are resolved via skill challenges, with DCs set in accordance with the rules in the DMG and DMG2.



True.  But everything is relative.  I know there are a lot of people who really enjoy having more depth to non-combat than simply "these are resolved via skill challenges, with DCs set in accordance with the rules in the DMG and DMG2."




> In short, tactical flexibility and variety is not just a function of a monster's statblock. It's also a function of something closer to the ordinary meaning of "tactics" - combination of forces, terrain etc.



True.  But everything is relative.
Tactical flexibility is a sum of numerous elements.  How the monster is built is certainly one key element.  Combination of forces is another.  Terrain is yet another.  There are certainly more, but I'd agree these will be pretty dominant.

However, combination of forces and terrain and other such elements can be varied under any system.  So giving a particular system credit for the variety that these changes provides is kinda disingenuous to the actual point.  The question is: does the system mechanics (creature stat block specifically in the case, but not limited to that) add to the game beyond what simply changes tactics and terrain gives to ANY game?

For 4E the answer is YES.  Very much yes.  4E is a good game.

But, there are better games out there.  And it is reasonable to say that, compared to those games, the statblocks and mechanics of 4E don't provide enough tactical flexibility.


----------



## Scribble (May 20, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Well, if you agree with the statement that NPCs will never interact with PCs except for 5 rounds of combat, then there's really not much else to be said.
> 
> The original post talked about the disparity between Noonan's statement and the statement: "Combat is a part of stories and fiction solely there to provide drama,  but endless slogs with monsters and NPCs I don't care about have zero  drama."
> 
> I disagree with Noonan and agree with the other guy. You obviously disagree with the other guy and agree with Noonan.




Please don't tell me what I "obviously think" thanks.

I agree with both. If you read some of the things I've said, I would like more non combat elements added to WoTC adventures. None of my home games are combat only either.

I DO NOT, however, believe the non combat stuff needs to be in a combat stat block. 

I also believe that because of this a lot of what I consider "noise" can be taken out of the stat block. 

In a combat stat block give me what I need to run the monster/npc well for roughly the amount of time it will exist in combat (should the PCs manage to kill it) even if I've only ever seen the creature once before.



> I keep hearing how easy it is to reskin in 4th Edition, but now you're telling me that you never re-use a stat block? Weird.




Sure- In a single fight, probably, sometimes between sightings of the same type, but more often then not, they won't encounter exactly the same stat block. 



> (You're about to tell me that that isn't what you said. But it is. Re-read your post until you figure out why.)




I will happily debate with someone about differing opinions anytime, however, if that person starts to get into "Look at me I'm psychic arrogant tells me what I'm thinking" mode.... I'm no longer interested.

If you want to keep talking awesome- but if you want to keep trying to insult me, or talk down to me, I'ma talk to someone else. 



> And each round each of those monsters gets to take an action. What's five times five?




Yes, 5 x 5 i= 25... But if it takes 5 hours to get from here to East Overtheresville, putting 5 people in the car isn't going to suddenly turn it into a 25 hour trip!  (Although I suppose if one of those people is your mother in law it might FEEL like 25 hours...)


----------



## Scribble (May 20, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> The concept of a monster vendomatic is giving me all kinds of evil ideas right now.
> 
> Scribble, please prepare for my players not to like you very much...
> 
> Lan-"but does it give back change?"-efan




Just make sure the Wizard has some food. Because you know... he needs it.... Badly.


----------



## Rechan (May 20, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Incidentally Rechan, Where you aware that Paizo, in the last few years has put out...



I'm on Paizo's site about once a week. Back when I followed the messageboards, a lot more than that. So yes, I'm aware.

Just because they DO more than modules, however, does not mean that modules are not the lionshare of their work or revenue. If we completely removed the sales and profits of modules from Paizo, do you honestly believe the company would break even?

AND many of those same things are tie-ins to their modules. The card decks are items/other things that are found in their modules. The Harrow deck is linked specifically to Curse of the Crimson Throne. 

Simply put, when I say the words "Paizo", yoru average gamer (who is even aware of Paizo) is going to think "Modules/APs". When I say "WotC", you do not think of anything beyond D&D.


----------



## Rechan (May 20, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I get the feeling that they are selling many more modules now than they were 2 years ago.



It would SHOCK me if this were the case.



> While it may be true that WotC is the bigger company and sells more Core Rulebooks (at the moment) I would love for you to show me what proof you have that WotC sells more modules more regularly.



 I'm saying that Paizo _needs_ to sell less compared to WotC for the module to be considered a success. 

And I do think that WotC sells more modules in general, _if for no other reason_ because they have more exposure. I can walk into any Barns & Nobles, Borders, etc and I'm going to find at least _one_ module on the shelf. Same with any gaming store. Now, how many of those do you think I'm going to find a Pathfinder module? 

Paizo is focusing on a specialized market (those who used to play 3.5 and then updated to Pathfinder, and are internet savvy enough to follow). WotC is just selling to anyone who is now playing 4e. 

There's no way for either of us to prove anything, considering that Paizo nor WotC releases any sort of info on their sales. So both of us are going purely on our perceptions and assumptions.



> Furthermore, smaller print runs cost more, not less.  Therefore it would be logical to assume the smaller company, printing less books must sell for a higher price.  You have it exactly backwards.



If that were the case, then Paizo's modules would cost more. 



> Also, also - You seem to be implying that Paizo's focus on the PDF somehow lessens their cost for print, but that doesn't work.  Printing still cost money and Paizo gives the PDFs away for free to us subscribers, after knocking 15% of their prices.



What? 



> I would suspect it has more to do with management and less to do with company size.



I really don't see how management has any impact on it.


----------



## MrMyth (May 20, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Oh c'mon! You guys are trolling me right?
> 
> I say, "I'm not talking about how stat blocks are used in combat." And I get somebody replying to everything as if I were talking about how stat blocks are used in combat.
> 
> So then I say, "Fine, let's talk about stat blocks in combat." And I get somebody replying to my post as if I were talking about scenarios outside of combat.




I'm not sure what the confusion is. I tried to address _both _scenarios. Inside of combat, there are plenty of tactical options for PCs - as pemerton did a great job of explaining. Outside of combat, the monster's stat block gives them the elements you need to handle most non-combat interactions, whether that is a chase scene, a negotiation, PCs sneaking past monsters or vice versa...

In fact, I'm even more confused how this comes across as trolling. If we've successfully demonstrated that stat blocks are versatile both in _and_ out of combat, doesn't that end the debate entirely? 

If it doesn't, then... what are you looking for? I'm willing to accept your accusation of trolling was spoken in jest, but you could at least respond to our actual points rather than act like we are somehow trying to change the terms of the debate!



Beginning of the End said:


> ... unless, of course, a compound went on alert and they were trying to track down the PCs.
> 
> This is exactly what I'm talking about: You remove non-combat options from the game because they're "not particularly relevant in combat" and then you wonder why your modules don't have any non-combat options. Geez, I wonder if there might be a connection!




And that's the very point I was making! The discussion should be about which abilities are worth preserving and which are not. I think Detect Thoughts makes a good example of this. 

But I also think that there is a tendency here to try and extrapolate more from a single example than is merited. Are you saying that if a compound goes on alert and the monsters are trying to track down the PCs, that the lack of Detect Thoughts means that scenario can never actually happen? Aren't the monsters capable of searching for the PCs in ordinary ways? And don't some monsters still have relevant special features in such a scene, whether it be special sensory abilities (truesight, tremorsense, etc) or various objects or rituals that might aid in revealing PCs? 

That's the heart of the debate. Detect Thoughts is an example of something that would very occasionally have a scenario in which it is especially useful. Noonan would, perhaps, feel that these scenarios are rare enough that it is not needed to be preserved in the stat block. Some might agree, some might object. That's one thing. 

But the argument your side is making is somehow extrapolating that this means he has, or wants to, "remove all non-combat options from the game".

That's just not true. Movement, skills, ability scores, languages, perception abilities - all of these remain in every stat block, and provide all sorts of non-combat options. Most special abilities might not be applicable outside of combat, but there are still some that are - along with many that give pretty good guidance on what a creature can do out of combat. ProfessorCirno had his discussion over how a Paizo statblock was so much more useful than a 4E statblock because of how much insight it gave into the NPC - but we demonstrated that 4E statblocks can provide just as much flavor and insight. 

Say you have a monster who can dominate a PC temporarily in combat. The 4E approach is for the DM to then extrapolate what it can do to NPCs out of combat - likely having more extended control of thralls. It doesn't need the exact specifics, because you shouldn't ever need to actually roll out a battle between two NPCs. 

So, we both have statblocks that provide complete relevant rules on how an NPC can interact outside of combat, while also providing elements that enhance the flavor and personality of the NPC in question, along with a rules system that supports expanding on a creature's abilities when it comes to off-scene actions. 

That does not sound like the removal of all non-combat options to me. 

Now, will there _still_ be scenarios in which a 3.5 monster has more options than a 4E one? Sure. But having _less options_ doesn't mean it has _no options_ out of combat, as people are claiming. And in return, we do have easier to use stat blocks that are generally more exciting in actual play. It is a trade-off - but not one nearly as extreme as some seem to believe. 

As others have asked, Beginning of the End - how much 4E experience do you have? You've raised some claims that 4E statblocks are 'stale, bland, dull, inflexible', and that they lead to boring repetitive encounters. I'm pretty sure many would disagree - it is considered a strength of 4E that encounters play out in exciting and distinct ways. (As others have mentioned - an encounter that consists of 5 copies of the same monster is completely against standard 4E encounter design.)


----------



## Fifth Element (May 20, 2010)

BryonD said:


> True.  But everything is relative.  I know there are a lot of people who really enjoy having more depth to non-combat than simply "these are resolved via skill challenges, with DCs set in accordance with the rules in the DMG and DMG2."



Yes, but what things that would provide this greater depth would be included in a statblock?


----------



## Wicht (May 20, 2010)

Rechan:

1) Are you really suggesting that Paizo is shrinking as a market force?  That makes me think you are not paying close attention to the situation or you are allowing biases to prejudice your judgment.  

2) I'm not sure what you misunderstood about the PDFs, but let me be clear.  Paizo gives away their PDFs to subscribers of their lines.  They furthermore give a 15% discount on all their merchandise to subscribers to their adventure Path.  As a subscriber I pay $13.99 for the adventure paths, get a hard copy in the mail and get the PDF of each book for free.  I pay $11.89 for a module, get a hard copy in the mail and get the PDF of the module for free. 

3) Arguing that smaller print runs don't cost more per book is pretty silly.  Any publisher will tell you that per book, larger print runs are cheaper.  In point of fact, if you talk to the Piazo guys, and they're pretty accessible about this sort of thing, they will tell you they don't reprint their modules or APs because smaller print runs cost more, giving them less profit, and reprints don't sell out as fast.  This is why publishing companies only reprint hot sellers or evergreen books.  You should expect to pay less for a large mass market book simply because the print run costs less per book.  

4) As for your point about not being able to see how management might impact quality, price control and company growth, well, I'm pretty much at a loss as to how to respond to such thinking.


----------



## Rechan (May 20, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Rechan:
> 
> 1) Are you really suggesting that Paizo is shrinking as a market force?



Where do you get "shrinking" from? No. 



> 2) I'm not sure what you misunderstood about the PDFs, but let me be clear.  Paizo gives away their PDFs to subscribers of their lines.  They furthermore give a 15% discount on all their merchandise to subscribers to their adventure Path.  As a subscriber I pay $13.99 for the adventure paths, get a hard copy in the mail and get the PDF of each book for free.  I pay $11.89 for a module, get a hard copy in the mail and get the PDF of the module for free.
> 
> 3) Arguing that smaller print runs don't cost more per book is pretty silly.  Any publisher will tell you that per book, larger print runs are cheaper.  In point of fact, if you talk to the Piazo guys, and they're pretty accessible about this sort of thing, they will tell you they don't reprint their modules or APs because smaller print runs cost more, giving them less profit, and reprints don't sell out as fast.  This is why publishing companies only reprint hot sellers or evergreen books.  You should expect to pay less for a large mass market book simply because the print run costs less per book.



Taking all of this into consideration:

How can you explain how a smaller company can print fewer books (and thus pay more), and offer a huge discount for subscription, pay the same for labor, offer _lower_ prices, and make a significant profit?

There's more than just "management finesse" going on, guy.


----------



## Wicht (May 20, 2010)

If Paizo is not Shrinking then they are either growing or stagnating.  Growth would suggest they are selling more today than 2 years ago.  So what's so shocking to you?

Management works both ways. Poor management can result in higher prices and lower quality. Good management can set price goals and profit margins they feel comfortable with in such a way as to give better bargains. And don't discount the effects of having one of the most experience RPG bosses in the business running your company.  

Also, there you go again assuming fewer books are being printed.  I have no clue how many modules WotC actually sells/prints/etc. or for that matter how many Paizo prints.

Paizo actively goes with whomever can print a given book the cheapest and will use a different printer for their hardcovers than they use for their APs and modules.  I don't know what printing practices WotC favors.


----------



## MrMyth (May 20, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Yes, 5 x 5 i= 25... But if it takes 5 hours to get from here to East Overtheresville, putting 5 people in the car isn't going to suddenly turn it into a 25 hour trip! (Although I suppose if one of those people is your mother in law it might FEEL like 25 hours...)




To be fair, I understand what he is saying here. He isn't saying the cmobat takes 25 rounds. 

He is saying that over the course of it, monsters take 25 attacks. If every monster only has 2-3 options, and you have 5 of the same monster, you will see the same attacks over and over again. 

But it is flawed argument for several reasons. 

1) An encounter with 5 copies of the same monster is completely against the encounter design of 4E. It is a badly designed encounter to begin with - of course it will have flaws!

2) If the combat is over in 5 rounds, each monster won't necessarily live that long. Some will be dying out in rounds 3 and 4, and so forth. 

3) Not every attack of the same type will resolve the same. Misses, crits, etc. Say we did have an encounter with 5 Orc Raiders. So, let's assume 25 attacks overall. Each has two attacks - melee with a greataxe, ranged with a hand-axe. They also each get one special attack in melee that can heal them. So let's assume we'll see 10 Greataxe attacks, 10 Hand-axe attacks, and 5 Warrior's Surges. 

But wait - they are also encouraged to charge (with higher charging speeds), and ranged attacks from up close ignore cover and concealment. So the fight probably starts out much more tactical - the orcs likely make use of cover and concealment that won't help the opponents against their hand-axes, while also trying to draw the party members away from each other. Then, as combat descends into melee and orcs get bloodied, they start fighting like proper orcs with greataxes - and can go charging about, taking advantage of their greater speeds to overwhelm isolated opponents. Those who themselves get surrounded use Warrior's Surge to keep up the good fight!

So now, over the course of a battle, we'll see 5 Greataxe attacks, 5 Greataxe charges, 5 Hand-axe attacks, 5 Killer's Eye Handaxe attacks, and 5 Warrior's Surges. And amidst all that, changing conditions as the field moves around, and combat moves into and out of the terrain, and switches back and forth between ranged and melee combat. All of that from a natural set of tactics encouraged and supported by their basic features. 

And keep in mind - this is a pretty basic level 3 orc. Most fights will have a broader range of enemies, often with more abilities and more synergy. 

Will enemies get reused? Sure, in certain environments. But fights tend to be pretty distinct. And... checking the compendium, there are 62 results for orcs. Ignoring simple variations, named enemies from adventures, etc, I count 23 distinct types of orcs available from the Monster Manual and 2 DDI articles. Assume each fight has 2-3 types of enemies, and that should give you enough to fill an entire orc dungeon with different and distinct fights. 

Now, not every creature type will have such variation. But most will have a decent amount, you can get a ton more through customizing monsters and using templates, and how often do you need to populate entire dungeons with a single type of monster?

Which brings us to the next point...

4) How does this compare to earlier editions? How much variation was there among melee monsters in 3.5? Isn't a specific criticism the fact that most melee combats descended into "5' step, full round" until someone dropped? Casters were exciting, sure. But you were much more likely to see rooms filled with a half-dozen identical orcs in 3.5. Filling an entire dungeon with them while avoiding repetition? Yeah, good luck with that. 

This isn't to say fights were inherently dull and disappointing. But this really is the first time I've heard 4E accused of dull and stale statblocks leading to mindlessly repetitive encounters. It certainly doesn't match my own experience with the game.


----------



## billd91 (May 20, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> 1) An encounter with 5 copies of the same monster is completely against the encounter design of 4E. It is a badly designed encounter to begin with - of course it will have flaws!




Man, I find I dislike 4e more and more and it's precisely because of things like this.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 20, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Have we established that this is the one fundamental difference between Paizo and WotC adventures? Does Paizo charge 50% more for their products?




No.  They have demonstrated the ability to make and sell a superior product at 50% less.

He may be looking at the proposal to take existing WotC adventures and provide multiple approaches for every encounter, but the problem to begin with is that WotC are not well thought out.  What was suggested was a method of thinking them out better.

AFAICT, the high price point of WotC modules is based off the Delve format -- Half the bang for your buck delivered straight to you at twice the cost!


RC


----------



## MrMyth (May 20, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Man, I find I dislike 4e more and more and it's precisely because of things like this.




An approach that encourages more interesting and engaging encounters is something to _dislike_? 

There is nothing saying you can't have a fight with 10 Orc Warriors. But fights are more exciting if you have a half-dozen Orc Grunts, 2-3 skilled Orc Raiders, along with an Orc Chieftain leading the band and his advisor, an Eye of Gruumsh. It's an encounter that will be both more tactically interesting, while also having more flavor and narrative in the game itself. 

I'm genuinely interested in hearing why you think this is a bad thing.


----------



## Rechan (May 20, 2010)

Wicht said:


> If Paizo is not Shrinking then they are either growing or stagnating.  Growth would suggest they are selling more today than 2 years ago.  So what's so shocking to you?



You said their place in the market. _Not_ the number of modules sold.


----------



## Umbran (May 20, 2010)

BryonD said:


> But, there are better games out there.  And it is reasonable to say that, compared to those games, the statblocks and mechanics of 4E don't provide enough tactical flexibility.




... for you.

There are better games out there _*for you*_.

It is reasonable to say that 4e doesn't provide enough tactical flexibility _*for you*_.

This is one of those times and threads where the "IMHO" really needs to be stated, not assumed.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 20, 2010)

Rechan said:


> You said their place in the market. _Not_ the number of modules sold.




"I get the feeling that they are selling many more modules now than they were 2 years ago." is the exact quote, to which you replied "It would SHOCK me if this were the case."



RC


----------



## Imaro (May 20, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> An approach that encourages more interesting and engaging encounters is something to _dislike_?
> 
> There is nothing saying you can't have a fight with 10 Orc Warriors. But fights are more exciting if you have a half-dozen Orc Grunts, 2-3 skilled Orc Raiders, along with an Orc Chieftain leading the band and his advisor, an Eye of Gruumsh. It's an encounter that will be both more tactically interesting, while also having more flavor and narrative in the game itself.
> 
> I'm genuinely interested in hearing why you think this is a bad thing.




Why is it assumed in 3.x that you would be fighting 10 orc warriors.  Why wouldn't you be fighting 5 orc warriors, 2 orc scouts, 2 orc clerics and an orc barbarian?  This is just something thats been bugging me as far as the assumptons in this discussion go... 3e was designed so that you or a module writer can customize monsters in tons of ways... why is this being ignored?


----------



## billd91 (May 20, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> An approach that encourages more interesting and engaging encounters is something to _dislike_?
> 
> There is nothing saying you can't have a fight with 10 Orc Warriors. But fights are more exciting if you have a half-dozen Orc Grunts, 2-3 skilled Orc Raiders, along with an Orc Chieftain leading the band and his advisor, an Eye of Gruumsh. It's an encounter that will be both more tactically interesting, while also having more flavor and narrative in the game itself.
> 
> I'm genuinely interested in hearing why you think this is a bad thing.




No, I dislike an approach that assumes that encounter that doesn't have NPCs that are built differently is somehow *flawed*. I've always been able to mix up the way I include different NPCs in my encounters. I've also never had much of a problem with making NPCs behave differently and use different tactics even if they've been all built the same.


----------



## MrMyth (May 20, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Why is it assumed in 3.x that you would be fighting 10 orc warriors. Why wouldn't you be fighting 5 orc warriors, 2 orc scouts, 2 orc clerics and an orc barbarian? This is just something thats been bugging me as far as the assumptons in this discussion go... 3e was designed so that you or a module writer can customize monsters in tons of ways... why is this being ignored?




I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. I certainly think it was less common - and often more work for the DM - in 3.5 to populate an encounter with a diverse group of enemies, but it was certainly doable, both in home games and adventures. 

But the specific post I was responding to was someone who said the encouragement of an encounter with different enemies was something he disliked about 4E. My assumption would be that he thus preferred an encounter with 10 orc warriors. It wasn't a commentary on 3.5, but on his specific tastes, and my apologies if I made it sound otherwise.


----------



## MrMyth (May 20, 2010)

billd91 said:


> No, I dislike an approach that assumes that encounter that doesn't have NPCs that are built differently is somehow *flawed*. I've always been able to mix up the way I include different NPCs in my encounters. I've also never had much of a problem with making NPCs behave differently and use different tactics even if they've been all built the same.




Ok, I do see what you are saying better now. And you are right - a good DM can definitely keep such encounters interesting. Every enemy being the same mechanically doesn't mean they act the same tactically, or display the same personality. 

But I do think it is fair to say that encounters with more diversity are inherently more interesting, both for the DM to run and the players to experience. And that is the 4E philosophy - to encourage that diversity. An encounter with 5 identical enemies isn't the end of the world. But it is something that shouldn't be the default. For most DMs, it is more engaging to run an orc band that has one or two leaders, several warriors, and a number of grunts. Even if you can just take 10 identical guys and have one act like the chief and a few act like his bodyguards, I think something is lost of he is identical to the least of his grunts. It certainly works in a pinch, but wouldn't be an approach I think most would favor. 

Nonetheless, your preferred gaming style is certainly your own choice to make. But I will still find it strange that you actively dislike 4E for taking this approach. If you don't choose to use it, it certainly doesn't impede your games - and I think it benefits many, many others.


----------



## Imaro (May 20, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. I certainly think it was less common - and often more work for the DM - in 3.5 to populate an encounter with a diverse group of enemies, but it was certainly doable, both in home games and adventures.
> 
> But the specific post I was responding to was someone who said the encouragement of an encounter with different enemies was something he disliked about 4E. My assumption would be that he thus preferred an encounter with 10 orc warriors. It wasn't a commentary on 3.5, but on his specific tastes, and my apologies if I made it sound otherwise.




Nope, I apologize, I read it wrong and interpreted it with a bias that I felt was being expressed in this thread.  Sorry about that.


----------



## MrMyth (May 20, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Nope, I apologize, I read it wrong and interpreted it with a bias that I felt was being expressed in this thread. Sorry about that.




Hey, no worries, always better to try and get these things clarified - and given that I think there are useful areas of this discussion to still explore, making sure things don't stray purely into edition-delineated arguments is certainly a good thing!


----------



## Wicht (May 20, 2010)

Rechan said:


> You said their place in the market. _Not_ the number of modules sold.




Am I understanding that you think they are a *bigger* market force but are selling *less* than they were two years ago.  That is their product output is shrinking but their market influence is growing?


----------



## billd91 (May 20, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Ok, I do see what you are saying better now. And you are right - a good DM can definitely keep such encounters interesting. Every enemy being the same mechanically doesn't mean they act the same tactically, or display the same personality.
> 
> <snip>
> For most DMs, it is more engaging to run an orc band that has one or two leaders, several warriors, and a number of grunts. Even if you can just take 10 identical guys and have one act like the chief and a few act like his bodyguards, I think something is lost of he is identical to the least of his grunts. It certainly works in a pinch, but wouldn't be an approach I think most would favor.
> ...




I actively dislike 4e for a lot of things, some of which probably stem more from ignorant 4e fans than the game itself. For instance, anyone who thinks that orc groups were undifferentiated warriors in any edition previous to 4e hasn't really been paying attention to the orc entries in the Monster Manuals, yet some 4e fans seem to think it's novel. So, in some ways, I think 4e suffers in my esteem because of the company it keeps.
That doesn't mean there are real design philosophies I dislike (like Noonan's statement indicates) but there you have it.


----------



## Barastrondo (May 20, 2010)

billd91 said:


> So, in some ways, I think 4e suffers in my esteem because of the company it keeps.




Every game ever suffers in someone's esteem for that reason. I try to balance it out by taking into account that there are some really talented, excellent human beings out there who enjoy almost any system I can name. (The few exceptions are not worth naming.) Otherwise I couldn't play _anything_.


----------



## Beginning of the End (May 20, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> The deception is that except in rare cases (spellcasting monsters), 4e isn't a hell of a long way ahead of 3e in terms of options for the monsters.




You can't have it both ways: Either 4th Edition stat blocks feature more options for monsters or they feature fewer options for monsters. Make up your mind.



> Or do you seriously roll for all your monsters when DMing when they aren't interacting with PCs?




I never said that I did.

What we're talking about is the interaction between NPCs and PCs. You, like Noonan, are apparently equating "things happening outside of combat" with "time the PCs aren't interacting with the NPCs".

The middle that you're falsely excluding is that many of us run adventures that aren't combat slogs. Stuff happens outside of combat. The actions of NPCs are not limited to 5 rounds of combat and "they're done".

It is, as I have said before, _precisely_ this attitude of "five rounds later, they're done" -- an attitude that NPCs don't exist outside of combat -- on the part of the WotC designers that results in modules which don't have anything happening outside of combat.

The connection between "I don't think NPCs exist outside of combat" and "I've designed an adventure in which nothing happens outside of combat" is so crystal clear I am baffled that there are people in this thread (or anywhere else) arguing that there isn't a connection.



Scribble said:


> I agree with both. If you read some of the  things I've said, I would like more non combat elements added to WoTC  adventures. None of my home games are combat only either.




Then why did you describe Noonan's claim that NPCs exist only in combat a being a "truthful statement"?



> Yes, 5 x 5 i= 25... But if it takes 5 hours to get from here to East  Overtheresville, putting 5 people in the car isn't going to suddenly  turn it into a 25 hour trip!  (Although I suppose if one of those people  is your mother in law it might FEEL like 25 hours...)




What relevance does that have to what we're talking about?

Each round each NPC has to select an action. If there are 5 NPCs using the same stat block and 5 rounds, then 25 actions have to be selected from that stat block.

(In reality the number is actually higher because of passive and reactionary abilities.)

There might be a couple of abilities out there where two identical creatures have to cooperate to achieve a particular effect (which would be analogous to everyone in the car participating in the same activity), but they're the exception to the rule.



MrMyth said:


> 2) If the combat is over in 5 rounds, each monster won't  necessarily  live that long. Some will be dying out in rounds 3 and 4, and so  forth.




What I actually said (echoing what Noonan said): "If we have an encounter with 5 of those monsters at the same time and  each of them survives an *average* of 5 rounds, then that stat block  actually needs to fill up 25 rounds worth of actions." (emphasis added)

Some monsters will last 1 round. Some monsters will last 9 rounds. But if their average lifespan is 5 rounds and there are 5 of them, then they will have 25 actions (assuming 1 action per round).



MrMyth said:


> That's the heart of the debate. Detect Thoughts is  an example of  something that would very occasionally have a scenario in which it is  especially useful. Noonan would, perhaps, feel that these scenarios are  rare enough that it is not needed to be preserved in the stat block.  Some might agree, some might object. That's one thing.




I agree. That is the heart of the debate.

And I'm arguing that when you use "is this ability useful in combat?" as your standard for whether or not abilities should be cut, then it's highly suggestive that your focus is on combat. Furthermore, the implications for applying this standard in terms of support for combat encounters vs. non-combat content is clear.

And, furthermore, when that question is being asked because your underlying philosophy is that NPCs and PCs don't interact outside of combat, the impact of that philosophy on your adventure design should be obvious.



> (As others have mentioned - an encounter that consists of 5 copies of  the same monster is completely against standard 4E encounter  design.)




Someone should tell WotC's designers.

Let's take _Keep on the Shadowfell_. There are 14 encounters 5+ copies of the same monster (On the Road, A2, A3, Area 4, Area 5, Area 7, Area 9, Area 10, Interlude 3, Area 12, Area 13, Area 17, Area 18, Area 19); there are 6 encounters with 3-4 copies (A1, A4, Area 2, Area 3, Area 6, Area 14); and only 4 encounters without 3+ duplicate stat blocks (Area 1, Area 8, Area 11, Area 15).

That's a 5:1 ratio of 3+ duplicates to non-duplicate encounters.

Maybe this has changed? The most recent _Dungeon_ adventure I have access to is _Throne of the Stone-Skinned King_.

5+: 1
3-4: 4
< 3: 5

That's at least an even-split, but still seems to be showing duplicate stat block encounters to be fairly common. What about _Prince of Undeath_? The random encounters are:

5+: 4
3-4: 4
< 3: 3

The tactical encounters are:

5+: 18
3-4: 4
< 3: 8

For a whopping total of 30:11. The ratio has shrunk somewhat from KotS, but is still showing a _heavy_ preponderance of the types of encounters you claim shouldn't exist in 4th Edition.



MrMyth said:


> But I do think it is fair to say that encounters  with more diversity are inherently more interesting...




Sure. And since there's no difference in the amount of mechanical support for diverse encounters between 3rd Edition and 4th Edition, that particular issue is essentially irrelevant.

For example, I've been recently prepping Monte Cook's 3.5 adventure _Dark Tidings_.

1 stat block: 4
2+ stat blocks: 6

But what I'm talking about the tactical flexibility which comes from a _single_ stat block. Encounter build only becomes important in pointing out one of three separate flaws in Noonan's argument, and even then the diversity of encounter build is not important -- only the presence of multiple instances of a single stat block in a single encounter (which has been amply demonstrated above).


----------



## FireLance (May 20, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> You can't have it both ways: Either 4th Edition stat blocks feature more options for monsters or they feature fewer options for monsters. Make up your mind.



It actually depends on the monster. It's a broad generalization, but 4E "spellcaster" types tend to have fewer options and 4E "melee attacker" types tend to have more options than their 3E and earlier counterparts.

In addition to having a basic melee attack, a 4E melee attacker might have a more powerful encounter or rechargable ability that it could use once or twice in a fight. And instead of having a dozen or more spells or spell-like abilities, a 4E spellcaster would have not more than six combat options (and possibly a few more if it is an elite or a solo monster). 

The general rule of thumb, it seems to me, is for 4E monsters to have between two to four options in combat, at least at the start, before encounter abilities are used.


----------



## Imaro (May 21, 2010)

FireLance said:


> It actually depends on the monster. It's a broad generalization, but 4E "spellcaster" types tend to have fewer options and 4E "melee attacker" types tend to have more options than their 3E and earlier counterparts.
> 
> In addition to having a basic melee attack, a 4E melee attacker might have a more powerful encounter or rechargable ability that it could use once or twice in a fight. And instead of having a dozen or more spells or spell-like abilities, a 4E spellcaster would have not more than six combat options (and possibly a few more if it is an elite or a solo monster).
> 
> The general rule of thumb, it seems to me, is for 4E monsters to have between two to four options in combat, at least at the start, before encounter abilities are used.




I call bull on this, the only way a 3e melee attacker monster/NPC has fewer options than a 4e melee attacker monster/NPC is if you disregard the application of classes, feats, prestige classes, etc. when designing it. Otherwise it becomes a matter of number of options being relatively scalable in 3e to how much effort one is willing to put into personalizing the monster.

Edit: I actually think one of the downsides to 4e is the fact that there isn't a base creature that can be built upon and personalized by the DM... but a continuous stream of individual variations, that, IMO, are defined by pretty minute differences.


----------



## pemerton (May 21, 2010)

BryonD said:


> True.  But everything is relative.  I know there are a lot of people who really enjoy having more depth to non-combat than simply "these are resolved via skill challenges, with DCs set in accordance with the rules in the DMG and DMG2."



I'm sure there are such people. But in my view this is not an issue about depth of non-combat resolution. It is about method of non-combat resolution. I suspect that such people wouldn't like games like HeroQuest or Burning Wheel, which use mechanics broadly comparable to skill challenges to resolve non-combat encounters. But these other games are hardly ones that can be described as being shallow in their non-combat encounter resolution.

What I think _is_ an issue directly relevant to encounter design is that WotC seems to have great difficulties in presenting published examples of non-shallow skill challenges. I'm not a subscriber to Insider, so haven't seen more recent examples in the magazines, but even the examples in the DMG2 are somewhat underbaked. Of the adventures I've seen, the best developed skill challenges in thematic and narrative terms are probably in Heathen, an adventure in one of the early free 4e Dungeon magazines. But these could also use work.



BryonD said:


> So giving a particular system credit for the variety that these changes provides is kinda disingenuous to the actual point.  The question is: does the system mechanics (creature stat block specifically in the case, but not limited to that) add to the game beyond what simply changes tactics and terrain gives to ANY game?
> 
> For 4E the answer is YES.  Very much yes.  4E is a good game.
> 
> But, there are better games out there.  And it is reasonable to say that, compared to those games, the statblocks and mechanics of 4E don't provide enough tactical flexibility.



OK, but I wouldn't share the view that 3E or PF is that better game. Certainly, that's not the experience at my gaming table - features of 4e (which include as a minor contributer, but are cetaily not limited to, its stat blocks) make it a much better vehicle for achieving tactical flexibility and interesting tactical play in a fantasy RPG.


----------



## FireLance (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I call bull on this, the only way a 3e melee attacker monster/NPC has fewer options than a 4e melee attacker monster/NPC is if you disregard the application of classes, feats, prestige classes, etc. when designing it. Otherwise it becomes a matter of number of options being relatively scalable in 3e to how much effort one is willing to put into personalizing the monster.



Sure, I could add extra levels, feats and classes to a 1st-level orc warrior in 3E, but I could also add extra powers and abilities to a 4E orc if I wanted to. In particular, by applying a class template, I could add a minimum of three powers, and more at higher levels. The difference between editions (at least, with respect to the number of combat options) is probably more stark in the "normal" monsters - NPC classed humanoids and animals. 


> Edit: I actually think one of the downsides to 4e is the fact that there isn't a base creature that can be built upon and personalized by the DM... but a continuous stream of individual variations, that, IMO, are defined by pretty minute differences.



I partly agree with this. IMO, the differences between monsters are not minute - a kobold slinger, kobold dragonshield and kobold skirmisher have quite distinct abilities and are run and fought very differently (from the perspective of the DM and the player respectively).

However, I would have preferred a more "building block" approach to monsters, or more tools to customize monsters, beyond templates, monster themes and "just substitute whatever ability you think is appropriate". The list of alternate powers for dragons in Draconomicon I and II is a start, but I think it would be a mammoth task to come up with substitutions for each individual monster entry. One possibility may be a list of alternate abilities by monster role (brute, artillery, lurker, soldier, etc.).


----------



## Sir Wulf (May 21, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Every game ever suffers in someone's esteem for that reason. I try to balance it out by taking into account that there are some really talented, excellent human beings out there who enjoy almost any system I can name. (The few exceptions are not worth naming.) Otherwise I couldn't play _anything_.



At the risk of further derailing the thread, that's similar to my conclusions when reviewing the discussion.  One of my frustrations with 4e has been its failure to live up to the "increased options for non-spellcasters" claim so often repeated about it.  Reflecting on who I play with, my 3.5/Pathfinder friends are just more savvy, experienced players than the ones playing 4E.  Part of my frustration may be caused by comparing these groups, led by RPG veterans, to Living Realms sessions filled with newer players.


----------



## Dannager (May 21, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Someone should tell WotC's designers.
> 
> Let's take _Keep on the Shadowfell_. There are 14 encounters 5+ copies of the same monster (On the Road, A2, A3, Area 4, Area 5, Area 7, Area 9, Area 10, Interlude 3, Area 12, Area 13, Area 17, Area 18, Area 19);



No. Stop.

Of these 14 encounters you highlight, precisely *one* involves 5 or more (exactly 5, actually) of the same _non-minion_ stat block. All of the other instances of 5+ duplicates in the same encounter are fights involving minions.

You cannot use minions to support your "25 actions" argument, because a minion is not designed to stick around for 5 rounds like any other monster is. Where a standard monster is designed to go down in roughly 5 attacks, a minion is designed to go down in 1. That means that your typical minion will only have time for one or two attacks before his time is up. They represent 1/4th of a monster in terms of xp budget, and that is reflected in the variety of powers they possess. Minions are designed to be very simple to run - they even forgo damage dice for static damage values.

Were you unaware of how minions work? If you were, I'd suggest becoming a little more familiar with 4e combat and its assumptions before deciding you're capable of passing judgment on its merits. There are people with a lot of experience with the system, and 4e's brilliant combat system is one aspect of the system that receives pretty consistent praise.

If you _were_ aware of how minions work, why did you raise this argument? It should be obvious to you, then, that minions fall very far short of the 5-actions-per-monster framework you're trying to establish, and you clearly went through a significant amount of effort to scan every encounter in KotS, E3 and a Dungeon article for encounters that fit your criteria. In fact, it's quite obvious from an honest look at those adventures that having 5+ duplicates of the same standard monster in an encounter is a _rarity_ in 4e encounter design. So let's not play games like this, hm? If your argument has merit, a disingenuous tangent - like scanning multiple adventures for lopsided encounters and neglecting to mention that they are lopsided because they contain lots of minions who do not function as your framework assumes - shouldn't be necessary.


----------



## BryonD (May 21, 2010)

pemerton said:


> OK, but I wouldn't share the view that 3E or PF is that better game.



It is not at all necessary to presume PF or 3E as that game.


> Certainly, that's not the experience at my gaming table - features of 4e (which include as a minor contributer, but are cetaily not limited to, its stat blocks) make it a much better vehicle for achieving tactical flexibility and interesting tactical play in a fantasy RPG.



A lot of people praise 4E for being a great tactical mini game.


----------



## Dannager (May 21, 2010)

BryonD said:


> When Perseus fought Medusa the math didn’t work and the combat was  really swingy.
> Perseus was a hero.
> 
> The great stories are never about balanced encounters.



I'm going to tackle your signature here for a moment, BryonD, because it's actually topical.

No, the great stories are never about balanced encounters (even though, sometimes, they actually might be). That _doesn't_ mean that balanced encounters don't play a huge role in _facilitating_ the cooperative telling of a story that involves combat encounters, _nor_ does it mean that a balanced encounter is going to make a great story more difficult to tell. Your signature engages in the clear implication that balanced encounters are unimportant to a roleplaying game, and I think that's an implication that deserves one heck of a challenge.


----------



## Wicht (May 21, 2010)

I think the signature is more meant to point out that the truly memorable stories are those in which the odds are stacked against you and you still win.  And to be honest, he is right, that's what makes a great story. 

Now granted, you fight the odds too often and your going to eventually lose, but even then, it can still make a good story.  

That is, the game is not the story in question in the quote, telling the story is what you do after the game is over.  At least that's always been my take on his sig.  For what its worth, I've always enjoyed the thought/reminder.


----------



## Imaro (May 21, 2010)

FireLance said:


> Sure, I could add extra levels, feats and classes to a 1st-level orc warrior in 3E, but I could also add extra powers and abilities to a 4E orc if I wanted to. In particular, by applying a class template, I could add a minimum of three powers, and more at higher levels. The difference between editions (at least, with respect to the number of combat options) is probably more stark in the "normal" monsters - NPC classed humanoids and animals.




Again, this is bull... you're creating arbitrary restrictions (only classed humanoids, which 4e doesn't even really have... and animals) upon the game rules in 3e to reinforce a false point. 4e has very limited (yet admittedly very balanced) ways, in comparison to 3.x, of adding options to monsters and NPC's... this is true for melee and even more true for spellcasters. I could just as easily compare a classed Orc in 3e vs. a minion in 4e... Instead I am looking at the overall picture and 3.x has more options that can be applied to a creature than 4e.


----------



## Dannager (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Again, this is bull... you're creating arbitrary restrictions (only classed humanoids, which 4e doesn't even really have... and animals) upon the game rules in 3e to reinforce a false point. 4e has very limited (yet admittedly very balanced) ways, in comparison to 3.x, of adding options to monsters and NPC's... this is true for melee and even more true for spellcasters. I could just as easily compare a classed Orc in 3e vs. a minion in 4e... Instead I am looking at the overall picture and 3.x has more options that can be applied to a creature than 4e.



I'd love for you to give me an example of something that you could give an orc in 3.5 that I couldn't give an orc in 4e. Or any other monster.

Now, the ways you add things to monsters might be more codified in 3.5 (since all monsters must follow the hit dice/level progression scheme), but that's only because 4e provides a rough but accurate framework by which you can pretty much endlessly customize a monster to your liking.


----------



## Dannager (May 21, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I think the signature is more meant to point out that the truly memorable stories are those in which the odds are stacked against you and you still win.  And to be honest, he is right, that's what makes a great story.



I'm not sure. The line about the math not working and the combat being swingy seem like pretty standard digs about the nature of 3.5 vs. 4e combats, but I'd be happy to let him clarify it, and if I'm wrong then I'm wrong.


----------



## Imaro (May 21, 2010)

Dannager said:


> I'd love for you to give me an example of something that you could give an orc in 3.5 that I couldn't give an orc in 4e. Or any other monster.
> 
> Now, the ways you add things to monsters might be more codified in 3.5 (since all monsters must follow the hit dice/level progression scheme), but that's only because 4e provides a rough but accurate framework by which you can pretty much endlessly customize a monster to your liking.




Here's a better proposition, since I have the 4e rulebooks.  Tell me where the rules for customizing these monsters in the way you claim are?  Not Danager's houserules or DM fiat, but real rules that would allow a module writer or myself to custiomize monsters in 4e to our liking.  If we are talking about DM fiat well that's a moot point and a cop out.


----------



## Wicht (May 21, 2010)

Dannager said:


> I'm not sure. The line about the math not working and the combat being swingy seem like pretty standard digs about the nature of 3.5 vs. 4e combats, but I'd be happy to let him clarify it, and if I'm wrong then I'm wrong.




No doubt its a dig at a certain design philosophy, but I still think its talking about overcoming challenges gives you something to talk about after the game.  But he can explain it himself.


----------



## MrMyth (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Again, this is bull... you're creating arbitrary restrictions (only classed humanoids, which 4e doesn't even really have... and animals) upon the game rules in 3e to reinforce a false point. 4e has very limited (yet admittedly very balanced) ways, in comparison to 3.x, of adding options to monsters and NPC's... this is true for melee and even more true for spellcasters. I could just as easily compare a classed Orc in 3e vs. a minion in 4e... Instead I am looking at the overall picture and 3.x has more options that can be applied to a creature than 4e.




I am not so sure about that. 

4E has rules for creating classes NPCs of standard humanoid races. It also has rules for using class templates to add a class to an existing monster. It also has rules for adding other templates to a monster. It has rules for adding monster themes to monsters. And it probably has the best rules for easily leveling monsters up and down. Finally, it has decent guidelines for directly altering and creating new monsters. 

I'm not going to claim it has more options - but I will disagree that it is 'very limited'.

More than that, I think a lot of the claims about 4E monsters is that you tend to have more variety out of the book. A DM in 4E can easily grab a half-dozen varieties of orcs, directly from the books, and populate a few encounters with them. He can level them up and down in a matter of seconds. That is significantly less time investment than required to create several encounters with a diverse group of orcs in 3.5. 

A DM could certainly create a vast array of different creatures to fill an encounter, but it was much more difficult to get the same variety instantaneously. I think that is the argument, rather than 4E having inherently more potential variety than 3.5 did.


----------



## Imaro (May 21, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I am not so sure about that.
> 
> 4E has rules for creating classes NPCs of standard humanoid races. It also has rules for using class templates to add a class to an existing monster. It also has rules for adding other templates to a monster. It has rules for adding monster themes to monsters. And it probably has the best rules for easily leveling monsters up and down. Finally, it has decent guidelines for directly altering and creating new monsters..




3.x has rules for adding classes, prestige classes, templates, feats, skills, equipment, etc....etc. to virtually any monster... humanoid or not. So yeah IMO 3.x has a way more robust rule set for customizing monsters and NPC's.  Just as an example there was a thread in the 4e rules section where a poster was having the fact that you aren't suppose to add class templates to solos explained to him.



MrMyth said:


> I'm not going to claim it has more options - but I will disagree that it is 'very limited'.




Personal taste is personal taste... but I can definitely name a ton of rpg's that have more robust customization rules for NPC's and monsters than 4e has. But, IMO, I measure it by it's previous incarnation, and by that criteria IMO... it is very limited.



MrMyth said:


> More than that, I think a lot of the claims about 4E monsters is that you tend to have more variety out of the book. A DM in 4E can easily grab a half-dozen varieties of orcs, directly from the books, and populate a few encounters with them. He can level them up and down in a matter of seconds. That is significantly less time investment than required to create several encounters with a diverse group of orcs in 3.5.




I agree with this... but this wasn't what was claimed earlier in this thread.



MrMyth said:


> A DM could certainly create a vast array of different creatures to fill an encounter, but it was much more difficult to get the same variety instantaneously. I think that is the argument, rather than 4E having inherently more potential variety than 3.5 did.




No, that wasn't the argument put forth earlier by FireLance, he made a general statement about options with melee monsters and NPC's in 4e vs. 3.x. 

The other aspect is that with the 4e methodology... you end up paying more monetarily for that quick variety as you purchase more and more singular variations of the same monster types.


----------



## MrMyth (May 21, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> What we're talking about is the interaction between NPCs and PCs. You, like Noonan, are apparently equating "things happening outside of combat" with "time the PCs aren't interacting with the NPCs".




Except I think you are the one making that equation, not Noonan. The attitude of "five rounds later, they're done" is explicitly a discussion of what abilities are relevant in the stat-block in the context of how many actions a creature will take. It is not in any way a claim that NPCs don't exist outside of combat. Noonan never claimed that - you made the correlation, not him, and not any of us. 



Beginning of the End said:


> It is, as I have said before, _precisely_ this attitude of "five rounds later, they're done" -- an attitude that NPCs don't exist outside of combat -- on the part of the WotC designers that results in modules which don't have anything happening outside of combat.




"Nothing" happening outside of combat? Ok, Keep on the Shadowfell was a slugfest, but not every 4E module is the same. There are indeed scenes and opportunities to interact with NPCs outside of combat. To gather information, socialize, get involved in intrigue, chase after bad guys, sneak into dangerous places, find your way through labyrinths of madness... 

Are they as common as the combat? No, but that is an issue with adventure design more than something fundamentally tied to what monsters are capable of. 

Every time I've pointed out that monsters still have relevant stats, skills and abilities that a DM can use to have them interact out of combat, you've chosen to respond to some other point entirely. And more than that - most relevant information for interacting out of combat isn't what a monster can do, but instead _how_ it acts. We need to know motivations, personality and approaches. It doesn't hurt to have some options beyond the norm, sure, but they aren't necessary. You pointed out that Detect Thoughts can be really useful if the fortress goes on alert and the enemy needs to find the PCs.

But _in what way is Detect Thoughts *required* for that scene_? It remains a non-combat situation if the PCs are sneaking about, bluffing their way past guards, sneaking through the corridors, scaling the walls, while the enemy hunts down their tracks and tries to seal them in. Can _Detect Thoughts _enhance such a scene? Sure, probably. (Unless, say, it bypasses everything the PCs are doing and forces combat to happen anyway.) But regardless of what it does, it is never _required_ for that scene, and is tangential to it at best. 



Beginning of the End said:


> The connection between "I don't think NPCs exist outside of combat" and "I've designed an adventure in which nothing happens outside of combat" is so crystal clear I am baffled that there are people in this thread (or anywhere else) arguing that there isn't a connection.




Because this ties back to a faulty premise. *No one thinks NPCs don't exist outside of combat. *Every time you claim that is the core of the opposing side's argument, you are missing the entire point of the discussion to begin with. 




Beginning of the End said:


> Then why did you describe Noonan's claim that NPCs exist only in combat a being a "truthful statement"?




He never said that! He said they live about 5 rounds in combat, and don't need a stat block with 30 different choices for the DM to make every round! He also said that we don't need mechanics detailing how they interact with other NPCs out of combat. 

Neither of those is a claim that they do not exist out of combat, nor that we don't need rules detailing how they interact with PCs out of combat!



Beginning of the End said:


> What I actually said (echoing what Noonan said): "If we have an encounter with 5 of those monsters at the same time and each of them survives an *average* of 5 rounds, then that stat block actually needs to fill up 25 rounds worth of actions." (emphasis added)




Ah, fair enough, I missed the "average" mention in that quote. 



Beginning of the End said:


> And I'm arguing that when you use "is this ability useful in combat?" as your standard for whether or not abilities should be cut, then it's highly suggestive that your* focus is on combat*.




Note the bolded part above. That's the real problem here. 

Because yes, absolutely, the focus is on combat. At least 90% of the time, combat is how most monsters will interact with PCs. And so the "is this ability useful in combat" is indeed given higher weight - possibly higher than it should be, in some things. 

The problem is, you have somehow leaped from that scenario... to claiming that by prioritizing combat relevance, we are outright exiling non-combat interaction from the game. Which isn't true. Which isn't a goal of the designers, isn't inherent in the system, nor the experiences of the people playing the game. 




Beginning of the End said:


> Someone should tell WotC's designers.
> 
> Let's take _Keep on the Shadowfell_. There are 14 encounters 5+ copies of the same monster (On the Road, A2, A3, Area 4, Area 5, Area 7, Area 9, Area 10, Interlude 3, Area 12, Area 13, Area 17, Area 18, Area 19); there are 6 encounters with 3-4 copies (A1, A4, Area 2, Area 3, Area 6, Area 14); and only 4 encounters without 3+ duplicate stat blocks (Area 1, Area 8, Area 11, Area 15).
> 
> ...


----------



## FireLance (May 21, 2010)

Dannager said:


> No, the great stories are never about balanced encounters (even though, sometimes, they actually might be).



The great stories are never about balanced encounters because in stories, million to one chances come up nine times out of ten. 

And the reason why _that_ happens is because most stories aren't about the 999,999 other guys. 

While I do recognize that it's a matter of taste, in a game, I don't really want to play through a scenario 999,999 times to get that one moment of awesome.


----------



## MrMyth (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> 3.x has rules for adding classes, prestige classes, templates, feats, skills, equipment, etc....etc. to virtually any monster... humanoid or not. So yeah IMO 3.x has a way more robust rule set for customizing monsters and NPC's. Just as an example there was a thread in the 4e rules section where a poster was having the fact that you aren't suppose to add class templates to solos explained to him.




Well, I'll have to agree to disagree there. The existing options have let me build pretty much whatever monsters I need. And when I need to go beyond that... it may be DM fiat, but I've found 4E far more forgiving of the ability to simply add or swap abilities for monsters, and know that it remains an appropriate challenge when I am done. 



Imaro said:


> No, that wasn't the argument put forth earlier by FireLance, he made a general statement about options with melee monsters and NPC's in 4e vs. 3.x.




Well, I think his argument was more firmly rooted in the context of most by-the-book monsters rather than hand-built NPCs. But even outside of that, I think it also came down to the fact that most melee types tend to have only one thing they do, and it usually was get into combat and full attack. Which certainly isn't an absolute truth - many monsters had abilities like grab, poison, etc. 

But - especially with the very important level of _mobility_ in 4E - I think you end up with melee fights playing out much more dynamically than they typically did in 3.5. At least it has been so in my experience. My fighter would run up to an enemy and they would trade blows, whether that enemy was a goblin or an orc or an ogre or a giant. The difference between them was pretty much just how much damage they did. In 4E, I've found myself much more likely to see that goblin manuevering about me during the fight, the orc getting his frenzy on and keep the fight going even when he should drop, the giant stomping me to the ground and stepping on me. The ogre... well, I guess the ogre still pretty much just stands there and hits things. At least one ogre does - but there are a dozen more to choose from if I really want to. 

That's the sort of diversity I think Firelance was discussing.



Imaro said:


> The other aspect is that with the 4e methodology... you end up paying more monetarily for that quick variety as you purchase more and more singular variations of the same monster types.




I have no idea what you are trying to say with this sentence. Are you saying it costs more money to buy additional resource books in 4E? I'm not trying to intentionally misinterpret your words here, I'm genuinely confused - would you be able to rephrase your point? I don't know if my brain simply shut down or what, but I have absolutely no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.


----------



## MerricB (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> 3.x has rules for adding classes, prestige classes, templates, feats, skills, equipment, etc....etc. to virtually any monster... humanoid or not. So yeah IMO 3.x has a way more robust rule set for customizing monsters and NPC's.




Detailed? Yes. Robust? No. 

Robustness requires that the Challenge Rating derived from adding these features to monsters be accurate, something it often failed dreadfully at. The most dreadful failures in my experience generally occurred when you added size and/or hit dice to something which worked by grappling the PCs, but there were plenty of other problems. For simple advancement, the system often worked, but the more non-standard the creature, the more problematic and less robust the system became.



> Just as an example there was a thread in the 4e rules section where a poster was having the fact that you aren't suppose to add class templates to solos explained to him.




That's not an example of robustness (for or against). It's an example of the inadequacies of one particular point of description... or the comprehension abilities of that poster.


----------



## Imaro (May 21, 2010)

MerricB said:


> Detailed? Yes. Robust? No.
> 
> Robustness requires that the Challenge Rating derived from adding these features to monsters be accurate, something it often failed dreadfully at. The most dreadful failures in my experience generally occurred when you added size and/or hit dice to something which worked by grappling the PCs, but there were plenty of other problems. For simple advancement, the system often worked, but the more non-standard the creature, the more problematic and less robust the system became.




Okay, semantics. You're right Merric, I used the wrong word for what we were talking about (there's only so many times you can repeat yourself before you make a vocabulary mistake).... which was number of available options. My point still stands, 3.x had more options available to customize NPC's and monsters. As far as true robustness... that's certainly debatable (just like grind in 4e) since just as many people claim to have not had these problems as claim they have. 





MerricB said:


> That's not an example of robustness (for or against). It's an example of the inadequacies of one particular point of description... or the comprehension abilities of that poster.




Actually it was an example of the limitations even within the categories of modification that is available to NPC's and monsters in 4e.


----------



## innerdude (May 21, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Because yes, absolutely, the focus is on combat. At least 90% of the time, combat is how most monsters will interact with PCs.




And if this is your design paradigm _for your entire RPG system_, then you're making a mistake. 

I'll be the first to admit that D&D has historically been combat-oriented, at least during the _Dungeon_ part of the _Dungeons and Dragons_ equation. 

But the _Dungeon_ part of the _Dungeons and Dragons_ equation is supported by an entire framework, or scaffolding, if you will, of an assumption that there is some sense of a reality outside those dungeon walls. Not _our own reality_, mind you, but _a reality_, a reality created by the GM, the campaign world, the physical properties of that world, and yes, the way NPCs interact with PCs _and each other_. 

And the less material you have to support that external reality in a consistent (not _realistic_, but CONSISTENT) fashion, the less "real"--again, not "realistic," but _real_, in the sense that it "exists"--every  aspect of the game _other than combat _is going to feel.


----------



## pemerton (May 21, 2010)

BryonD said:


> A lot of people praise 4E for being a great tactical mini game.



That wasn't quite what I said. I referred to its support for tactical combat in a fantasy RPG. And I meant "RPG" when I said it. Not only does 4e support tactics of the sort that might be fun in a minis game, but it does in my experience it does so in a way that supports roleplaying. And this is not only an issue of colour (eg the mobility of sorcerers and wraiths has a different flavour from the mobility of fighters and goblilns) but of theme - different tactical options for monsters open up thematic questions for the players to address - such as cowardice vs courage, cooperation vs self-aggrandisement, caution vs risk, and so on.

Until 4e, the game I spent most of my RPG time on was Rolemaster. Rolemaster has tactical considerations with thematic consequences (the main one being choice of OB/DB split from round to round) which were a huge part of what I and my players enjoyed about RM. Part of the reason for moving to 4e is that it provides the same sort of roleplaying experience in a package that has many other virtues that RM lacks, while introducing comparatively few flaws (RM characters are thematically richer than 4e characters, but not by much, espcecially as those 4e characters gain levels).

What I would like to see for 4e is a better development of the skill challenge rules, so that they better supported the integration of those thematic aspects of combat into non-combat encounters (eg what difference should it make to an Intimidate in a skill challenge that an NPC has seen a PC fight a combat using a certain set of powers and abilities? - of course I can wing this stuff, but some guidelines written by professional designers, who have more time than me to think hard about mechanical balance, efficiency and coherence, would help).


----------



## pemerton (May 21, 2010)

innerdude said:


> And if this is your design paradigm _for your entire RPG system_, then you're making a mistake.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> And the less material you have to support that external reality in a consistent (not _realistic_, but CONSISTENT) fashion, the less "real"--again, not "realistic," but _real_, in the sense that it "exists"--every  aspect of the game _other than combat _is going to feel.



I disagree with this quite strongly. In effect, you are asserting that any way of RPGing D&D (perhaps, even, of RPGing in general) that adopts a "No Myth" approach, or some other sort of non-simulationist approach to the game, is a mistake. My own experience tells me that this is not so.

More generally, it makes me wonder how much familiarity you have with games written to support non-simulationist play which are neither combat oriented nor shallow, but aren't based on the sort of attention to ingame reality that you are asserting to be essential (I'm thinking of games like HeroQuest, The Dying Earth, My Life With Master, etc).


----------



## pemerton (May 21, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> A DM in 4E can easily grab a half-dozen varieties of orcs, directly from the books, and populate a few encounters with them. He can level them up and down in a matter of seconds.



Very true. I can also use varied creatures of any level, whereas in 3E adding HD, Prestige Classes, Templates etc changes the challenge rating.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 21, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I think the signature is more meant to point out that the truly memorable stories are those in which the odds are stacked against you and you still win.  And to be honest, he is right, that's what makes a great story.



It's a poor example though, because the odds were stacked decidedly in Perseus' favour. He had deities on his side, giving him powerful magic items. Medusa didn't stand a chance.


----------



## pemerton (May 21, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I think the signature is more meant to point out that the truly memorable stories are those in which the odds are stacked against you and you still win.





FireLance said:


> The great stories are never about balanced encounters because in stories, million to one chances come up nine times out of ten.
> 
> And the reason why _that_ happens is because most stories aren't about the 999,999 other guys.
> 
> While I do recognize that it's a matter of taste, in a game, I don't really want to play through a scenario 999,999 times to get that one moment of awesome.



I'm with FireLance. I don't play RPGs in order to _myself_ be the person who is the lucky or heroic one-in-a-million. I play RPGs in order for _the PCs_ to be those lucky and heroic people. And that requires either GM fudging (which I'm not a big fan of), lots and lots of reboots (ie the AD&D approach, with multiple PCs and quick PC generation, which I'm also not a big fan of) or a game system that delivers the heroics through the mechanics.

In my experience, 4e does a good job of being the latter sort of game system. In particular, at least in my experience, it delivers encounters which tend to begin with the PCs being threatened with total defeat, but which then allow the PCs (as their depth of resources comes into play) to turn the tide and win by a hair's breadth. These are (in my view, at least) exciting stories which the system is reliably delivering.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Here's a better proposition, since I have the 4e rulebooks.  Tell me where the rules for customizing these monsters in the way you claim are?  Not Danager's houserules or DM fiat, but real rules that would allow a module writer or myself to custiomize monsters in 4e to our liking.  If we are talking about DM fiat well that's a moot point and a cop out.



They're in the DMG, I think. And DMG2.


----------



## FireLance (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> No, that wasn't the argument put forth earlier by FireLance, he made a general statement about options with melee monsters and NPC's in 4e vs. 3.x.



Okay, I'm going to cite some concrete examples, here. If you wish to pursue this line of argument, please feel free to cite your own. Let's look at some monsters starting with the letter "B":
*Barghest* (3e): Bite (Atk); Bite and claws (Full Atk); Various spell-like abilities (_blink_, _levitate_, _misdirection_, _rage_, _charm monster_, _crushing despair_, _dimension door_)

*Barghest Savager* (4e):  Bite;  Battleaxe;  Jump Strike;  Power Feed; Change Shape​Here is one example of how a spellcaster-type monster got its power list trimmed down.
*Basilisk* (3e): Bite (Atk); Petrifying gaze (SA)

*Stone-Eye Basilisk* (4e):  Bite;  Petrifying Gaze​Here, there is virtually no difference in terms of combat options. The same goes for the other 4e basilisk, the Venom-Eye Basilisk.
*Behir* (3e): Bite (Atk); Breath weapon (SA); Constrict (SA); Improved Grab (SA); Rake (SA); Swallow Whole (SA)

*Behir* (4e):  Claw;  Bite;  Devour;  Lightning Breath;  Thundering Stomp​Again, the two have an approximately similar number of options, especially when you take into account the fact that in 3e, Improved Grab triggers automatically on a successful Bite and be considered a subset of that ability.
*Bodak* (3e): Slam (Atk); Death gaze (SA)

*Bodak Reaver* (4e):  Greataxe;  Death Gaze​Once again, there is very little difference in terms of combat options. The other 4e bodak, the bodak skulk, is a lurker and has an additional option to turn invisible and gain the insubstantial and phasing qualities.
*Bralani* (3e): _+1 holy scimitar_ or _+1 holy composite longbow_ (Atk); Whirlwind blast (SA); Various spell-like abilities (_blur_, _charm person_, _gust of wind_, _mirror image_, _wind wall_, _lightning bolt_, _cure serious wounds_) 

*Bralani of Autumn Winds* (4e):  Longsword;  Autumn Chill;  Whirlwind Blast; Fey Step​Here is another example of a primarily spellcasting creature that got its combat options reduced.
*Bugbear* (3e): Morningstar or javelin (Atk)

*Bugbear Warrior* (4e):  Morningstar;  Skullthumper; Predatory Eye​Here is one example of a primarily melee monster that had its number of combat options increased. The other 4e bugbear in the MM, the bugbear strangler, gets Morningstar, Predatory Eye and two other, related combat options (Strangle and Body Shield).
*Bulette* (3e): Bite (Atk); Bite and claws (Full Atk); Leap (SA)

*Bulette* (4e):  Bite;  Rising Burst;  Earth Furrow; Second Wind​Here's another primarily melee monster that was given more combat options in 4e.

So, to recap, for the SRD monsters starting with the letter "B":
Increased combat options: Bugbear, Bulette - primarily melee monsters, IMO

Decreased combat options: Barghest, Bralani - primarily spellcasting monsters, IMO

About the same number of combat options: Basilisk, Behir, Bodak - monsters with signature magical abilities.

Not (yet?) converted: Belker, Blink Dog​And before you asked, I picked "B" because it was the first file I opened (the "A" monsters were in a file entitled "MonstersIntro-A") and the list of monsters was fairly short. I do have a life outside of ENWorld, you know.


----------



## innerdude (May 21, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I disagree with this quite strongly. In effect, you are asserting that any way of RPGing D&D (perhaps, even, of RPGing in general) that adopts a "No Myth" approach, or some other sort of non-simulationist approach to the game, is a mistake.




Could you clarify what you mean by a "No Myth" approach? I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this, since I don't understand the semantics/context of your use of the "No Myth" term.


----------



## Lanefan (May 21, 2010)

Man it's become tough slogging in here, trying to plow through all the 3e and 4e examples while trying to approach all this from a 1e or non-e perspective. 

And I am.

A good encounter, a good adventure, is edition-neutral; in that once the mechanical conversions are done it's still good.  Forge of Fury, for example: grand adventure in any edition you care to convert it to (though annoyingly laid out; and that sort of thing is also what I hope we're trying to fix here).  So let's ignore all the edition-specific stuff and just figure out how to write good encounters.

And though I think I've already said this I guess I'd better say it again: *there is* - or certainly should be - *more to a monster's write-up than just the statblock.*  In any edition.  So why all the concern about whether some non-combat or quasi-combat thing is or isn't specifically in the statblock?  As long as it's in the write-up somewhere, preferably on the same page, then so what?

The problem only arises when those non- or quasi-combat things are not mentioned in the encounter write-up *at all*, when the base assumption of the writer is that This Will Be A Combat Encounter* and no other options are taken into consideration.  Hence my "four-times writing" suggestion.

* - note the same problem arises when the writer assumes This Will Be A Stealth Encounter, or a Negotiation Encounter, or in fact makes assumptions of any kind as to how the players/PCs will handle it.  And also note this problem is not restricted to 4e; I just got done reading what might be the worst-written module I've ever seen both for these reasons and others, and it was for 1e.

Lan-"Red Sonja Unconquered for the loss"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (May 21, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Because the presentation of the adventure is edition specific.  It is not enough to say, "design an adventure that has these specific qualities".  Any of us GMs can probably do it for ourselves, for either edition, and run it at our table.  But a hefty portion of it would never make it into notes - it'd remain in our heads.



The play of the adventure is edition (or system) specific, but the adventure as written doesn't have to be.


> For publication, at the end there needs to be a real, usable document that contains all of it.  The real challenge doesn't lie in the adventure design, but in the expression of that design in each edition.



Change the last three words to "such that any edition can make good use of it" and I would wholeheartedly agree.


> Now, add onto that a bit of game design (not adventure design) philosophy:  4e does not seem to be designed for the DM to have "stats for everything" (for an NPC or otherwise).  The intent seems to be that like in much earlier editions, the DM is supposed to handle a lot of stuff with less explicit mechanical support, and be "old school" about it, if you will.
> 
> But you seem to want mechanical support expressed for that same stuff.  See the conflict?



I don't want mechanical support for anything that doesn't need it, but I *do* want fluff support.  Unless the module writer is doing nothing but crunch numbers, every monster with any brains at all is going to have some sort of personality in the writer's mind; some sort of motivation.  I want to see at least a hint of that on the page, even if only as a jumping-off point for me to start making stuff up; so I can portray those monsters at least vaguely like the writer had in mind.

This is why I'm looking at more than just the statblock to tell me what makes a monster tick.  Expand that one step further, and I'm looking for more than just combat tactics in an encounter write-up.

Let me try one here:

"You enter a 30x30' room with stone walls, a straw-covered floor, and dingy smoke-stained ceiling.  In one corner there is a low-burning fire with some sort of small beast roasting on a spit above it; the smoke exits through what looks like a crack in the ceiling.  Against the other wall stands an open barrel.  There are no obvious exits from the room. (_If the PCs have approached quietly_) Two Orcs are tending the fire and meal, while 6 more lounge on rickety chairs around a large table.  (_If the PCs have alerted the Orcs_)  Two Orcs with weapons drawn are guarding the fire.  Several others are crouched behind an upturned table, crossbows at the ready and pointed your way."

Orcs(8): {statblock statblock statblock}

Treasure: each Orc carries 1d6 s.p. and one is wearing a silver bracelet worth 45 g.p.  Their weapons and gear are in poor condition and close to worthless.  The Orcs' hoard is in a secret cavity in the floor beneath the fire, to find this requires removal of the fire and ash followed by a successful search for secret doors.  Within is {list the contents}.

General tactics: in any situation, the Orcs will let the PCs make the first move.  If the PCs attempt to open dialogue in either Orcish or Common, the Orcs will gruffly respond but will not approach nor will they allow the PCs past the door.  These Orcs are starving and can easily be bribed with food (the small beast on the fire would make a decent meal for two of them at most); a promise of regular meals might even convince the Orcs to help the PCs, or at least allow them to use their room as a hideout

Combat tactics: if threatened or if any PC is seen to be casting a spell, the Orcs behind the table (flipping it first if needed) will fire their missiles.  Four will then move to block the PCs from getting past the table (two to left, two to right), while two will keep shooting at obvious spellcasters.  The two by the fire will engage only if attacked or if two other Orcs go down.

Other notes: if an invisible or very stealthy PC manages to sneak so far as to disturb either the fire or the beast on it, the Orcs' wrath will know no bounds and they will attack anything they see for the next hour or so until they calm down...or somehow get fed.  If any unconscious or dead PCs should end up being left behind they will be efficiently butchered, cooked and eaten by some now-much-happier Orcs.

DM notes: the barrel contains about 10 gallons of warm brackish water.  The crack in the ceiling is only about 6 inches wide; it leads to the surface via some sharp turns and can only be climbed (or flown through) by someone either in gaseous form or who has been somehow shrunk to less than 1' tall.

Now I'm not a professional writer, and I dreamed that lot up off the top of my head pretty much while I was typing it; but how's that for covering the four-times bases?  In this forum format, it looks like a mighty long write-up, but in module form that's what - half of a half-wide column?  And there's certainly room to edit for brevity... 

Lan-"feed the Orcs, tuppence a bag"-efan


----------



## pemerton (May 21, 2010)

innerdude said:


> Could you clarify what you mean by a "No Myth" approach? I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this, since I don't understand the semantics/context of your use of the "No Myth" term.



Innerdude, your edit took effect between me reading your post and clicking the "quote" button - your original version said I may have misunderstood you, and if I have than I apologise because my response was fairly strong!

As to "No Myth" - it's a phrase that I picked up on a thread around here somewhere that linked it back to a webpage that in turn has links back to the Forge. The idea of No Myth play is that the GM creates the gameworld in response to the actions of the players, only when and as that gameworld is needed. Pretty obviously (I think) it's not a game style that supports classic exploration play (which is certainly a common way of playing AD&D, and maybe 3E as well). It's focus is more on situation (ie the GM putting the PCs into conflicts that will be fun for the players to play out) and perhaps exploring characters.

I don't GM full-fledged No Myth - I have a rough idea of a setting, encounter maps (which I find are crucial for 4e) and use gods and other mythological elements from the 4e rulebooks - but do GM in this way to an extent, given that I will make up a lot of game elements to respond to what the players are having their PCs do, and in order to create interesting situations. In the past I have used this approach a lot more.

But even in my slightly more "Some Myth" approach to 4e, I still don't find the ingame reality all that important as a support for play, other than (i) those things which have already been revealed to the players in the course of play, which provide the context for their actions, and (ii) those things which are central to the current direction of play, and so are in the process of becoming game elements in category (i).

Thus, for example, I know roughly what the plans are of the magic-user the PCs saw flying off from his fortress on a flying carpet. This is something the players are in the process of wondering about, and the decision whether or not to follow him has implications for how some encounters are likely to play out in the near future. On the other hand, I haven't worried at all about the name of the ruler of the duchy the players are in, or whether that person is honest or a tyrant or possessed by a demon or whatever, because this is a game element that at present has no relevance to the matters that the players are interested in the game. In due course, if their interests change, then I'll have to make some decisions.

I guess I'd sum this up as "Backstory, yes" but "Worldbuilding, no". If that makes sense.


----------



## LostSoul (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Here's a better proposition, since I have the 4e rulebooks.  Tell me where the rules for customizing these monsters in the way you claim are?




Okay.

DMG1, Templates: pages 175 through 182.
DMG1, Class Templates: pages 182 through 183.
DMG1, Creating Monsters: pages 184 through 185.
DMG1, Creating NPCs: pages 186 through 188.
DMG2, Customizing Monsters: pages 102 through 133.

Oh yeah, and for balanced encounters != great story... no.  Not at all.

All great stories are balanced.  If the protagonist has easy choices to make, it's not a great story.  If the protagonist has to make difficult choices - that is, *balance* one choice against the other, then it has a chance to be a great story.


----------



## Imaro (May 21, 2010)

FireLance said:


> Okay, I'm going to cite some concrete examples, here. If you wish to pursue this line of argument, please feel free to cite your own. Let's look at some monsters starting with the letter "B":
> ...
> *Bugbear* (3e): Morningstar or javelin (Atk)
> 
> ...





I am going to concern myself with these two examples since this is where the crux of your more options for melee monsters/NPC's lie... and actually I will have to comment on the Bulette later, but I will quickly comment on the Bugbear...

Our 4e Bugbear is a level 5 monster (I'm not certain how it compares to the CR 2 3.x Bugbear), who has a simple melee attk w/ a morningstar (easily covered by the 3.x Bugbear), it has Skullthumper... which is an attk that requires combat advantage and a morningstar... it does the regular damage for a morningstar but allows the bugbear to knock an opponent prone and daze him. Finally Predatory Strike allows the Bugbear to deal extra damage 1x per encounter. He can also, per 4e rules,... charge, bull rush and grab.

Our 3.x Bugbear already has a morningstar basic attack... now for one of his racial feats lets give him power attk... he can now deal extra damage anytime he wants by taking a reduced chance to hit. He also has a ranged attack with the javelins... so we're already at three different options by just switching a feat out... a regular attk, power attk and ranged attk. On top of this he can implicitly grapple, trip, feint, sunder, bull rush, charge, disarm, overrun etc. I'm not understanding how your 4e Bugbear has more options in combat by the rules?


----------



## Imaro (May 21, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> Okay.
> 
> DMG1, Templates: pages 175 through 182.
> DMG1, Class Templates: pages 182 through 183.
> ...




Oh, I'm quite aware of these methods which IMO can be pretty much boiled down to... slap a template on it... but these in no way give one the diversity in customizing monsters and NPC's that was available in 3.x. I was asking for the rules that allowed one to slap any class (since we still don't have templates for PHB 3... or the artificer), or paragon class on any NPC or monster. Where are the rules for giving monsters/NPC's feats? In fact is there even a detailed system for assigning powers or skills to NPC's or monsters (besides just eyeball it) in 4e? I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## Primal (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Where are the rules for giving monsters/NPC's feats? In fact is there even a detailed system for assigning powers or skills to NPC's or monsters (besides just eyeball it) in 4e? I'm genuinely curious.




While I'm interested in trying 4E as a player, this is the very reason why I wouldn't DM it. The system is very well-balanced, but it's rather curious that 4E lacks solid monster design rules. I mean, if I create unique powers, how can I be sure they're balanced? For example, is it okay to give Domination to, say, 4th level controllers? At which level would a power that Stuns (save ends) be appropriate, and can I give it to a brute? Or should Stun always last until the end of the monster's next turn? How many powers are "too much"? Which ones should be minor actions, and is there a formula to which recharge and which are standard actions? And the biggest question that's bothered me... how do you even decide the 'recharge number'? Which powers recharge only on a 6? And which powers shouldn't recharge "automatically", e.g. such as when the monster becomes bloodied? And so on. 

If I need to "eyeball" through several books just to get a single monster's powers_ approximately_ "right", I don't think it's worth it.   

What WoTC should definitely do is to release solid, level-based guidelines to building monsters, i.e. a list of how the powers should be built ('Stun (save ends) - 15th level - Controller and Striker'). It would be even better if it was point-based or utilized at least *some* sort of formula. Anyway, that's how I feel and it's kept at least me from running the game.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I call bull on this, the only way a 3e melee attacker monster/NPC has fewer options than a 4e melee attacker monster/NPC is if you disregard the application of classes, feats, prestige classes, etc. when designing it. Otherwise it becomes a matter of number of options being relatively scalable in 3e to how much effort one is willing to put into personalizing the monster.




Oh, so in 3e you custom-craft every single damn monster you use.  In 4e you are mysteriously not allowed to custom-craft monsters.  Great double-standards there.  And in 3e you seem to want to operate above the level where many think it breaks down (see E6 for details).



Beginning of the End said:


> You can't have it both ways: Either 4th Edition stat blocks feature more options for monsters or they feature fewer options for monsters. Make up your mind.




Or you can break 3e monsters into four groups.  Physical Combat, Wizard/Sorceror, Cleric/Druid, Specials.

Physical Combat monkeys in 3e are mechanically boring.  They also make up the overwhelming bulk of monsters in 3e.

CoDzillas and Wizards/Sorcerors have hordes of options.  The same options as every other CoDzilla or Wizard/Sorceror in the game.  And the spellcasting puts their special features in the shade

Specials have a number of Sp or Su powers or other tricks - differentiating them from both specialist casters and physical combat monkies.  And from each other  And they are the rarest category.

4e monsters are all either minions or specials.  And far more kinetic and kinaesthetic than 3e specials.



> What we're talking about is the interaction between NPCs and PCs. You, like Noonan, are apparently equating "things happening outside of combat" with "time the PCs aren't interacting with the NPCs".
> 
> The middle that you're falsely excluding is that many of us run adventures that aren't combat slogs. Stuff happens outside of combat. The actions of NPCs are not limited to 5 rounds of combat and "they're done".




The thing here is that there are three types of NPC action outside combat.  Offstage they don't need stats.  In opposed skill checks, there's no reason for them not to simply take 10 every time - it doesn't do much to the maths and does speed up play.  And if they are going to take 10 every time, it's as sensible to simply grade their opposition as Easy, Medium, or Hard (using the Skill Challenge table).  And if you're running a narrative focus, an individual skill roll of an NPC should almost never be critical.

And when you're doing that, you don't _need_ much other than their special and combat powers in the statblock.



> Then why did you describe Noonan's claim that NPCs exist only in combat a being a "truthful statement"?




When an actor leaves the stage does the character continue to exist?  There's a good argument that the answer is no.



> Each round each NPC has to select an action. If there are 5 NPCs using the same stat block and 5 rounds, then 25 actions have to be selected from that stat block.




And if the monsters don't select the same action more than once they are almost incoherent.

But you seem to assume that the same action twice doesn't have different meanings.  Pushing someone one square means something very different when they are (a) on the far side of the room from a pit, (b) two squares away from a pit, or (c) right next to a pit.



> There might be a couple of abilities out there where two identical creatures have to cooperate to achieve a particular effect (which would be analogous to everyone in the car participating in the same activity), but they're the exception to the rule.




So flanking is now an exception to the rule?  For that matter, so is pushing when there's dangerous terrain?



> Let's take _Keep on the Shadowfell_. There are 14 encounters 5+ copies of the same monster (On the Road, A2, A3, Area 4, Area 5, Area 7, Area 9, Area 10, Interlude 3, Area 12, Area 13, Area 17, Area 18, Area 19); there are 6 encounters with 3-4 copies (A1, A4, Area 2, Area 3, Area 6, Area 14); and only 4 encounters without 3+ duplicate stat blocks (Area 1, Area 8, Area 11, Area 15).
> 
> That's a 5:1 ratio of 3+ duplicates to non-duplicate encounters.




When you know enough about 4e to know what a minion is, get back to us.  For that matter, when you know enough about narrative to understand the purpose of a redshirt bad guy get back to us.  Until then,  



> Sure. And since there's no difference in the amount of mechanical support for diverse encounters between 3rd Edition and 4th Edition, that particular issue is essentially irrelevant.




You mean other than the kinetic combat, the ease of running (due to the stripped down stat blocks), the assumption you'll be facing multiple foes, etc.?

The kinetic combat in 4e _on its own_ makes things far more interesting.  In 3e if there's a cliff, it's easy.  People don't go near it.  In 4e, everyone is trying to push everyone else over as well as trying to defeat them normally.  (I exaggerate slightly.  But about half of all PCs in my experience have an at will that forces movement.  And if there's a cliff, the NPCs are also likely to force movement.  It adds entire extra dimensions to the combat.)



> But what I'm talking about the tactical flexibility which comes from a _single_ stat block. Encounter build only becomes important in pointing out one of three separate flaws in Noonan's argument, and even then the diversity of encounter build is not important -- only the presence of multiple instances of a single stat block in a single encounter (which has been amply demonstrated above).




There is nothing wrong with multiple instances of a single stat block - especially for faceless mooks.  It's when there's only one stat block that's the trouble.

And you demonstrated that there were repeated minions - did you also demonstrate that all the monsters in a combat used the same stat block?


----------



## FireLance (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Our 3.x Bugbear already has a morningstar basic attack... now for one of his racial feats lets give him power attk... he can now deal extra damage anytime he wants by taking a reduced chance to hit. He also has a ranged attack with the javelins... so we're already at three different options by just switching a feat out... a regular attk, power attk and ranged attk. On top of this he can implicitly grapple, trip, feint, sunder, bull rush, charge, disarm, overrun etc. I'm not understanding how your 4e Bugbear has more options in combat by the rules?



Well, if you're going to tinker with the stat block by swapping out one of the 3e bugbear's feats, I should similarly be able to give the 4e bugbear warrior a javelin (and a ranged attack). 

In addition, a 4e bugbear warrior can also (implicitly) grab, bull rush, charge and feint (see the Bluff skill). That leaves tripping, sundering, disarming and overrunning as actions for which there are no generic rules in the 4e ruleset, so I guess you win on a technicality. I must admit that I personally hardly ever took these actions in a fight, unless I was running a character or monster which was specially designed to use them (in particular, the AOO was a major psychological barrier), but you are technically correct that almost any creature could, in theory, use these options in combat.

EDIT: Suddenly, I want to write a bad 4e module about a gang of bugbear warriors who are not tripping, sundering, disarming or overrunning.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 21, 2010)

I can easily recall discussions of how CR breaks down in 3e, where I was told that I didn't know what I was talking about, it was a great, robust, tool, etc.  Now, the worm has turned.

I suspect that when 5e is announced, we will be able to discuss the problems of 4e.  In fact, I would suspect that some of the folks who stick with 4e will be surprised how some outspoken champions of 4e _*now*_ are commenting on the obvious flaws *then*.

And, when 6e is announced, we'll be able to take a closer look at 5e.

And so on.

Something doesn't have to be old to be viewed through rose-coloured glasses.  4e has flaws, just as Pathfinder has flaws, just as 3e has flaws, just as 1e has flaws, just as all games have flaws.  Talking about them openly can, in some cases, help the designers improve the model.  For example, I am told that the later monster books for 4e are much better than the initial MM......A direct result of noting the flaws of the earlier book?



RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 21, 2010)

Primal said:


> While I'm interested in trying 4E as a player, this is the very reason why I wouldn't DM it. The system is very well-balanced, but it's rather curious that 4E lacks solid monster design rules. I mean, if I create unique powers, how can I be sure they're balanced? For example, is it okay to give Domination to, say, 4th level controllers? At which level would a power that Stuns (save ends) be appropriate, and can I give it to a brute? Or should Stun always last until the end of the monster's next turn? How many powers are "too much"? Which ones should be minor actions, and is there a formula to which recharge and which are standard actions? And the biggest question that's bothered me... how do you even decide the 'recharge number'? Which powers recharge only on a 6? And which powers shouldn't recharge "automatically", e.g. such as when the monster becomes bloodied? And so on.
> 
> If I need to "eyeball" through several books just to get a single monster's powers_ approximately_ "right", I don't think it's worth it.
> 
> What WoTC should definitely do is to release solid, level-based guidelines to building monsters, i.e. a list of how the powers should be built ('Stun (save ends) - 15th level - Controller and Striker'). It would be even better if it was point-based or utilized at least *some* sort of formula. Anyway, that's how I feel and it's kept at least me from running the game.




Really? The openess and freeform nature of monster design is one of the things I actually like about 4E. NPC's and monsters can be built to do what they need to do without a reverse step by step reconstruction kit. The 3E era added a great deal of crunch and mechanical formula to the game but I think many DM's came to rely too much on these constructs rather than their own judgement and common sense. 

I have been designing monsters and NPC's for 30 years and the rules (even 3.X) have never been a barrier to making what I wanted. When it comes to monster design, 4E gives enough general guidelines to enable the DM to build pretty much anything he/she wants. 

Precise formulas are waste of time when the content of the game is ever changing. New rules are added, changed, updated, and new content is pouring in on a regular basis. Each time these things happen a carefully calculated formula would be rendered uselees and require adjustment. 

I can sympathize with not wanting to run 4E. I didn't either for a long while for different reasons. Look at all those rules and formulas for 3.X. Do they really work in all situations? Have they ever produced an encounter that was perfect on paper but far too tough or easy in actual play?


----------



## Fifth Element (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I was asking for the rules that allowed one to slap any class (since we still don't have templates for PHB 3... or the artificer), or paragon class on any NPC or monster.



You have the templates for the other classes...base it on those. Unless you want to argue that whenever they publish a new class, suddenly you can no longer completely customize monsters.



Imaro said:


> Where are the rules for giving monsters/NPC's feats?



There aren't any, largely because 4E feats are different from 3E feats. They are generally small modifiers and bonuses. If you want to apply some modifiers and bonuses to your monster, just do it.



Imaro said:


> In fact is there even a detailed system for assigning powers or skills to NPC's or monsters (besides just eyeball it) in 4e? I'm genuinely curious.



No there isn't (other than the specific powers granted by templates), and thank god for that. They give a whole lot of guidelines, but few hard rules, which makes customization much easier.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 21, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Man it's become tough slogging in here, trying to plow through all the 3e and 4e examples while trying to approach all this from a 1e or non-e perspective.
> 
> And I am.
> 
> A good encounter, a good adventure, is edition-neutral; in that once the mechanical conversions are done it's still good. Forge of Fury, for example: grand adventure in any edition you care to convert it to (though annoyingly laid out; and that sort of thing is also what I hope we're trying to fix here). So let's ignore all the edition-specific stuff and just figure out how to write good encounters.




False.  A good encounter takes into account the expected capabilities of the participants.  And those capabilities are different edition to edition.  You don't need to protect against Scry and Fry in low level 3e or in 4e.



Lanefan said:


> "You enter a 30x30' room with stone walls, a straw-covered floor, and dingy smoke-stained ceiling. In one corner there is a low-burning fire with some sort of small beast roasting on a spit above it; the smoke exits through what looks like a crack in the ceiling. Against the other wall stands an open barrel. There are no obvious exits from the room. (_If the PCs have approached quietly_) Two Orcs are tending the fire and meal, while 6 more lounge on rickety chairs around a large table. (_If the PCs have alerted the Orcs_) Two Orcs with weapons drawn are guarding the fire. Several others are crouched behind an upturned table, crossbows at the ready and pointed your way."




Assume there's a wizard with the party in both editions and a combat encounter.  In 3e the wizard is either not going to do much other than plinking with a crossbow or he's probably going to eliminate almost the entire fight with _Sleep_ if the PCs sneak up on the orcs.  In 4e he's probably going to _Thunderwave_ the orcs into the fire (which means the fire is part of the encounter rather than mostly scenery).



> And though I think I've already said this I guess I'd better say it again: *there is* - or certainly should be - *more to a monster's write-up than just the statblock.* In any edition. So why all the concern about whether some non-combat or quasi-combat thing is or isn't specifically in the statblock? As long as it's in the write-up somewhere, preferably on the same page, then so what?




I have no idea.  (In other words I agree).



Imaro said:


> I am going to concern myself with these two examples since this is where the crux of your more options for melee monsters/NPC's lie... and actually I will have to comment on the Bulette later, but I will quickly comment on the Bugbear...
> 
> Our 4e Bugbear is a level 5 monster (I'm not certain how it compares to the CR 2 3.x Bugbear), who has a simple melee attk w/ a morningstar (easily covered by the 3.x Bugbear), it has Skullthumper... which is an attk that requires combat advantage and a morningstar... it does the regular damage for a morningstar but allows the bugbear to knock an opponent prone and daze him. Finally Predatory Strike allows the Bugbear to deal extra damage 1x per encounter. He can also, per 4e rules,... charge, bull rush and grab.
> 
> Our 3.x Bugbear already has a morningstar basic attack... now for one of his racial feats lets give him power attk... he can now deal extra damage anytime he wants by taking a reduced chance to hit. He also has a ranged attack with the javelins... so we're already at three different options by just switching a feat out... a regular attk, power attk and ranged attk. On top of this he can implicitly grapple, trip, feint, sunder, bull rush, charge, disarm, overrun etc. I'm not understanding how your 4e Bugbear has more options in combat by the rules?




Because we mentally discard options that suck.  There are very few occasions where power attack is mathematically a good idea.  The hit penalty is just too high.  And for that matter it just replaces an attack that deals damage with an attack that ... deals slightly more damage.

Trip isn't worth it.  It leaves you wide open, as does disarm.  Overrun both leaves you wide open and your opponent just steps out of the way.  Feint costs an attack to do very little.  Common use of Sunder will get things thrown at the DM by the players.

A monster has the option to come into battle bouncing on a pogo stick, and attack by taking his armour off and throwing it at people.  That doesn't mean that you count it when listing options.  (The other thing is that Power Attack unless used at high modifier isn't very different from a basic attack.  But people _notice_ Skullthumper even if they aren't following the math of the fight.)


----------



## Imaro (May 21, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Oh, so in 3e you custom-craft every single damn monster you use. In 4e you are mysteriously not allowed to custom-craft monsters. Great double-standards there. And in 3e you seem to want to operate above the level where many think it breaks down (see E6 for details).




No, but the option is there when I want to.  4e's customization, again, is mostly slap this or that template on it... and most of the time only one or at most two can be applied... for the record we are talking game rules not DM fiat. 

Second... I don't even understand what you mean in your last sentence... where have I talked about only operating above any level.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 21, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> False. A good encounter takes into account the expected capabilities of the participants. And those capabilities are different edition to edition. You don't need to protect against Scry and Fry in low level 3e or in 4e.




By this set of criteria one cannot have a good encounter without knowing the abilities of the actual characters who will take part as well as the talents of the players running them. Therefore no published encounter is worth the paper it's written on.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 21, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> By this set of criteria one cannot have a good encounter without knowing the abilities of the actual characters who will take part as well as the talents of the players running them. Therefore no published encounter is worth the paper it's written on.




Moreover, there can be no good status quo setting, as good status quo encounters cannot exist.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 21, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I can easily recall discussions of how CR breaks down in 3e, where I was told that I didn't know what I was talking about, it was a great, robust, tool, etc. Now, the worm has turned.




3e CR is a good tool.  It just has its limits; it's clunky, unwieldy, and the balance for many monsters sucks.  On the other hand it's better than any tool that had previously existed in D&D that I know of.

4e, likewise.  There are problems in 4e.  You can't play a gritty or simulationist game with it.  Some of it's silly.  Some of it's unbalanced (*cough*Undead Encounters*cough*).  Combat often takes too long and can bog down into a grind.  On the other hand, the best way to bring the flaws of a system into sharp relief is to offer something _better_.  And to understand the flaws.



> I suspect that when 5e is announced, we will be able to discuss the problems of 4e. In fact, I would suspect that some of the folks who stick with 4e will be surprised how some outspoken champions of 4e _*now*_ are commenting on the obvious flaws *then*.




And I'll say for 3e it was a vast step up on AD&D.  Few of the criticisms levelled by AD&D supporters hold water - and most of those that do are playstyle differences.



> Something doesn't have to be old to be viewed through rose-coloured glasses. 4e has flaws, just as Pathfinder has flaws, just as 3e has flaws, just as 1e has flaws, just as all games have flaws. Talking about them openly can, in some cases, help the designers improve the model.




At other times, when based on false premises, it's just noise.  For instance when you are applying the same assumptions to minons as to normal monsters.  (I'm not saying minions don't have their problems - they are too easy to take out with AoEs by paragon, let alone epic for one - and can feel like a slog if you don't have blasts/bursts).



> For example, I am told that the later monster books for 4e are much better than the initial MM......A direct result of noting the flaws of the earlier book?




Yes.  Noting the flaws by means of playtesting and informed criticism.  When I dismiss your criticisms, that doesn't mean I dismiss all criticisms.  Just the ones that are from people who don't know the difference between a minion, a normal monster, a solo, and an elite.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 21, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> When I dismiss your criticisms, that doesn't mean I dismiss all criticisms.  Just the ones that are from people who don't know the difference between a minion, a normal monster, a solo, and an elite.




So long as you only accept discussions of encounters as being discussions of 4e encounters, I suppose there is some validity to that.  Obviously, when looking at the content of other posters, you have to examine their posts through the filter of your own experience.


RC


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 21, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> By this set of criteria one cannot have a good encounter without knowing the abilities of the actual characters who will take part as well as the talents of the players running them. Therefore no published encounter is worth the paper it's written on.




Oh, FFS.

A level 20 party has its stronghold approached by the rampaging Tarrasque.  Could lead to an interesting fight.  Or the Tarrasque getting trapped and curb stomped.  Or even the PCs harnessing the Tarrasque.

A level 3 party has its stronghold approached by the rampaging Tarrasque.  The PCs are going to run like buggery.

To write a module you need to know within reason what you are pitching at.  Is it level 20 or level 3?

Likewise, you don't normally run the same encounters for PCs who are Big Damn Heroes and those who go through life with the motto Lie, Cheat, Steal.  

And 4e PCs move very differently to 3e ones, and make far more use of terrain.  Whereas they have very few Overwhelming Spells.  So you write the encounters and often even the plot differently because what is trivial to a 3e mage isn't to a 4e one - but 4e PCs will take opportunities in combat that simply aren't possible in 3e.

For another illustration, watch a dozen old (pre-1990 or so) films.  Then work out how the plots would have changed if the characters had all been carrying mobile cameraphones.  (The Rom Coms and Spy Movies often massively).  And that's just a change in equipment.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 21, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Yes. Noting the flaws by means of playtesting and informed criticism. When I dismiss your criticisms, that doesn't mean I dismiss all criticisms. Just the ones that are from people who don't know the difference between a minion, a normal monster, a solo, and an elite.




Normal monster = baseline
Elite monster= tough guy
Solo monster= too many HP to take seriously
Minion= narrative device that has no place or meaning in a _game._

Playtesting= something that used to happen prior to release.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 21, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> So long as you only accept discussions of encounters as being discussions of 4e encounters, I suppose there is some validity to that.  Obviously, when looking at the content of other posters, you have to examine their posts through the filter of your own experience.
> 
> 
> RC



I don't assume that you are talking only about 4e.  I just assume that when you _are_ talking about 4e you should instead be listening or can be ignored because you demonstrably don't understand the game - and I've been providing illustrations of the differences for quite a while.  And seriously, provide _any_ source that comes close to matching the DMing advice in the DMGII.  The only thing I've ever read that was as useful was Robin's Laws of Good GMing - of course Robin Laws was one of the names on the DMGII.  Unfortunately the module writers seem to ignore the DMGII - and yes, the WoTC 4e modules I've read suck.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 21, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> To write a module you need to know within reason what you are pitching at. Is it level 20 or level 3?




Most certainly correct. Within that ballpark, the abilities and resources of different parties can vary by quite a bit even if the number of players and character levels are identical. Consider a 4th level encounter against a party of 5 PC's. Party #1 is made up of all rogues and party # 2 is an all cleric party. The dynamic will be totally different and published encounter may not consider either of these parties during the design process.




Neonchameleon said:


> Likewise, you don't normally run the same encounters for PCs who are Big Damn Heroes and those who go through life with the motto Lie, Cheat, Steal.




Why not?


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 21, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Normal monster = baseline
> Elite monster= tough guy
> Solo monster= too many HP to take seriously
> Minion= narrative device that has no place or meaning in a _game._
> ...



When?  About the only thoroughly playtested version of D&D ever was 3.5 - and that's because it was the playtested version of 3e.  Seriously, 4e was playtested before release - but there is no way a handful of playtesters can provide the richness of a large community.

Also, Solo Monster = Too many hp to take seriously?  Why shouldn't a _Dragon _have a bucketload of hit points?  (I don't use humanoid solos unless they are massively and obviously magically empowered).

As for minions, why don't they have meaning in a game?


----------



## Scribble (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Oh, I'm quite aware of these methods which IMO can be pretty much boiled down to... slap a template on it... but these in no way give one the diversity in customizing monsters and NPC's that was available in 3.x. I was asking for the rules that allowed one to slap any class (since we still don't have templates for PHB 3... or the artificer), or paragon class on any NPC or monster. Where are the rules for giving monsters/NPC's feats? In fact is there even a detailed system for assigning powers or skills to NPC's or monsters (besides just eyeball it) in 4e? I'm genuinely curious.




I think though you can't really compare these as "added options" because how monsters are built in 4e is different then in 3e.

Sure, there aren't any rules for adding feats to monsters in 4e, but it's not a lacking feature because they don't accomplish the same end result as they did in 3e.

In 3e in order to legally "unlock" certain attacks/abilities you needed certain feat chains.

In 4e the same end result is accomplished by just giving the creature that ability/power- No feats are needed. Same thing if you want it to have a non attack power that a feat might have accomplished in 3e; again you just give it that power.

Same I feel is true for 3e style templates. A lot of what they were designed to accomplish is now done by simply changing the powers a bit, or choosing another monster "role."

They're not a lack of options in my opinion because there's no longer a need for them. The way they're built from the start gets me to the end monster I want/need more quickly.

Could the game use more options? Hell yeah, added stuff I can play with is always cool... But I don't feel as if I'm lacking any options I once had as a DM in 3e now that I play 4e. In fact, because it's more easily accomplished I feel like I customize monsters far more often then I ever did with 3e. This design model works well for me I guess.

If 3e's design model worked for you though- right on. I bow to your superior 3efoo.


----------



## Imaro (May 21, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> You have the templates for the other classes...base it on those. Unless you want to argue that whenever they publish a new class, suddenly you can no longer completely customize monsters.




Yet whenever a new class was published for 3.x I could instantly apply that class to a monster or NPC.




Fifth Element said:


> There aren't any, largely because 4E feats are different from 3E feats. They are generally small modifiers and bonuses. If you want to apply some modifiers and bonuses to your monster, just do it.




So there are no rules for this, thus supporting my argument. Thanks.




Fifth Element said:


> No there isn't (other than the specific powers granted by templates), and thank god for that. They give a whole lot of guidelines, but few hard rules, which makes customization much easier.




So again you support my position, and as far as whether skill customization is a good thing or not, let's just leave it at personal opinion...and thank god for the OGL. I'm curious though... how do vague guidelines make customization easier? How does guesstimate= easier... faster maybe, but then I could just as easily guesstimate in 3.x.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 21, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Most certainly correct. Within that ballpark, the abilities and resources of different parties can vary by quite a bit even if the number of players and character levels are identical. Consider a 4th level encounter against a party of 5 PC's. Party #1 is made up of all rogues and party # 2 is an all cleric party. The dynamic will be totally different and published encounter may not consider either of these parties during the design process.




Of course - and it's part of the GM's job to cope with the difference.  But when the difference is not just forseeable but expected (and 3e to 4e is that different), you take the two parties into account.  Or the clerics will breeze past the undead while the rogues will be unable to sneak attack and get slaughtered.  Or the rogues will sneak half way through the adventure and the clerics will have to fight _everyone_.  (Or both could be intended features).



> Why not?




Motivation is different.  Attitude is different.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 21, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> As for minions, why don't they have meaning in a game?




Minions are a literary construct that have meaning in a story. If you are crafting a story they have a purpose.


----------



## Imaro (May 21, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Because we mentally discard options that suck. There are very few occasions where power attack is mathematically a good idea. The hit penalty is just too high. And for that matter it just replaces an attack that deals damage with an attack that ... deals slightly more damage.
> 
> Trip isn't worth it. It leaves you wide open, as does disarm. Overrun both leaves you wide open and your opponent just steps out of the way. Feint costs an attack to do very little. Common use of Sunder will get things thrown at the DM by the players.
> 
> A monster has the option to come into battle bouncing on a pogo stick, and attack by taking his armour off and throwing it at people. That doesn't mean that you count it when listing options. (The other thing is that Power Attack unless used at high modifier isn't very different from a basic attack. But people _notice_ Skullthumper even if they aren't following the math of the fight.)




I'm sorry... I guess I'm not part of your "we". Even in 4e, I select options that fit the themes and narratives of the combat and monster. I don't use a power because it happened to recharge this round, and I don't believe every monster should do the most mathematically optimal thing in combat each round, because in narratives, life and movies this isn't always what happens (in fact I would argue that many villains use sub-optimal tactics.). The point is I have the option to play the monster the way I want to, not how it is dictated I play it by the 4 precise powers it has... so yeah I guess there's a big disconnect in playstyles here.


----------



## billd91 (May 21, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> And I'll say for 3e it was a vast step up on AD&D.  Few of the criticisms levelled by AD&D supporters hold water - and most of those that do are playstyle differences.




I'm a long time player since the AD&D days and though my game of preference is 3.5/Pathfinder even I know this isn't accurate. A lot of criticisms leveled at 3e generation D&D mechanics, particularly achieving combat balance between spellcasters and martial characters, from an AD&D perspective have been pretty cogent. They hold water just fine and don't boil down to play style differences.


----------



## Imaro (May 21, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I think though you can't really compare these as "added options" because how monsters are built in 4e is different then in 3e.
> 
> Sure, there aren't any rules for adding feats to monsters in 4e, but it's not a lacking feature because they don't accomplish the same end result as they did in 3e.
> 
> ...





Hey Scribble, just a quick note... if in the 2 DMG's and/or 2 going on 3 MM's 4e had given us a breakdown and rules for comparing and balancing powers... I would be right there with you... but it hasn't, so in essence even with powers replacing feats in 4e (Which is not something I necessarily agree with, especially as we get more feats that do more than just grant a minor bonus) IMO, we are still lacking in the customization aspect of 4e's monsters and NPC's.


----------



## Scribble (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Hey Scribble, just a quick note... if in the 2 DMG's and/or 2 going on 3 MM's 4e had given us a breakdown and rules for comparing and balancing powers... I would be right there with you... but it hasn't, so in essence even with powers replacing feats in 4e (Which is not something I necessarily agree with, especially as we get more feats that do more than just grant a minor bonus) IMO, we are still lacking in the customization aspect of 4e's monsters and NPC's.




There I do agree with you to an extent.

Part of the idea of not giving hard and fast numbers seems to be because they don't want to be "locked" into those numbers. IE it's not supposed to be a hard  X = X damage thing... I don't really even believe the WoTC designers have hard rules they use. 

But I DO wish they at least had maybe a dungeon article about improving your skills at doing this stuff.  Make it like the ruling skill challenges article.

Yeah- some feats do do more then grant small bonuses, but in this regard I think the difference lies in the very fact that monsters and PCs are made differently. 

PCs can take some feats to unlock stuff still... but monsters you just kind of assume they already took whatever they need to have that ability, and give it to them.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Yet whenever a new class was published for 3.x I could instantly apply that class to a monster or NPC.
> 
> So there are no rules for this, thus supporting my argument. Thanks.
> 
> So again you support my position, and as far as whether skill customization is a good thing or not, let's just leave it at personal opinion...and thank god for the OGL. I'm curious though... how do vague guidelines make customization easier? How does guesstimate= easier... faster maybe, but then I could just as easily guesstimate in 3.x.



Are you for real?

4e doesn't _need_ monster customization rules because monsters don't share the same rules that pcs do. That's the main difference and the major advantage of 4e's approach.

If you want to create an npc Artificer you're not limited to Artificer powers because npc Artificers can be anything you want them to be. You can grant them the powers of any other existing monster or simply make up your own as long as the result is within the limits given in the DMG (i.e. hp, attacks, defenses, damage).

Making stuff up is always easier than looking up dozens of 3e books to find the combination of feats, templates, and class levels that make your customized monster competitive for its CR. If you truly believe customizing monsters in 4e is more difficult than it is in 3e then you have never tried it.


----------



## Mallus (May 21, 2010)

FireLance said:


> The great stories are never about balanced encounters because in stories, million to one chances come up nine times out of ten.
> 
> And the reason why _that_ happens is because most stories aren't about the 999,999 other guys.



Exactly. Comparing role-playing game characters to fictional characters requires a little more nuance. 

This reminds me of why I think all those 'but Frodo was a 1st level thief' arguments get things ass-backwards. They start with assumptions --such as 'Frodo Baggins is a 1st level thief'-- instead of examining what the character actual does during the course of the story --for instance, surviving getting stabbed by a g-ddamn _Nazgul_ when he's barely out of the Shire-- and let that information inform their character modeling. A better transcription of Frodo into D&D terms places Frodo between 5th-7th level, if not a little higher. 

Likewise, if I'm going to recreate Perseus and the Medusa in D&D terms, I'd give him at least 50/50 shot against the her gaze attack, and that's before Perseus's teammates toss buffs his way... 

Well, I'm glad I got that off my chest.


----------



## MrMyth (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I am going to concern myself with these two examples since this is where the crux of your more options for melee monsters/NPC's lie... and actually I will have to comment on the Bulette later, but I will quickly comment on the Bugbear...
> 
> Our 4e Bugbear is a level 5 monster (I'm not certain how it compares to the CR 2 3.x Bugbear), who has a simple melee attk w/ a morningstar (easily covered by the 3.x Bugbear), it has Skullthumper... which is an attk that requires combat advantage and a morningstar... it does the regular damage for a morningstar but allows the bugbear to knock an opponent prone and daze him. Finally Predatory Strike allows the Bugbear to deal extra damage 1x per encounter. He can also, per 4e rules,... charge, bull rush and grab.
> 
> Our 3.x Bugbear already has a morningstar basic attack... now for one of his racial feats lets give him power attk... he can now deal extra damage anytime he wants by taking a reduced chance to hit. He also has a ranged attack with the javelins... so we're already at three different options by just switching a feat out... a regular attk, power attk and ranged attk. On top of this he can implicitly grapple, trip, feint, sunder, bull rush, charge, disarm, overrun etc. I'm not understanding how your 4e Bugbear has more options in combat by the rules?




Well, I think others may have had a different experience than you did with the extra combat options. At least in my experiences, most DMs avoided having monsters grapple, trip, sunder, disarm, overrun, etc - unless the monster was designed for it. Because typically it was a weak option, and for most DMs, required picking up the PHB and looking through those rules every time it actually came up. 

Similarly, when a DM grabbed the Monster Manual to run a group of bugbears, most aren't going to start swapping their feats on the fly to expand what they can do. Instead, they will end up with a group of identical monsters that do pretty much one thing - hit people with morningstars. And occasionally throw javelins if they need to. 

When I grab some in 4E, they will hit people with morningstars - and smash some enemies to the ground, while their buddies pop up and strangle them from behind. Even if they don't have a huge host of options within that, each round feels a bit more fluid, a bit more dynamic. 

And even more important - a bit more distinct to the monster itself. The complaint against melee attacks in 3.5 was that everything pretty much came down to rolling to hit and dealing damage. A group of bugbears and a band of earth elementals and a handful of hill giants all swing their weapons/fists/etc at the PCs, and do some damage. Note that even adding class levels and feats doesn't change things too much - rage might alter a monster, but it is still just rolling attacks and dealing damage. A ranger might get more attacks from two weapons, and deal more damage to certain enemies. A fighter might be more accurate, a rogue might deal lots of damage with sneak attack, and people with power attack can trade accuracy for damage. But again - melee guy rolls to hit, and deals damage. In 4E, each enemy tends to have some unique flavor that plays out differently. 

Now, I'm not by any means saying all melee monsters in 3.5 were identical. There were certainly special abilities that keep things distinct, whether it is poison or regeneration or actually investing in the feats to trip/disarm/grapple. 

But the default options for melee attackers tended to be much more limited, in my experience, than the default abilities for most enemies in 4E.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I'm sorry... I guess I'm not part of your "we". Even in 4e, I select options that fit the themes and narratives of the combat and monster. I don't use a power because it happened to recharge this round, and I don't believe every monster should do the most mathematically optimal thing in combat each round, because in narratives, life and movies this isn't always what happens (in fact I would argue that many villains use sub-optimal tactics.). The point is I have the option to play the monster the way I want to, not how it is dictated I play it by the 4 precise powers it has... so yeah I guess there's a big disconnect in playstyles here.




There is a difference between not optimal and sucking.  Someone who hasn't been trained (or experienced) in tripping people trying to trip them sucks.  And the only sane Sunder attempt I know of from an untrained sunderer was Edmund in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe (and that still got him stabbed).  To take a recent example, I had a group of first level thugs led by a fifth level Human Noble - the Noble was the strongest and the toughest of the group.  And still got everyone else to make the attacks because that's the kind of guy he was.

And, for the record, the simplest tweaking you can do within the rules, and one that's extremely powerful is finding a monster that does about the right thing and changing its race.  But yes, monster design is more art than science.  This was true in 3e especially with the class balance (and that a monster spellcaster often could go in expecting one fight in the day - the daily spell limit is such an odd one for people who are only going to be in the foreground once before they die).  Yes, you could add class levels within the rules.  Didn't mean it was balanced.



billd91 said:


> I'm a long time player since the AD&D days and though my game of preference is 3.5/Pathfinder even I know this isn't accurate. A lot of criticisms leveled at 3e generation D&D mechanics, particularly achieving combat balance between spellcasters and martial characters, from an AD&D perspective have been pretty cogent. They hold water just fine and don't boil down to play style differences.




Point.  Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard was particularly bad in 3e as they removed most of the locks on the Wizard.



ExploderWizard said:


> Minions are a literary construct that have meaning in a story. If you are crafting a story they have a purpose.




And if you are using your game as a form of colaborative storytelling?  For that matter, they make sense in the game world if used carefully (they are the guys who run away at the first hit or the pets who provide a distraction).  If I wanted a pure game I'd probably play Descent.  Or (more likely) Dominion or Wings of War.  Or even Mass Effect or Team Fortress 2.


----------



## Imaro (May 21, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Are you for real?
> 
> 4e doesn't _need_ monster customization rules because monsters don't share the same rules that pcs do. That's the main difference and the major advantage of 4e's approach.
> 
> ...




Go back and read what the original argument was please. No one claimed 4e and 3.x worked on the same rules foundation for monsters and NPC's, so I'm not sure what point you are making here.

And how, pray tell,do you balance powers that do something besides damage? Or a power that does damage and an effect? Making stuff up isn't always easier than looking stuff up (since you can ultimately limit your sources, a dozen books isn't necessary) when you want to keep the game running right. Making stuff up isn't a strength of 4e... it's a strength of any and every rpg.

EDIT: Oh, and just as an FYI... 4e does have monster and NPC customization rules... they've also been discussed earlier in the thread.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 21, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> I don't assume that you are talking only about 4e.  I just assume that when you _are_ talking about 4e you should instead be listening or can be ignored because you demonstrably don't understand the game - and I've been providing illustrations of the differences for quite a while.




Erm.  I am not saying that you should be accepting any post as evidence merely because it is posted.  While I don't necessarily agree with everything that you say, I certainly do agree with the basic premise that you shouldn't wemble on your position merely because someone else offers a counter.  Perhaps I wasn't clear?

It is normal and necessary to guage how much you believe someone knows about a topic in order to guage how much weight to give their opinion.



> And seriously, provide _any_ source that comes close to matching the DMing advice in the DMGII.




Post the initial release, you should give no weight at all to my opinion of 4e.  I've only directly examined the initial Core 3, and any other data I have comes second-hand (I have two players who also play 4e).



> Unfortunately the module writers seem to ignore the DMGII - and yes, the WoTC 4e modules I've read suck.




Now, this is something I do know about, because I have been rewriting some 4e materials for use with RCFG (see sig if you don't know what that is).  And, yes, I do see good potential in many WotC modules, but from what I do know about 4e, rewriting them for that system is more labour-intensive than the modules deserve.  

Like all systems, 4e has strengths and weaknesses.  It seems as though the module writers are targetting the weaknesses, and failing to exploit the strengths.  IMHO, anyway.  The degree to which later releases alter the strengths and weaknesses of 4e will (obviously) influence how much you should accept that opinion.



billd91 said:


> A lot of criticisms leveled at 3e generation D&D mechanics, particularly achieving combat balance between spellcasters and martial characters, from an AD&D perspective have been pretty cogent. They hold water just fine and don't boil down to play style differences.




Agreed.


RC


----------



## Mallus (May 21, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Minions are a literary construct that have meaning in a story.



Sure. But that doesn't stop them from being a useful RPG construct, specifically, a low-powered opponent that frequently requires less bookkeeping.

In D&D 4e specifically, they're a class of opponent capable of hitting, damaging, and even imposing status conditions on like-leveled PC's, but with effectively 1 HP. This breaks D&D's long-running tradition of coupling attack ability with like defensive capability/staying power cf. "hit dice".

(but I'm guessing you already knew all that )


----------



## MrMyth (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Hey Scribble, just a quick note... if in the 2 DMG's and/or 2 going on 3 MM's 4e had given us a breakdown and rules for comparing and balancing powers... I would be right there with you... but it hasn't, so in essence even with powers replacing feats in 4e (Which is not something I necessarily agree with, especially as we get more feats that do more than just grant a minor bonus) IMO, we are still lacking in the customization aspect of 4e's monsters and NPC's.




But there are guidelines. 

When I create or customize a 4E monster, I know around what attack bonus I should have and how much damage an attack should do, based on whether it recharges, what type of monster role I am in, how many targets it hits, what defense it attacks...

Now, there aren't as useful guidelines for adding the extra features - what conditions it inflicts, what other elements the attack might have. 

But I have found, with those guidelines, I can make pretty informed decisions. I know that whatever I choose, I'm not going to have an attack that just blows PCs apart, or bounces off them harmlessly. I know, based on the level alone, the monster will be an appropriate challenge in terms of defenses and hitpoints. 

Which - at least for me - are far more useful reassurances than the entirely by-the-book monster customization formulas of 3.5. The CR system really did fail me, time and again. Leveling monsters, advancing hit dice, adding abilities - I often found that I could trust the end result. Yet the book said I could, and so I went with it anyway. It didn't fail me every time, of course - but I regularly found myself comparing newly adjusted monsters to ones from the book anyway, and trying to scale them appropriately from there. Despite all the formulas, monster adjustment was an art more than a science. 

And thus I was very glad when 4E outright acknowledged that. You get guidelines and pointers, and the advice to check your work anyway. You do have some templates for adding classes to existing monsters, or NPC rules for building humanoid NPCs from scratch. But if you don't want to go by the book, you can also just take a monster and swap some of its powers for appropriate level ranger powers. 

And that is the real strength - the time is takes to make those adjustments is far less than I would spend statting out high-level monsters or NPCs. And more basic changes - like adjusting a monster's level up or down - I can often do on the spot. Combined with the expanded base options for many monsters... I find I prefer 4Es approach, and that it provides all the customizability I need. 

I have yet to find myself in a situation where I wanted a certain monster or type of monster, and couldn't put together one, and one that was distinct in what it could do and how it played. And if anyone is really concerned that the DM might get it wrong without strict rules to ensure balance... the fact that it takes less work leaves you plenty of time to compare it to existing monsters and confirm whether a new ability is appropriate at that level or not. 

Will the system be perfect for everyone? Of course not. But I've found it is easier for starting DMs by providing them with a more diverse selection of distinctive monsters, and it is easier for advanced DMs by putting the power into their own hands and giving guidelines, rather than absolute formulas, to create and adjust monsters as they desire.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 21, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> And if you are using your game as a form of colaborative storytelling?




This is precisely when they make perfect sense. If you are not?


.[/QUOTE]
For that matter, they make sense in the game world if used carefully (they are the guys who run away at the first hit or the pets who provide a distraction).[/QUOTE]

Nope. Minions only exist relative to the PC's. In order to serve as a setting for a game, the elements of that setting need to make sense without the presence of the PC's. Minions fail that test. 



Neonchameleon said:


> If I wanted a pure game I'd probably play Descent. Or (more likely) Dominion or Wings of War. Or even Mass Effect or Team Fortress 2.




Pure?


----------



## MrMyth (May 21, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Nope. Minions only exist relative to the PC's. In order to serve as a setting for a game, the elements of that setting need to make sense without the presence of the PC's. Minions fail that test.




Oh, come on - it is a fundamental premise of 4E that the stats for monsters are there to simulate their interactions with PCs, not their interactions with the rest of the world. If a tree falls on a 4E minion in the forest, and no PCs are around to see him, does he die? 

Answer: _It is entirely up to the DM_. What happens to a mook, off-screen, in a situation entirely separate from the PCs, does not require dice-rolling. What happens should be determined by some of those very things you are concerned about - the elements of the setting, the constraints of the story, and the narrative of the DM. 

Now, maybe you disagree with this. Maybe you really want a fully-functioning world that you could remove the DM and the players and let it play itself like some sort of tiny mechanical universe. Sounds cool, sounds fascinating - but it isn't 4E. It isn't D&D at all, honestly, but it certainly isn't 4E. Within the context of 4E, as a game that people are actively involved in playing, minions absolutely have a place - both mechanically and within the narrative.


----------



## Imaro (May 21, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> But there are guidelines.
> 
> When I create or customize a 4E monster, I know around what attack bonus I should have and how much damage an attack should do, based on whether it recharges, what type of monster role I am in, how many targets it hits, what defense it attacks...
> 
> ...




Dude, I have no problems with people's preferences. And believe it or not, with an application I was working on nearing release and my free time severly limited, I enjoyed some of 4e's philosophy on things. Is it my favorite D&D? No. I prefer 3e/Pathfinder. Is 3e/Pathfinder my favorite RPG? Again, No. I prefer games like Runequest, nWoD and Reign to games like D&D... 

My whole argument started because a general blanket statement about melee monsters and NPC's having more options in 4e than 3e was used, and I have found that, without waving the wand of extreme GM fiat, this issue is a little more complicated than a 4e> 3e blanket statement.

Edit: Wow, I pprobably should have snipped that quote, sorry about that... also I realize that those three games I listed are toolbox games, that provide the means (in a concrete way) to construct what one wants out of them while still being heavily oriented towards their genre, so I guess that is perhaps my preference and why 4e doesn't hit my buttons like it does others.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 21, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Oh, come on - it is a fundamental premise of 4E that the stats for monsters are there to simulate their interactions with PCs, not their interactions with the rest of the world.




Quite true. A core problem with the system in fact. 



MrMyth said:


> Now, maybe you disagree with this. Maybe you really want a fully-functioning world that you could remove the DM and the players and let it play itself like some sort of tiny mechanical universe. Sounds cool, sounds fascinating - but it isn't 4E.




Also true.



MrMyth said:


> It isn't D&D at all, honestly,




Wrong. 

Not that D&D has ever been focused primarily on anything outside of the play group but it has generally supported multiple play styles.


----------



## MrMyth (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> My whole argument started because a general blanket statement about melee monsters and NPC's having more options in 4e than 3e was used, and I have found that, without waving the wand of extreme GM fiat, this issue is a little more complicated than a 4e> 3e blanket statement.




Fair enough. I do think I would still stand by that statement, since I think it was geared towards the options of melee monsters out of the book (rather than DM-crafted NPCs), as well as the differences between having a variety of attacks that only really involve damage, and a variety of melee attacks that more regularly feature conditions and distinct effects.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 21, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Post the initial release, you should give no weight at all to my opinion of 4e. I've only directly examined the initial Core 3, and any other data I have comes second-hand (I have two players who also play 4e).




Ah.  4e plays _much_ better than it reads.  And the II line (the PHB II, the DMG II, and the MM II) are all very good, both signifcantly expanding the play space and improving the balance of 4e.



> Now, this is something I do know about, because I have been rewriting some 4e materials for use with RCFG (see sig if you don't know what that is). And, yes, I do see good potential in many WotC modules, but from what I do know about 4e, rewriting them for that system is more labour-intensive than the modules deserve.




Re-writing for 4e is actually quite easy.  If the module fits a pulp action-adventure then the fluff can stay unchanged.  Mechanics for non-combat are rules light.  It's just the combat encounters you need to re-write.  Large, open, flowing, with interactive terrain (or just things to push people off).

Re-writing _from_ 4e modules on the other hand isn't.  Or rather isn't worth it as most published 4e modules are either dull or have brilliant combats that don't translate (because pushing people back into their own pit traps and the like is a signature of 4e and doesn't work in earlier editions).



> Like all systems, 4e has strengths and weaknesses. It seems as though the module writers are targetting the weaknesses, and failing to exploit the strengths. IMHO, anyway. The degree to which later releases alter the strengths and weaknesses of 4e will (obviously) influence how much you should accept that opinion.




Most of the modules _are_ poor, granted.  And it's not always easy to see the places where 4e beats out a generic rules light game unless you understand it.



ExploderWizard said:


> This is precisely when they make perfect sense. If you are not?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ah.  You equate game with simulationist.  To me this makes as much sense as asking about the economics behind Risk.  Chess is a damn good game - but pawns being able to only move forward makes no sense.



> Pure?




Dominion qualifies.  Although Dominion is an abstract tabletop deck building card game.  (I don't like much of pure _anything_.)


----------



## Scribble (May 21, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Edit: Wow, I pprobably should have snipped that quote, sorry about that... also I realize that those three games I listed are toolbox games, that provide the means (in a concrete way) to construct what one wants out of them while still being heavily oriented towards their genre, so I guess that is perhaps my preference and why 4e doesn't hit my buttons like it does others.




Thats probably it for me as well, but on the other end. I love the ability to customize, but get really annoyed when I feel like I'm being bogged down by the heavier "toolkit" styles.

It's all a personal preference thing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 21, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Ah.  4e plays _much_ better than it reads.




That may well be true, depending upon the group, also depending upon the reader.



> Re-writing _from_ 4e modules on the other hand isn't.




It seems extremely easy to me.  That might be an artefact of the system I am translating to, however.  



> Most of the modules _are_ poor, granted.  And it's not always easy to see the places where 4e beats out a generic rules light game unless you understand it.




Of those people who have played 4e and RCFG in the playtests, 100% claim that RCFG is superior.  Of course, this is an _*extremely*_ small sample set.


----------



## Dannager (May 21, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Nope. Minions only exist relative to the PC's. In order to serve as a setting for a game, the elements of that setting need to make sense without the presence of the PC's.



You have not shown this to be true, nor have you shown that minions do not make sense without the PCs' presence from a story perspective. You are making up absolute rules based on a flimsy, likely mutable definition of what a game _ought_ to be and nothing more. In fact, I'm starting to wonder if the rules you're making up are designed with 4e falling short of them in mind.


----------



## Scribble (May 21, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Of those people who have played 4e and RCFG in the playtests, 100% claim that RCFG is superior.  Of course, this is an _*extremely*_ small sample set.




I heard 9 out of 10 dentists recommend RCFTP as well... Could be just a myth though.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 21, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I heard 9 out of 10 dentists recommend RCFTP as well... Could be just a myth though.




"9 out of 10 dentists *surveyed*".  

The number of dentists surveyed is important, as well as _*how they were selected*_.  

Also, what do dentists know about Raven Crowking's Fantasy *T*oilet *P*aper, anyway?  

RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 21, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Not that D&D has ever been focused primarily on anything outside of the play group but it has generally supported multiple play styles.



Is that true? Prior to 4e, you had to begin play at level 1 and then stop around level 10 in order to balance casters. Either that or play the whole game in the level 3-6 region, which I think I lot of people might've done. Also, to balance Vancian magic you need a certain minimum number of encounters per day, in my view 3e needed quite a bit more than four to be balanced.

Deviate from either of these and the classes are no longer balanced. The groups I've gamed with often disliked traditional D&D dungeons, probably due to their implausibility and divergence from fantasy fiction. And we'd very often play single sessions, oneoffs or short campaigns.


----------



## Beginning of the End (May 21, 2010)

*There are additional problems in this thread that I'll address in a minute, but this will be the post that just got Beginning of the End suspended. Folks, please pay attention to what he does here -- and then don't do that. Our simple "don't be a jerk" rules is being completely ignored, and we don't have a lot of patience for that. ~ PCat*



Doug McCrae said:


> > Not that D&D has ever been focused primarily on anything outside of the play group but it has generally supported multiple play styles.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that true? Prior to 4e, you had to begin play at level 1 and then stop around level 10 in order to balance casters. Either that or play the whole game in the level 3-6 region, which I think I lot of people might've done. Also, to balance Vancian magic you need a certain minimum number of encounters per day, in my view 3e needed quite a bit more than four to be balanced.




First, I find your assertions about how D&D "had" to be played extremely questionable. Starting campaigns above 1st level was as easy as saying "roll up 5th level characters". And I've run plenty of campaigns beyond 10th level with great success and minimal balance problems. (With proactive instead of reactive dungeon mastering, the casters only start skewing out of balance once they can truly start dictating the pace of encounters. And that doesn't happen until 15th level or thereabouts.)

But more importantly, pre-4E D&D supported multiple styles of play _at every level_. Fighters, wizards, rogues, and clerics all featured widely divergent mechanical styles of play. All 4E classes, on the other hand, are variations on a single mechanical theme.

And going all the way back to the 1974 White Box, we find rules for multiple styles of campaign. The rules for dungeon crawling and combat actually took up a _minority_ of both the rulebooks and the class descriptions in 1974.



Dannager said:


> Of these 14 encounters you highlight, precisely one involves 5 or more (exactly 5, actually) of the same non-minion stat block.




Nice try at moving the goalposts. You get an E for Effort, but an F for intellectual dishonesty.



Imaro said:


> I call bull on this, the only way a 3e melee attacker monster/NPC has fewer options than a 4e melee attacker monster/NPC is if you disregard the application of classes, feats, prestige classes, etc. when designing it. Otherwise it becomes a matter of number of options being relatively scalable in 3e to how much effort one is willing to put into personalizing the monster.




What is probably true is that 4E melee attackers at 1st level generally have more options than 3E melee attackers. But, OTOH, 1st level in 4E was explicitly designed to look more like 3rd level in previous editions.

I'm going to arbitrarily look at ten CR 5 non-casters in the MM for both games. I'm going to ignore options coming from skill use or from basic functionality of the combat system. For 3rd Edition, I'm taking the first 10 monsters in the CR 5 listing and not listing any monsters with spells or spell-like abilities. (And I only did one elemental.) For 4th Edition I'm taking the top two creatures listed in each category for Level 5 creatures, except for controllers. (I also skipped the one Level 5 minion listed.)

*3rd Edition*
Achaeri (3): Claw/Bite, Black Cloud, Spring Attack
Animated Object, Huge (4): Slam, Blind, Constrict, Trample
Arrowhawk, Adult (3): Bite, Electricity Ray, Flyby Attack
Basilisk (2): Bite, Petrifying Gaze
Cloaker (4): Tail Slap, Moan, Engulf, Shadow Shift
Devil, Bearded (7): Claw, Infernal Wound, Beard, Battle Frenzy, Summon Baatezu, Telepathy, Power Attack
Dire Lion (3): Claw, Pounce, Rake
Elemental, Large Air (3): Slam, Whirlwind, Flyby Attack
Gibbering Mouther (7): Bite, Spittle, Gibbering, Improved Grab, Blood Drain, Engulf, Ground Manipulation

Average: 3.6 options

*4th Edition*
Blazing Skeleton (2): Blazing Claw, Flame Orb
Gnoll Huntmaster (3): Handaxe, Longbow, Pack Attack
Boneshard Skeleton (3): Scimitar, Boneshard, Boneshard Burst
Bugbear Warrior (Goblin) (3): Morningstar, Skullthumper, Predatory Eye
Greenscale Darter (Lizardfolk) (3): Club, Blowgun, Sniper
Slaad Tadpole (2): Bite, Chaos Shift
Dire Wolf (3): Bite, Combat Advantage, Pack Hunter
Fire Bat (2): Fiery Touch, Fiery Swoop
Dragonborn Soldier (4): Dragon Breath, Dragonborn Fury, Impetuous Spirit, Martial Recovery
Dwarf Hammerer (5): Warhammer, Shield Bash, Throwing Hammer, Stubborn, Stand Your Ground

Average: 3.0 options

This spot check would seem to confirm your suspicion, Imaro.



Dannager said:


> No, the great stories are never about balanced  encounters (even though, sometimes, they actually might be). That _doesn't_  mean that balanced encounters don't play a huge role in _facilitating_  the cooperative telling of a story that involves combat encounters, _nor_  does it mean that a balanced encounter is going to make a great story  more difficult to tell. Your signature engages in the clear implication  that balanced encounters are unimportant to a roleplaying game, and I  think that's an implication that deserves one heck of a  challenge.




I think there are actually two divisions in play style being clumped together here:

(1) "All encounters should be perfectly balanced" vs. "a wide range of encounter difficulties makes for a dynamic play experience"

(2) "The DM is primarily responsible for the balance of play" vs. "The players control the balance of play"

These two styles interact with each in several ways (for example, when players are allowed to choose what difficulty of challenge they want to deal with a dynamic range of encounter difficulties is generally part of that parcel).



MrMyth said:


> Except I think you are the one making that  equation, not Noonan. The attitude of "five rounds later, they're done"  is explicitly a discussion of what abilities are relevant in the  stat-block in the context of how many actions a creature will take.




I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I read: "We wanted our presentation of monsters to reflect how       they’re  actually used in D&D  gameplay." And I read that to mean "this is how monsters are used in D&D". You, on the other hand, are apparently choosing to simply ignore that statement for your own convenience.

(Or you're choosing to interpret "D&D gameplay" to mean "combat and nothing but combat". Which just brings us back to my point again.)



> Are they as common as the combat? No, but that is an issue with  adventure design more than something fundamentally tied to what monsters  are capable of.



... and no matter how many time I explicitly say that isn't a claim I'm making, you keep repeating it so that you can beat the strawman a little more.

Why do you keep doing that, exactly?



> Every time I've pointed out that monsters still have relevant stats,  skills and abilities that a DM can use to have them interact out of  combat, you've chosen to respond to some other point entirely.



Because that statement is irrelevant to what I'm saying. If you kept saying, "Apples are red." I would similarly ignore that. I have nothing to say to it. Yes, apples are red. So what? WotC's designers are still espousing a design philosophy that NPCs only exist in the context of combat; and that design philosophy still has an impact on how their modules are being written.

(It also has an impact on how their stat blocks are written, which has a much smaller impact on how their adventure modules are written. But that's an almost entirely tangential issue.)

Let's see if this can make it clearer: Even in a world where 4th Edition had never been designed or published, the design philosophy espoused by Noonan would still produce combat-happy grind-fest modules. It doesn't matter what edition you're designing for: If your attitude is that NPCs only exist in combat, then you're going to be designing combat-happy grind-fest modules.



> He also said that we don't need mechanics detailing how they interact  with other NPCs out of combat.



Actually, no. What he said is that we don't need mechanics detailing how they interact with other NPCs _off-screen while the PCs aren't there to see it_.

This part of Noonan's claim is, BTW, essentially true. (The only exception is that it may be important insofar as the PCs are capable of finding out that information without being there to see it. But that's nothing more than a quibble.)

Unfortunately, the rest of Noonan's statement goes on to say that we don't need mechanics detailing how NPCs interact with PCs outside of combat. Which is, of course, complete poppycock.



> The problem is, you have somehow leaped from that scenario... to  claiming that by prioritizing combat relevance, we are outright exiling  non-combat interaction from the game.



It doesn't really matter how many times you _claim_ I said that. I never actually said that.



Neonchameleon said:


> > Then why did you describe Noonan's claim  that NPCs exist  only in combat a being a "truthful statement"?
> 
> 
> 
> When an actor leaves the stage does  the character continue to exist?  There's a good argument that the  answer is no.




How can you argue so stridently that you don't have a bias for combat  and then just blatantly post that in your campaigns NPCs never appear  outside of combat?

C'mon!



> > Each round each NPC has to select an action. If there are 5  NPCs using the same stat block and 5 rounds, then 25 actions have to be  selected from that stat block.
> 
> 
> 
> And if the monsters don't select  the same action more than once they are almost incoherent.




Beat that strawman! Beat it until it bleeds!

Lemme know when you want to talk about something that I actually said.

*...yeah. Not so much. ~ PCat*


----------



## Primal (May 22, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> But there are guidelines.
> 
> When I create or customize a 4E monster, I know around what attack bonus I should have and how much damage an attack should do, based on whether it recharges, what type of monster role I am in, how many targets it hits, what defense it attacks...
> 
> ...




I don't think anyone is confused how to calculate attack bonuses, AC or HPs -- however, as I said a couple of pages ago, I find the *powers* to be the problem. For example, as I posted, the exact "recharge number" is a problem for me; should a "stun (save ends)"-type of power recharge only on a 6? Or should it only last for one round? How about daze? Can I give a 4th level brute monster a daze/stun-power? Etcetera, etcetera. 

The arbitary and "whatever-you-like" type of monster design guidelines are what's kept me from running 4E, because I know I'd spend FAR more time sweating over monsters than I've done in 3E. I see it as 4E's biggest *weakness*. But, that's just me -- I know many other DMs feel this aspect of 4E is liberating.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 22, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> But more importantly, pre-4E D&D supported multiple styles of play _at every level_. Fighters, wizards, rogues, and clerics all featured widely divergent mechanical styles of play. All 4E classes, on the other hand, are variations on a single mechanical theme.



I don't think they are that different. There's only two different types of power in terms of periodicity - at-wills (basic attacks for all classes, thieves' abilities) and Vancian magic (wizard and cleric spells). A cleric makes use of both kinds of periodicity (though not at 1st level in OD&D and BD&D) and so does a low level magic-user. Fighters and thieves use only one. So all four classes are the same in terms of having at-wills, while two classes possess an additional type - dailies.

Compare a magic-user who is out of spells to a 4e controller. The magic-user just feels like a weak ranged attacker, essentially a subset of thief or fighter, whereas the controller is still more effective than other roles at attacking multiple foes and moving them around. The same is true for a cleric who is out of spells, whereas a 4e leader out of dailies will still have his per encounter heals.

Consider also that the ability to very easily multi-class in 3e could lead to a great degree of homogeneity. The practice of 'dipping' AKA front-loaded abilities. Take a level of cleric for access to CLW wands, now everyone can be a healer. A level of barbarian for rage and increased move, or two levels of fighter for the feats.


----------



## Benimoto (May 22, 2010)

Primal said:


> The arbitary and "whatever-you-like" type of monster design guidelines are what's kept me from running 4E, because I know I'd spend FAR more time sweating over monsters than I've done in 3E. I see it as 4E's biggest *weakness*. But, that's just me -- I know many other DMs feel this aspect of 4E is liberating.




I had the same sorts of thoughts when I started running 4e, but I can say from my own experience that actually running 4e and using the monsters is the best way to know the answers to these questions.

Plus, the whole thing about the expected 5 round lifespan of a monster means it's unlikely a mistake will be too costly.

Again, just my experience, but as someone who played 3.0/3.5 regularly for basically the entire time it was in print, and now has been playing 4e for several years, I find 4e monster design easier.  My 4e monsters generally take less time to create, and when I use them I find they are more consistently a balanced challenge to my players (if that is what I intend ).


----------



## Piratecat (May 22, 2010)

I just wanted to thank everyone who is working their ass off to discuss this politely and with examples, even if you don't agree with other members. It's very much appreciated. You guys are great.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 22, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> I'm going to arbitrarily look at ten CR 5 non-casters in the MM for both games. I'm going to ignore options coming from skill use or from basic functionality of the combat system. For 3rd Edition, I'm taking the first 10 monsters in the CR 5 listing and not listing any monsters with spells or spell-like abilities. (And I only did one elemental.) For 4th Edition I'm taking the top two creatures listed in each category for Level 5 creatures, except for controllers. (I also skipped the one Level 5 minion listed.)
> 
> *3rd Edition*
> Achaeri (3): Claw/Bite, Black Cloud, Spring Attack
> ...




I must say I'm surprised.

I'm going to argue with three of your creatures although it will not change the overall conclusion:

The Bearded Devil has spell like abilities (Greater Teleport, Summon) and therefore should be discarded.

Blood Drain is a property of one of the Gibbering Mouther's attacks and should not be counted any more than Ongoing 5 is a separate thing in 4e.

Animated Object: What has hardness of 10, is like a rope, and like a carpet?  Weird object you have there.

Interestingly, cut the devil and drop an ability off the carpet and the mouther and you're down to 3 exactly.  I'm amazed it's a tie.

But there's a kicker.  A 3e monster of CR5 is expected to challenge a party of 4 level 5 PCs.  A 4e monster of CR5 is expected to challenge _one_ PC of level 5.  Which means that a CR5 monster in 3e is, in terms of use, much closer to a solo in 4e (and the only out of the book 5th level solos are Dragons and the "Fell Taint Thought Scourge" in one issue of Dragon).  I was wrong to think that the complexity and depth I've noticed in play was from the number of powers.  It's from the thematic and useful monsters in greater numbers.  Thanks for the correction.



> I think there are actually two divisions in play style being clumped together here:
> 
> (1) "All encounters should be perfectly balanced" vs. "a wide range of encounter difficulties makes for a dynamic play experience"
> 
> (2) "The DM is primarily responsible for the balance of play" vs. "The players control the balance of play"




And you're missing point 3:

(3) Balance in monster and encounter design is simply a measure of information for the PC.  If the DM has this information then he can design his world more accurately and clearly than if he did not.  vs Balance in monster and encounter design is a straightjacket.  Without the balance being important there's more practical flexibility.



> I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I read: "We wanted our presentation of monsters to reflect how       they’re  actually used in D&D  gameplay." And I read that to mean "this is how monsters are used in D&D". You, on the other hand, are apparently choosing to simply ignore that statement for your own convenience.




And, as I have mentioned, there's very little monsters should be rolling for out of combat in 4e.  Anything opposed can be handled by one die roll - which the players can make.  Or by 2e style interaction with the DM.

In the last two sessions, my PCs have ended two combats in one case by convincing the other side to turn, and in the other by giving them a dressing down then ideas about how to do what they were trying to - but less stupidly.  Both took PC skills.  And there have been about as many non-combat encounters as combat encounters (I think we had four non combat and three combat last session - although the combats took longer).  We had a little more than half hour RP/Skill Challenge to convince one guy to help in the last session (I was the DM) - the guy in question neither had nor needed a single stat even when the PCs were rolling Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Insight, History, and Streetwise.  Possibly also Nature, Perception, or Religion.  And I was running things by the book.



> Because that statement is irrelevant to what I'm saying. If you kept saying, "Apples are red." I would similarly ignore that. I have nothing to say to it. Yes, apples are red. So what? WotC's designers are still espousing a design philosophy that NPCs only exist in the context of combat; and that design philosophy still has an impact on how their modules are being written.




NPCs only have freedom of action in the context of encounters.  And the most common form of encounter is combat.

But I wish the WoTC writers would read the DMG II and take it to heart.



> Let's see if this can make it clearer: Even in a world where 4th Edition had never been designed or published, the design philosophy espoused by Noonan would still produce combat-happy grind-fest modules. It doesn't matter what edition you're designing for: If your attitude is that NPCs only exist in combat, then you're going to be designing combat-happy grind-fest modules.




They only need to act in encounters.  And only actually need personal stats in combat.



> Unfortunately, the rest of Noonan's statement goes on to say that we don't need mechanics detailing how NPCs interact with PCs outside of combat. Which is, of course, complete poppycock.




If Noonan meant the way I run 4e, it's perfectly true to say that monsters don't need detailed stats (other than for the odd ritual) to detail how they interact with PCs outside of combat.  You can do it all effectively using the Skill Challenge rules.  On the other hand, he was talking about the 3e MMV I think.  Running 3e without stats for the NPCs outside combat isn't so good.  (Unless he had a prototype Skill Challenge system).


----------



## Imaro (May 22, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> But there's a kicker. A 3e monster of CR5 is expected to challenge a party of 4 level 5 PCs. A 4e monster of CR5 is expected to challenge _one_ PC of level 5. Which means that a CR5 monster in 3e is, in terms of use, much closer to a solo in 4e (and the only out of the book 5th level solos are Dragons and the "Fell Taint Thought Scourge" in one issue of Dragon). I was wrong to think that the complexity and depth I've noticed in play was from the number of powers. It's from the thematic and useful monsters in greater numbers. Thanks for the correction.




Okay, earlier in this thread you asked me if I custom made every monster in 3e... so now I'm going to ask you a question... did you really only use every monster as a solo for the particular level it's CR matched? 

I think your really reaching here to justify your opinions about 4e and 3e. I mean honestly I can use 4 CR 5 monsters to make an encounter with an EL of 9... Thus a 9th level party which is roughly equivalent (taking the disparity between 30 levels vs. 20 levels) to a 4th/5th level party in 4e. These selected monsters can have the same type of tactical synergy one finds in 4e... though admittedly in 3e it is not spelled out for you. Maybe it was there all along and, in the same vein some 4e supporters claim some people don't get 4e... some people didn't know how to use 3e to achieve this. Personally my primary goal was never creating tactically rich encounters in 3e... it was at best a secondary goal to creating an encounter that made sense and served a purpose in the game as well as the narrative I and my players were playing/creating. 

How about this then (and this is all just me musing on things)... there was tactical depth in properly constructed 3e encounters (where "properly" is used to mean this was one's primary goal), though nowhere near as transparent or as primary to encounters as it became in 4e. So the tools were there... some people just had a harder time using them than others.  Perhaps, for these people, 4e feels like it offers a better tacical gameplay experience.


----------



## Primal (May 22, 2010)

Benimoto said:


> I had the same sorts of thoughts when I started running 4e, but I can say from my own experience that actually running 4e and using the monsters is the best way to know the answers to these questions.
> 
> Plus, the whole thing about the expected 5 round lifespan of a monster means it's unlikely a mistake will be too costly.
> 
> Again, just my experience, but as someone who played 3.0/3.5 regularly for basically the entire time it was in print, and now has been playing 4e for several years, I find 4e monster design easier.  My 4e monsters generally take less time to create, and when I use them I find they are more consistently a balanced challenge to my players (if that is what I intend ).




You're probably right; I think the best way for me would not be to to start with my own critters. After all, there are (soon) three MMs out. But I'd still like to have more cohesive rules for applying monster powers. Maybe the new boxed sets will contain a more "codified" system?

Anyway, I might give it a try in the summer...  I'd be more than glad to play, but the only local 4E group I know does not accept "new" players (I know them but they currently have a full roster of players).


----------



## Lanefan (May 22, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> False.  A good encounter takes into account the expected capabilities of the participants.  And those capabilities are different edition to edition.  You don't need to protect against Scry and Fry in low level 3e or in 4e.
> 
> Assume there's a wizard with the party in both editions and a combat encounter.  In 3e the wizard is either not going to do much other than plinking with a crossbow or he's probably going to eliminate almost the entire fight with _Sleep_ if the PCs sneak up on the orcs.  In 4e he's probably going to _Thunderwave_ the orcs into the fire (which means the fire is part of the encounter rather than mostly scenery).



And to me the writer that should make *no* difference whatsoever.  All my job consists of is to write some interesting encounters tied together with some sort of coherent story.  How those encounters get met and dealt with is up to each individual play group that uses my (hypothetical) module.

Unless I'm a complete idiot, I'm writing my module for a range of PC levels: 1-3, 5-8, whatever.  Given that, I as writer should have at least a vague idea of what a party at that level can do, and keep that in mind while writing.  But at that point my assumptions have to end if I'm writing my module for mass consumption, as every group that plays it will play it somewhat differently.

As writer, it's part of my job to at least try and nod to some of those differences in my writing, rather than just say "here's a combat module, if anything happens other than combat you're on your own".

I'd go on but I've a session to run. 

Lanefan


----------



## MrMyth (May 22, 2010)

Primal said:


> I don't think anyone is confused how to calculate attack bonuses, AC or HPs -- however, as I said a couple of pages ago, I find the *powers* to be the problem. For example, as I posted, the exact "recharge number" is a problem for me; should a "stun (save ends)"-type of power recharge only on a 6? Or should it only last for one round? How about daze? Can I give a 4th level brute monster a daze/stun-power? Etcetera, etcetera.




I definitely understand where you are coming from, and can see how valuable more detailed guidelines would be. 

But, honestly, my advice? Just dive right in. Make those changes, and see how it plays out. As long as all the core stats are on par, there is decent leeway to hand out abilities. And the big offenders on powers are typically obvious - make stuns rare. Whereas dazes less so - don't have an at-will inflicting daze (save ends), but you can put it where appropriate. 

And I know that might sound like I'm providing the guidelines anyway, but I really found 4E forgiving of letting the DM just have at it without needing to fear they would break the system. The big guidelines involve action economy, and they give some advice on those in the sections on Elites and Solos. You don't want an ordinary monster to be able to take a ton of attacks on one PC - but an Elite? Giving them a double attack or minor actions or the like becomes more reasonable. 

Outside of that, I would just get your hands dirty with a couple - simply guessing what you feel is appropriate for the conditions and recharges. And once you've done that, go ahead and compare them to monsters of that level - see how close it looks. If you don't see any major discrepancies, that is a good sign for being able to make future attempts without as much double-checking. 

The freeform design may well not be for everyone, I admit. And I could be entirely wrong, and your PCs may pay the price and have to face some horrific aquatic dragon who breaths out swarms of acidic sharks - as a minor action! I can't say for sure. But I really would encourage just giving it a go - the system balance might not be quite as fragile as you fear.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 22, 2010)

BotE said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, the rest of Noonan's statement goes on to say that we don't need mechanics detailing how NPCs interact with PCs outside of combat. Which is, of course, complete poppycock.




No, sir, I'm afraid *this* is complete poppycock.





But as to the thrust of the statement, further echoed here...


			
				Neonchameleon said:
			
		

> They only need to act in encounters. And only actually need personal stats in combat.




I am going to disagree intensely. 

Well, perhaps not *intensely*. But even if you're taking an absolutist position, NPC's in encounters don't _need_ to act, and they don't _need_ personal stats (this Skill Challenge will use skill checks vs. a DC of the formula used for monster AC, and require 5 successes before 3 failures. Then, you win the combat! Attack rolls count as skill checks). 

Most people probably wouldn't find that very satisfying for very long. It might be fine for a combat or two, in a game that didn't revolve around them, but it can't well support your entire session. It's just not varied or interesting enough. 

You need stats for things that *you want to be varied and interesting*.

IMO, that absolutely includes combat. Combat sits at the very head of that table.

But in D&D, at least, in a game inspired by heroic fantasy, I'd expect Exploration (for dungeons) to sit to his Right, and Interaction (for NPC's) to sit to his Left, and little Reaction (for sudden things like traps and hiding) is on someone's lap. And you might even have a bit of Simulation (for world building and Gygaxian homage) down at the foot of the table, quiet and unobtrusive, but full of awesome stories if you want to talk to them. 

You want those to be varied and interesting.

Well, *I* want those to be varied and interesting. 

Which means I need stats for them. And I need actions to happen.

I also need room to breathe, rules for reactions, cascading effects I can just roll for, and other noncombat accoutrement that governs pacing, feel, and genre.  

The argument "you mainly need stats for combat" is true only inasmuch as the main thing you do that you are interested in is combat. Anything you want to be interesting at the table, you need stats for. Combat, yes. But, in my mind, so many other things as well.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 22, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Okay, earlier in this thread you asked me if I custom made every monster in 3e... so now I'm going to ask you a question... did you really only use every monster as a solo for the particular level it's CR matched?
> 
> I think your really reaching here to justify your opinions about 4e and 3e. I mean honestly I can use 4 CR 5 monsters to make an encounter with an EL of 9... Thus a 9th level party which is roughly equivalent (taking the disparity between 30 levels vs. 20 levels) to a 4th/5th level party in 4e.




Huh?  By my estimates a 9th level party is definitely up into Paragon tier.  Even Epic tier doesn't have anything like Wish, Shapechange, Gate, Mordaniken's Disjunction, Implosion, or Storm of Vengenace (although the latter might work) - meaning it caps out before level 17 (spellcaster equivalent).  9th is almost half way between 3rd (roughly equivalent to Level 1) and 16th (roughly equivalent to Level 30).  Putting it firmly in the middle.

And yes, I did use multiple monsters in 3e.  (Although not as many; minions are easy to run and the explicit assumptions were different, and I trust the CR system about as far as I can throw it - any system like that breaks near the edges).



> These selected monsters can have the same type of tactical synergy one finds in 4e...



Tell me when they get (a) Marks and (b) Forced Movement powers.



> Personally my primary goal was never creating tactically rich encounters in 3e... it was at best a secondary goal to creating an encounter that made sense and served a purpose in the game as well as the narrative I and my players were playing/creating.



Of course.  (At least if you don't want to model your game on Feng Shui - not that there's anything actually wrong with that).  But once there _is_ a combat encounter there, not making it tactically as well as narratively interesting is simply poor craftsmanship.



> How about this then (and this is all just me musing on things)... there was tactical depth in properly constructed 3e encounters (where "properly" is used to mean this was one's primary goal), though nowhere near as transparent or as primary to encounters as it became in 4e. So the tools were there... some people just had a harder time using them than others.  Perhaps, for these people, 4e feels like it offers a better tacical gameplay experience.



Again, I say 4e has tools like marks, forced movement, and an assumption of and balance for multiple foes.  Now you can argue that at a strategic level 3e wins - but tactically it's hard.



Lanefan said:


> And to me the writer that should make *no* difference whatsoever.  All my job consists of is to write some interesting encounters tied together with some sort of coherent story.  How those encounters get met and dealt with is up to each individual play group that uses my (hypothetical) module.




An encounter that's simply taken down by one spell (Sleep) is not interesting.  And what makes things interesting at a tactical level is different between modules.  For instance interactive scenery and pushing people down their own pit traps is huge in 4e.



> Unless I'm a complete idiot, I'm writing my module for a range of PC levels: 1-3, 5-8, whatever.  Given that, I as writer should have at least a vague idea of what a party at that level can do, and keep that in mind while writing.  But at that point my assumptions have to end if I'm writing my module for mass consumption, as every group that plays it will play it somewhat differently.




System matters as much as level.



> As writer, it's part of my job to at least try and nod to some of those differences in my writing, rather than just say "here's a combat module, if anything happens other than combat you're on your own".




And to nod to those differences _within the combat_ if you're running different systems with different approaches to combat.



> I'd go on but I've a session to run.




Have fun   (My next session is tomorrow).



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Well, perhaps not *intensely*. But even if you're taking an absolutist position, NPC's in encounters don't _need_ to act, and they don't _need_ personal stats (this Skill Challenge will use skill checks vs. a DC of the formula used for monster AC, and require 5 successes before 3 failures. Then, you win the combat! Attack rolls count as skill checks).




Using them that way is one of the big reasons 4e modules clunk.



> Most people probably wouldn't find that very satisfying for very long. It might be fine for a combat or two, in a game that didn't revolve around them, but it can't well support your entire session. It's just not varied or interesting enough.



That's assuming you consider the rolling dice to be the highlight of your social resolution mechanic.  I don't.  I see it merely as a way of keeping score and providing hooks.



> You need stats for things that *you want to be varied and interesting*.



No.  I need _information_ for things I want to be varied and interesting.  Stats are simply one form of information.  What I need in 4e for social interaction are motivations, habits, nervous tics, level of influence on the world, principles, religion.  All the stuff you normally _can't_ find in stat blocks.  Rolling the dice is just a means of keeping score - and the difference between DC17 and DC20 is fundamentally not very interesting.

It's ironic I'm getting this response when in a thread a couple of weeks ago (on RPG.net) I was told that if I rolled dice for social interaction I couldn't be roleplaying.



> IMO, that absolutely includes combat. Combat sits at the very head of that table.



Combat is something I want tight mechanics for.  That's because every last second matters, it's life or death, and a quarter of an inch can make all the difference.  Social can kill you just as dead but it either takes longer or requires more monumental mistakes.



> But in D&D, at least, in a game inspired by heroic fantasy, I'd expect Exploration (for dungeons) to sit to his Right,



Can the dungeons.  Explore the world!



> and Interaction (for NPC's) to sit to his Left, and little Reaction (for sudden things like traps and hiding) is on someone's lap. And you might even have a bit of Simulation (for world building and Gygaxian homage) down at the foot of the table, quiet and unobtrusive, but full of awesome stories if you want to talk to them.



World building helps, certainly.



> You want those to be varied and interesting.



And _none_ of that is on the difference between +5 and +7.



> Well, *I* want those to be varied and interesting.
> 
> Which means I need stats for them. And I need actions to happen.



I don't need stats to make most of them varied and interesting.  I need fluff - then to match the resolution to the fluff.  I don't need my social interactions to snap in the way combat does.  (Yes, the dialogue might snap to good effect - but that's not on the dice rolls).


----------



## MrMyth (May 22, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I think your really reaching here to justify your opinions about 4e and 3e. I mean honestly I can use 4 CR 5 monsters to make an encounter with an EL of 9... Thus a 9th level party which is roughly equivalent (taking the disparity between 30 levels vs. 20 levels) to a 4th/5th level party in 4e.




I'm not even disagreeing with your main point here, but did think it worth correcting that you've got the levels backwards here. If 30 levels in 4E is equivalent to 20 levels in 3.5, than a 9th level 4E party is equivalent to a 5th level 3.5 party, not the other way around.


----------



## Imaro (May 22, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Huh? By my estimates a 9th level party is definitely up into Paragon tier. Even Epic tier doesn't have anything like Wish, Shapechange, Gate, Mordaniken's Disjunction, Implosion, or Storm of Vengenace (although the latter might work) - meaning it caps out before level 17 (spellcaster equivalent). 9th is almost half way between 3rd (roughly equivalent to Level 1) and 16th (roughly equivalent to Level 30). Putting it firmly in the middle




D'oh, I did mix the equivalencies up o Thanks MrMyth).



Neonchameleon said:


> And yes, I did use multiple monsters in 3e. (Although not as many; minions are easy to run and the explicit assumptions were different, and I trust the CR system about as far as I can throw it - any system like that breaks near the edges).




I am not arguing for or against the "brokeness" of the CR system so this is irrelevant to my point, you keep bringing up how "broken" the CR system was but this has nothing to do with whether most DM's used multiple monsters in 3e or whether the encounters couls be created with tactical synergy between those monsters.



Neonchameleon said:


> Tell me when they get (a) Marks and (b) Forced Movement powers.




How does this in any way determine whether encounters can be created with tactiucal synergy? You might prefer a game have these particular attributes but the lack of them does not mean a game can't have tactical synergy. 

For the record I think the Knight in PHB 2 had a mark and I am almost positive there were at least a few, admittedly rare, feats that allowed one to use forced movement. 



Neonchameleon said:


> Of course. (At least if you don't want to model your game on Feng Shui - not that there's anything actually wrong with that). But once there _is_ a combat encounter there, not making it tactically as well as narratively interesting is simply poor craftsmanship.




Eh, I would disagree with your final blanket sentence and instead say play to the desires of one's players. It can be hard to believe but some players could care less, or even dislike tactically intense combat when roleplaying, it truly does have it's advantages and disadvantages in it's current incarnation (and honestly I can't say I'm sold on every single combat having to be tactically interesting). Some would rather have the combat be more narrative or simulationist in how it happens. So while I am not saying you are always wrong in your generalization... you aren't always right either.



Neonchameleon said:


> Again, I say 4e has tools like marks, forced movement, and an assumption of and balance for multiple foes. Now you can argue that at a strategic level 3e wins - but tactically it's hard.




I'm not arguing for a win over 4e. I'm saying one can create tactically interesting combat in 3e if they want. That is all.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 22, 2010)

Dannager said:


> You have not shown this to be true, nor have you shown that minions do not make sense without the PCs' presence from a story perspective. You are making up absolute rules based on a flimsy, likely mutable definition of what a game _ought_ to be and nothing more. In fact, I'm starting to wonder if the rules you're making up are designed with 4e falling short of them in mind.




It had already been discussed in multiple threads. The exchange typically went something like this:

A- Minions are not scary. Even farmer Joe can drop a minion with a good whack from his shovel.

B- Yeah but they are not minions to farmer Joe.

A- 


Was I dreaming all of that? Is the new ruling now that minions are minions, 1 hp is 1hp?


----------



## Sir Wulf (May 22, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I'm not even disagreeing with your main point here, but did think it worth correcting that you've got the levels backwards here. If 30 levels in 4E is equivalent to 20 levels in 3.5, than a 9th level 4E party is equivalent to a 5th level 3.5 party, not the other way around.



If a 4E party at 1st level equals a 3.5 party at 3rd level... 

And a 4e party at 30th level equals a 3.5 party at 15th level (since they never get some of the game-disruptive uberpowers)...

That suggests that:

1st level 4E = 3rd level 3E 
5th level 4E = 5th level 3E
10th level 4E = 7th level 3E
15th level 4E = 9th level 3E
20th level 4E = 11th level 3E
25th level 4E = 13th level 3E
30th level 4E = 15th level 3E

(Some may notice an error in my math, as I go from 1st to 5th (4 levels), then increase 5 levels each time: Since I have no explanation for my arbitrary decision, I'm claiming "poster's fiat".)


----------



## Sir Wulf (May 22, 2010)

I would like to thank everyone who has helped keep this discussion civil and productive. It has helped me see ways to use encounters more effectively in 4E.

At risk of digressing, how much DM fiat do you allow yourselves when an encounter doesn't seem to challenge your players? When I've run 4E, I've repeatedly faced situations where the party beat their foes with all the challenge of a hunter clubbing a baby harp seal. While I appreciate that the PCs sometimes enjoy a chance to show off just how badass they are, these encounters were kind of a drag.

As an example, the party faced a group of orc raiders and berserkers. One party member used an ability that made terrain difficult for their foes, but not for them. The party's controller repeatedly pushed the orcs away, generally leaving them just the wrong distance to charge. The poor orcs couldn't reach their foes to swing their axes. Handaxes were thrown (to little effect), but then they could do nothing but stagger around and die. 

At the time, I didn't see a way for the orcs to challenge the party. (At the time, I had overlooked that charging is allowed over difficult terrain in 4E, something pointed out to me after the fight). Since the way the difficult terrain power worked wasn't detailed, I couldn't use "out of the box" strategies to overcome it and restore some challenge to the encounter. A few more handaxes or details the berserkers could seize upon to overcome the difficult terrain power (Heroic leaps past the icy ground? Striding atop the bodies littering the floor?) would have made a huge difference. 

Without much fluff describing how the powers work, the orcs are limited to variations on "I attack".


----------



## Imaro (May 22, 2010)

Sir Wulf said:


> I would like to thank everyone who has helped keep this discussion civil and productive. It has helped me see ways to use encounters more effectively in 4E.
> 
> At risk of digressing, how much DM fiat do you allow yourselves when an encounter doesn't seem to challenge your players? When I've run 4E, I've repeatedly faced situations where the party beat their foes with all the challenge of a hunter clubbing a baby harp seal. While I appreciate that the PCs sometimes enjoy a chance to show off just how badass they are, these encounters were kind of a drag.
> 
> ...




I've run into similar problems when running 4e, and I think it's moreso because ultimately I can't remember how every player's powers work and thus cater my challenges to their strengths and weaknesses.  There are also those "aha gotcha" moments, especially after levelling up where a new power/ new synergy catches me off-guard and sends the encounter spiralling into EZ land.  

This I think is the result of the whole idea that a DM doesn't need to know the powers (and ultimately it is a pretty heavy burden to bear in remembering all the things a party is capable of.)... only the players do.  I think it's a bit of a fallacy and while I don't have a solution, I am very much interested in seeing how others have handled this as well.


----------



## Dannager (May 22, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> It had already been discussed in multiple threads. The exchange typically went something like this:
> 
> A- Minions are not scary. Even farmer Joe can drop a minion with a good whack from his shovel.
> 
> ...



No, you're correct that minions are only minions to the PCs, but that doesn't mean the creatures they represent stop existing when the PCs aren't present. There is no imaginary requirement on RPG creatures that their mechanics accurately represent their impact on the world, rather than the PCs - these creatures are a) probably not going to need to interact with the rest of the game world in a _mechanical_ way, and b) in the event that they do, the DM can simply adjudicate what happens on his own. We know that the idea of minions works well from a story standpoint because they are a staple of film - the marauding uruk-hai hordes who terrorize the peasantry but as a group are a solid challenge to the heroes of the ring at Helm's Deep, just to name one example.

You have concocted a requirement for RPG creatures that has no reasoning behind it; it isn't necessary that a monster's mechanics reflect its impact on the world more accurately than its impact on the party, because the monster's impact on the world is much better handled through storytelling rather than mechanical interaction. Save the mechanical interaction for when the players get involved with the monster.


----------



## Primal (May 22, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I definitely understand where you are coming from, and can see how valuable more detailed guidelines would be.
> 
> But, honestly, my advice? Just dive right in. Make those changes, and see how it plays out. As long as all the core stats are on par, there is decent leeway to hand out abilities. And the big offenders on powers are typically obvious - make stuns rare. Whereas dazes less so - don't have an at-will inflicting daze (save ends), but you can put it where appropriate.
> 
> ...




Maybe I should start with re-skinning monsters, and swapping out one or two abilities at best? I think you're correct -- the balance is probably not as fragile as I think, and the process becomes easier and quicker with experience. Yet I still hope that _Monster Vault_ and _Dungeon Master's Kit_ will include some sort of codified system for people like me. 

Thanks for the encouragement!  I might give it a go during the summer...


----------



## Dannager (May 22, 2010)

Sir Wulf said:


> As an example, the party faced a group of orc raiders and berserkers. One party member used an ability that made terrain difficult for their foes, but not for them. The party's controller repeatedly pushed the orcs away, generally leaving them just the wrong distance to charge. The poor orcs couldn't reach their foes to swing their axes. Handaxes were thrown (to little effect), but then they could do nothing but stagger around and die.
> 
> At the time, I didn't see a way for the orcs to challenge the party. (At the time, I had overlooked that charging is allowed over difficult terrain in 4E, something pointed out to me after the fight). Since the way the difficult terrain power worked wasn't detailed, I couldn't use "out of the box" strategies to overcome it and restore some challenge to the encounter. A few more handaxes or details the berserkers could seize upon to overcome the difficult terrain power (Heroic leaps past the icy ground? Striding atop the bodies littering the floor?) would have made a huge difference.
> 
> Without much fluff describing how the powers work, the orcs are limited to variations on "I attack".



This sounds like a situation where the orcs actually had numerous options but neglected to take them because you had a less than complete understanding of the rules of the game. In the same way that PCs are often required to think of creative or unconventional ways to overcome the challenges you present them with, you will occasionally have to make use of unusual tactics in order to present a challenge to the players. So you had a less-than-challenging encounter. That's alright. Next time something like this comes up, you'll remember that you have options, I'm sure.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 22, 2010)

Dannager said:


> No, you're correct that minions are only minions to the PCs, but that doesn't mean the creatures they represent stop existing when the PCs aren't present. There is no imaginary requirement on RPG creatures that their mechanics accurately represent their impact on the world, rather than the PCs - these creatures are a) probably not going to need to interact with the rest of the game world in a _mechanical_ way, and b) in the event that they do, the DM can simply adjudicate what happens on his own. We know that the idea of minions works well from a story standpoint because they are a staple of film - the marauding uruk-hai hordes who terrorize the peasantry but as a group are a solid challenge to the heroes of the ring at Helm's Deep, just to name one example.
> 
> You have concocted a requirement for RPG creatures that has no reasoning behind it; it isn't necessary that a monster's mechanics reflect its impact on the world more accurately than its impact on the party, because the monster's impact on the world is much better handled through storytelling rather than mechanical interaction. Save the mechanical interaction for when the players get involved with the monster.




It was never my intention to imply that anything ceased to exist when not in proximity to something else. 
Impact on the world through storytelling works wonderfully in a storytelling style campaign. If the campaign is not being played in that style then the minion concept is meaningless. Thus if it is your assertion that certain interactions are best handled through the medium of the story then a story based campaign is the assumed mode of play based on rules that support this. 

It is one approach, not all, to running a campaign.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 22, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I've run into similar problems when running 4e, and I think it's moreso because ultimately I can't remember how every player's powers work and thus cater my challenges to their strengths and weaknesses. There are also those "aha gotcha" moments, especially after levelling up where a new power/ new synergy catches me off-guard and sends the encounter spiralling into EZ land.
> 
> This I think is the result of the whole idea that a DM doesn't need to know the powers (and ultimately it is a pretty heavy burden to bear in remembering all the things a party is capable of.)... only the players do. I think it's a bit of a fallacy and while I don't have a solution, I am very much interested in seeing how others have handled this as well.




If things that seem like they should be a challenge end up being cakewalks then step one is to find out why. If it is a rules oversight then some study and perhaps a few encounter reminder notes will do the trick. If the rules were all remembered and implemented correctly then think about the way that die rolls went in general. Were the monsters stinking up the battlefield with low rolls while the PC's were in downtown crit central? It happens. 

PC's in my campaign were facing a pack of shadows. I was tired and completely forgot that the PC's were supposed to be doing half damage to the shadows the entire fight. It was a decent fight but nearly as scary as it would have been.  Other fights that I didn't think were going to be all that tough ended up being nail biters. 

I don't think it's that big of a problem unless every single encounter ends up being an overly easy challenge.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 22, 2010)

Neochameleon, I'm cutting swaths of your response, because I think there's only really one or two points of discussion. Hope that doesn't mischaracterize your position at all. 



			
				Neochameleon said:
			
		

> No. I need information for things I want to be varied and interesting. Stats are simply one form of information. What I need in 4e for social interaction are motivations, habits, nervous tics, level of influence on the world, principles, religion. All the stuff you normally can't find in stat blocks. Rolling the dice is just a means of keeping score - and the difference between DC17 and DC20 is fundamentally not very interesting.




You can *totally* find those things in stat blocks. 

You don't normally see them there in D&D stat blocks, yes, except maybe in the form of "alignment." However, they are things that have been in the stat blocks of many other games (Forex, I'm playing a Sufficiently Advanced game currently that has numerical stats for, amongst other things, how closely you cling to your core character values). 

Now, I don't disagree with you that stats are essentially away of "keeping score," but follow me down this game design rabbit hole for a minute. 

Why do stats exist? Why do we have them for anything? You certainly can play and have fun in a game without any stats or dice or anything, leaving stuff up to the DM judgement, or even without a DM (such as in one of those murder mystery party games), just based on information. I could determine how my warrior does in a combat against goblins with simple information: "He is a good swordsman."

So why does D&D have stats? Why do RPG's in general have numbers and die rolls? What use are they, if you can have fun, and keep score, without them?

Stats, as far as I've found, serve three major purposes. The first is that _they are fair and impartial_. If your character fails, it helps the trust and fun at the table to be able to "blame the dice," to keep the success or failure independent of DM judgement calls or player persuasiveness. Jenny's PC doesn't get an edge in trying to achieve victory just because Jenny's dating the DM, who, consciously or no, somewhat favors her plans. Derrek's PC didn't die because the DM hates him, he died because he never rolled about an 8. By removing the judgement call to a die roll, you achieve fairness.

The second, related reason (really the same reason ) is that _they don't depend on player skill_. This is the old "If I'm a shy person, but I'm playing an outgoing, vivacious bard, why does my personal inability to talk easily mean that I can't be an effective outgoing, vivacious character?" problem. This becomes especially key in fantasy combat. How would Derrek slay a dragon? With stats, the specifics don't matter so much -- he doesn't need to guess the right answer, or puzzle out the DM's intent. He just needs to roll. If the roll succeeds, he does whatever it is that means success (stabs it in the belly or something). 

The third reason is that _they are fun_, in and of themselves. Stats are a big part of the reason that D&D is a dork's hobby (pretending to be an elf would be another big part of that). Dorks love stats. Dorks love information, and stats are elegantly presented information. Information that is there to be manipulated, understood, and mastered, in the same way that dorks master math or science or engineering or literature or art or social rules or whatever (cuz everyone's got some dork in them). It's fun to be a gearhead about stats, to break them down, build them up, understand them, and change them, and propogate change through them. People do this about the Yankees every year. Stats are keen. Overly complex stats and overly meaningless stats can be a major hassle, and aren't needed, but a few elegant stats absolutely add to the experience.

So, all of this applies for combat. Stats are fun (watching them go up as you level up is fun!). Stats don't depend on player skill (it doesn't matter if you know how to properly penetrate chainmail -- roll a die). Stats are fair and impartial (the DM, and other players, can't even subconsciously hose you over simply by being human and having bias). 

These things also apply to basically anything that you want to resolve, including exploration, interaction, and reaction. These things don't necessarily involve the drawing of a single dagger, yet they can benefit from being impartial, from being independent of player skill, and from being more fun.

Thus, stats for things not involving combat are desirable. 

That's my logic. I don't think they're necessary, but I don't think any stats are necessary. If you're going for necessity as a prerequisite, you're going to cut out broad swaths of the D&D game. I think they're positive to have. They make the experience better. They add to the game's enjoyment by those at the table.  



> It's ironic I'm getting this response when in a thread a couple of weeks ago (on RPG.net) I was told that if I rolled dice for social interaction I couldn't be roleplaying.




It's an old-school philosophy, and it can certainly work and be lots of fun, but I think stats make the experience better for more people. Depending on DM judgement and player skill is less fun then rolling a die, doing some math, and seeing the effects.

That's why we do it in combat -- it's more fun than just describing what you do. 

It's something we can do to any resolution.


----------



## Gimby (May 22, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> It was never my intention to imply that anything ceased to exist when not in proximity to something else.
> Impact on the world through storytelling works wonderfully in a storytelling style campaign. If the campaign is not being played in that style then the minion concept is meaningless. Thus if it is your assertion that certain interactions are best handled through the medium of the story then a story based campaign is the assumed mode of play based on rules that support this.
> 
> It is one approach, not all, to running a campaign.




There are some other ways of looking at it that may help this disconnect.

From designer description and examination of their presentation in the monster manuals (Ogres are a good example of this) minions seem to be primarily an administrative abstraction.  Their purpose (much like the mob monster rules from 3.5) is to allow a large number of creatures in a fight while not massively increasing the administrative burden on the DM.

Consider then that the minions are simply being represented at a lower time resolution than other creatures - to a high level character a low level creature may take two hits to kill at 95% to hit and it may have a 10% to hit him to do an average of 15 points of damage.  We could alternatively represent this creature as a higher level minion which is hit 50% of the time and hits 50% of the time for 3 points of damage.   On average, it will take our character 2 attacks to kill the monster either way and they will take on average 3 points of damage doing so.  Do you get some odd edge cases? Sure, but you always will do as assuming any system is the physics of the game world.

Is it a pretty big abstraction? Sure.  IMO though, its of the same order of abstraction as turn based combat or even the existance of hit points.


----------



## Imaro (May 22, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> It was never my intention to imply that anything ceased to exist when not in proximity to something else.
> Impact on the world through storytelling works wonderfully in a storytelling style campaign. If the campaign is not being played in that style then the minion concept is meaningless. Thus if it is your assertion that certain interactions are best handled through the medium of the story then a story based campaign is the assumed mode of play based on rules that support this.
> 
> It is one approach, not all, to running a campaign.




Yes, I myself am interested in hearing about how people use minions in sandbox type games... if at all.


----------



## LostSoul (May 22, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Yes, I myself am interested in hearing about how people use minions in sandbox type games... if at all.




Non-combatants.


----------



## BryonD (May 22, 2010)

Dannager said:


> it isn't necessary that a monster's mechanics reflect its impact on the world more accurately than its impact on the party, because the monster's impact on the world is much better handled through storytelling rather than mechanical interaction. Save the mechanical interaction for when the players get involved with the monster.



Yet again 4E is defended by saying that it is good at things that apply to any system, rather than saying it is better at something on its own merits.

I agree with you that my ability to storytell has nothing to do with one system over another.  My ability to storytell is not improved or decreased by switching to Pathfinder, GURPS, WOD, whatever.  

So, the choice for which game system to actually use comes down to the impact the mechanics actually have on the game.

As you point out, 4E does not see a need to try to have a self consistent mechanic for npcs interaction with the world at large.  

Thus, for someone who wants the actual game mechanics to live up to the expectations of the storytelling, there are other systems which (literally) bring more to the table.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 22, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Yes, I myself am interested in hearing about how people use minions in sandbox type games... if at all.



I see most of humanity as being minions, in much they same way they've been 0-level humans or 1st level commoners in previous editions. This interpretation isn't required by the rules, one could equally regard the mass of humanity as levelled 'monsters', in which case 1st level PCs would be a lot weaker, relatively speaking. Unlike 3e, the rules of 4e don't contain a description of society in rules terms. They don't provide the level and class breakdown of NPCs to be found in each settlement.

Another use for minions I've seen is as wandering monsters, as one normally wants those encounters to be quick.


----------



## Scribble (May 22, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Yes, I myself am interested in hearing about how people use minions in sandbox type games... if at all.




I don't really think it's an issue of sandbox vrs non sandbox, as they're just a different type of challenge found in the game, and as such can be used like any other component of the game.

For me a monster doesn't ever "become" a minion, some are minions some aren't. Some things in the world are also non combatants. They don't have combat stats, because if they try to fight, they'll just die.




BryonD said:


> I agree with you that my ability to storytell has nothing to do with one system over another.  My ability to storytell is not improved or decreased by switching to Pathfinder, GURPS, WOD, whatever.
> 
> So, the choice for which game system to actually use comes down to the impact the mechanics actually have on the game.
> 
> As you point out, 4E does not see a need to try to have a self consistent mechanic for npcs interaction with the world at large.




And this is for the most part why I like it. Since, as you say my ability to story-tell doesn't rely on the rules- I choose a game because I feel the the rules are fun, and work well.

4e for me is a set of rules that work well, feel consistent (rules wise) are fun in their own right, while at the same time for the most part get out of the way as quickly as possible.


----------



## Imaro (May 22, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> Non-combatants.




What about stuff like Ogre minions?


----------



## billd91 (May 23, 2010)

I don't use 4e-style minions. Instead, if I want some lackeys backing up a BBEG but I don't want them particularly durable (just a way to suck up some character actions so they're not all targeting Mr BBEG), I just give them minimum hit points per die, knock down their Str and Con 2-4 points, and call it done. They may take 1 hit to kill, maybe a few depending on which PC squares off against them. But one thing's for certain, they're not standing up to the PCs like a normal example of the monster.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 23, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Neochameleon, I'm cutting swaths of your response, because I think there's only really one or two points of discussion. Hope that doesn't mischaracterize your position at all.
> 
> You can *totally* find those things in stat blocks.




Mea culpa.  You can't find them in _D&D_ stat blocks in any edition (with the arguable exception of alignment).  Or, for that matter, GURPS ones.  You can in e.g. Spirit of the Century (to name one example I _am_ familliar with.



> So, all of this applies for combat. Stats are fun (watching them go up as you level up is fun!). Stats don't depend on player skill (it doesn't matter if you know how to properly penetrate chainmail -- roll a die). Stats are fair and impartial (the DM, and other players, can't even subconsciously hose you over simply by being human and having bias).




Here you're off my argument.  Which is that (under D&D rules - which I did not specify earlier, but are the context I was talking about), you don't need such things in _monster_ statblocks.  I'm not proposing the abolition of Diplomacy from the _PC_ statblocks.  Simply that with the PCs being the protagonists, any opposed rolls can be off just one die roll - and that that can depend on what the PCs are trying to do, modified by the monster at flat DC.  This does not require them to be in the _monster_ statblock.



Imaro said:


> Yes, I myself am interested in hearing about how people use minions in sandbox type games... if at all.




Three ways: straight, lampshaded, and mechanical.

Mechanical minions are the easiest - things like summoned skeletons or summoned wisps.  Scary, but if hit they e.g. collapse into a pile of bones or the summons is broken.  In short they do exactly what they say on the tin.

Lampshaded minions are there but scared or there for the hell of it and don;t realise they could get hurt.  The scorching burst doesn't kill them - they simply run for cover.  (Think looters or junior acolytes.)

Straight minions simply are.  Either non-combatants or too weak to threaten the party.



BryonD said:


> Yet again 4E is defended by saying that it is good at things that apply to any system, rather than saying it is better at something on its own merits.




Yet it is good at what it does.  It's the best RPG tactical (as opposed to fluff) action movie system I've ever seen.  Explosive, kinetic, and fluffy action scenes married to a rules-light system the rest of the time.



> Thus, for someone who wants the actual game mechanics to live up to the expectations of the storytelling, there are other systems which (literally) bring more to the table.




Not in my experience in pulp/action movie style combat with tactical resolution.  That's where 4e wins.

What I'm not sure is what any previous edition of D&D is the best at except being D&D.  4e is the first version that has, to me, anything to recommend it for other settings other than an installed user base.


----------



## Garthanos (May 23, 2010)

Imaro said:


> What about stuff like Ogre minions?




Minions lack heroic/villainous luck most of the time they are just the joe blows of the universe they get hurt they stop fighting they run away etc they dont skip nimbly out of the way or have some environmental feature coincidentally intervene they dont get the tough guy Im not really hurt as bad as it looks effect...  etc Avandra supports heros and thinks they need villains.

The above works well enough for most minions...

Most attack forms like 3 feet of sharp steel or even a foot and a half are enough they really can kill in one blow... even most tough enemies... but 

I think something like an Ogre minion could be seen as having actively bad luck the bad luck means something happens that works around monstrous toughness you expect out of well a monstrous being... that sword blow is effectively a critical hit the blade enters the eye ball and into  the brain... etc.

A minion allows you to take any attack form and describe critical hit effectiveness... a wizards cold attack freezes solid etc ... and yeah if you want to not kill with it you thaw them ;p


----------



## FireLance (May 23, 2010)

Imaro said:


> What about stuff like Ogre minions?



You know, I've been toying with something along the lines of a "Kill Defense" for monsters which, as a general rule of thumb, would be about 10 points higher than the regular "Hit Defense". If an attacker equals or exceeds this number on his attack roll, he hits a vital area and incapacitates or kills the monster outright. 

This allows PCs to effectively "minionize" monsters that they fought at lower levels when they encounter them again at higher levels. When a PC's attack bonus is +8 and the monster's Kill AC (say) is 30, he will just have to go through all of its hit points the hard way. However, when he encounters the same monster again when his attack bonus is +18, he has a good chance of dropping it with a single attack. (As a side effect, such monsters can also be killed by missed attacks, if they deal enough hit point damage.) 

It's the other side of the equation that's giving me some trouble. Such monsters will not present a credible threat to high-level PCs if they don't have a high enough attack bonus, but they might be too deadly to low-level PCs if their attack bonus is too high. My interim solution requires the PCs to make a defence roll against the monster's attack (converting the "attacker rolls the dice" convention to one where the "player rolls the dice") and having graduated results, as follows (say)

Defence roll 19 or less: Monster hits for 1d10+4 damage
Defence roll 20-29: Monster hits for 4 damage
Defence roll 30+: Monster misses


----------



## Dannager (May 23, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Yet again 4E is defended by saying that it is good at things that apply to any system, rather than saying it is better at something on its own merits.



Occasionally it is necessary to point out to certain individuals that 4e is capable of the same things that any other roleplaying system is capable of.

There are plenty of things I could list that I believe 4e to be better at than system X, but that isn't the topic. What I'm interested in showing, at the moment, is that the concept of minions is an accepted conceit in the genre that works well from both a mechanical and story perspective.



BryonD said:


> Thus, for someone who wants the actual game  mechanics to live up to the expectations of the storytelling, there are  other systems which (literally) bring more to the table.



If you are interested in having the mechanics work the storytelling for  you, I can certainly see other systems giving you an edge. If you're  interested in having a firm (but flexible) grip of the story you're  running, 4e is the system for you.


----------



## Hussar (May 23, 2010)

I finally waded through the last ten or so pages of this.  Wow.  Some ... interesting stuff here.

Just a point about minions.  This is hardly a new concept.  In Savage Worlds, for example, EVERY non-PC or "Named" NPC has exactly one hit point.  Hit them once and they go down.  Doesn't matter if they're an elephant or a poodle.  Now, hitting the elephant is significantly more difficult, but, if you get through to a success, that elephant is now a large pile of steaks.

SW has no problems handling status-quo or sandbox games whatsoever.

/edit to add

I find it rather strange that people seem to be claiming that HIT POINTS are the best way to model in game realities.  Because, y'know, it makes perfect sense that Queen Victoria would be a 15th level Aristocrat with a hundred hit points.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 23, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I find it rather strange that people seem to be claiming that HIT POINTS are the best way to model in game realities. Because, y'know, it makes perfect sense that Queen Victoria would be a 15th level Aristocrat with a hundred hit points.




Only when dealing with combat issues. D&D doesn't have any character worth measurement for status. So Queen Victoria:

(AC 9, NM, hp:3, Att: 1,Dmg; by weapon, MV; 60' ,AL: L, Save as; NM)

Her status as Queen won't show up in the combat statblock. If skills were being used then they would be.


----------



## Dannager (May 23, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Her status as Queen won't show up in the combat statblock.



It will if the name at the top of the stat block is "Queen Victoria".


----------



## AllisterH (May 23, 2010)

The funny thing is...minions are arguably the most "real-world" way to handle injury.

If you get a high enough attack roll that punches through defence, most things in life will be dropped DEAD.

Personally, I think minions are a long overdue mechanical concept for D&D. D&D is supposed to be able to model Conan and in most people's minds, Conan is capable of mowing down the mooks but the mooks still are supposed to be a "credible" threat a.k.a (at least able to HIT the hero).

Unless you're going for the Stormtrooper effect which is represented by simply having lower level opponents.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 23, 2010)

Dannager said:


> It will if the name at the top of the stat block is "Queen Victoria".




Quite true. 



AllisterH said:


> The funny thing is...minions are arguably the most "real-world" way to handle injury.
> 
> If you get a high enough attack roll that punches through defence, most things in life will be dropped DEAD.
> 
> ...




I wouldn't say "real world" really. Mixed martial arts fighters trade real blows and don't (hopefully) drop after a single hit. Damage is damage in D&D. Being hit with a greataxe is no different than being hit with a fist apart from the damage roll. 

The mook issue only needs such a heavy handed fix because of the bloated scaling defenses in the system. Hit points represent  both physical damage and general awesomeness. If defenses didn't rocket up so high, and damage scaled with level/training better, then those monsters that were tough at 1st level with 20 hit points will effectively become minions at higher level because an average damage roll will take them out. This can happen without having specially constructed balloons. Taking out an opponent in a single hit is great. It is a hollow feeling though when that enemy is essentially a training dummy built sprcifically for that to happen. 

Get rid of the "unhittable" problem and the minion problem will work itself out.


----------



## Imaro (May 23, 2010)

Scribble said:


> And this is for the most part why I like it. Since, as you say my ability to story-tell doesn't rely on the rules- I choose a game because I feel the the rules are fun, and work well.
> 
> 4e for me is a set of rules that work well, feel consistent (rules wise) are fun in their own right, while at the same time for the most part get out of the way as quickly as possible.




Can you also see how this may not be true for others... and for some 4e may actively get in the way. 

In all honesty I am starting to find, in 4e, the need to call out of what power is being used, slightly annoying. Even moreso though, I also find the subsequent reading of the powers effect and then the implementing of the power to be immersion breaking as well. But that's just me.  

I also am finding even low level combats are taking longer than I or my players really want them too... but that's a whole other can of worms that has been brought up numerous times. 

(And yes I realize one had to announce a feat or spell being used in 3e.. but for some reason for me and my group it seemed to flow with immersion better than the powers do in 4e).


----------



## KidSnide (May 23, 2010)

FireLance said:


> You know, I've been toying with something along the lines of a "Kill Defense" for monsters which, as a general rule of thumb, would be about 10 points higher than the regular "Hit Defense". If an attacker equals or exceeds this number on his attack roll, he hits a vital area and incapacitates or kills the monster outright.
> 
> ...
> 
> It's the other side of the equation that's giving me some trouble. Such monsters will not present a credible threat to high-level PCs if they don't have a high enough attack bonus, but they might be too deadly to low-level PCs if their attack bonus is too high.




I have a similar conception, but don't change the mechanics.  IMG, characters and monsters fight in different ways depending on the opponent.  Against weaker foes, PCs don't bother trying to wound or exhaust the enemy -- they just go for a killing blow.  Similarly, against stronger enemies, the minion does don't try for a complicated strategy -- they just want to land a blow, even if it does less damage.

Personally, I find this realistic.  You use a different strategy when rough-housing with an 8-year-old than you do when wrestling someone your own size.  My experience boffer-sword fighting suggests a similar dynamic.  There are tricks I'd use on a less skilled opponent that I wouldn't attempt in an even fight.

The implication of this is that the characters should be able to identify minions.  I think this is probably a plus (so they don't waste attacks), but it's not the practice of every GM.

-KS


----------



## Garthanos (May 23, 2010)

Imaro said:


> (And yes I realize one had to announce a feat or spell being used in 3e.. but for some reason for me and my group it seemed to flow with immersion better than the powers do in 4e).




We describe how we are doing what we are doing... and use a card for the specific hardware or just use one of our classics like one character describes his weapon splattering boiling blood on nearby enemies to the target of the attack mechanically its a green flame blade.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 23, 2010)

Imaro said:


> In all honesty I am starting to find, in 4e, the need to call out of what power is being used, slightly annoying.



Do you really need to, though? Some players in my game do so, others just describe their attack, announce the result of their attack, and then describe the effects.


----------



## Imaro (May 23, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> We describe how we are doing what we are doing... and use a card for the specific hardware or just use one of our classics like one character describes his weapon splattering boiling blood on nearby enemies to the target of the attack mechanically its a green flame blade.






Fifth Element said:


> Do you really need to, though? Some players in my game do so, others just describe their attack, announce the result of their attack, and then describe the effects.




Now I will admit I think this has alot to do with the make up of my 4e group,which is not only spanning age range from 9 to 30 years, but also almost totally composed of casual gamers. So I don't think this problem will arise in every group, heck it probably won't in majority of groups playing 4e... but in mine, with young and casual players who are not interested in, or unable, to take on the burden of rules knowledge 4e requires players to do... it is something that has resulted in me having to explain what the powers do (in game terms) for many of them. Some stuff like twin strike is pretty straightforward vs. stuff like the monk's powers (Thanks Naruto) which are not easy for a kid to remember or fully understand.


EDIT:  This is also part of the reason, I'm not too sure that 4e as it stands now is all that great for introducing new people and kids to the hobby with.  Yes, this is anecdotal and I know others have had different experiences... but I can only speak on mine.


----------



## bagger245 (May 23, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Do you really need to, though? Some players in my game do so, others just describe their attack, announce the result of their attack, and then describe the effects.




Some of my fellow players yell out the power names, some tap their power cards. I personally just say "I at-will him".


----------



## LostSoul (May 23, 2010)

Imaro said:


> What about stuff like Ogre minions?




While any ogre can be felled with a well-placed dagger or shovel, ogre children don't know how to do anything but rush right in without care for their own safety.  As they grow they learn how to protect themselves - the ogre crèche is full of cannibalism.

The "non-combatant" doesn't hold up for all minions; luckily, I don't like I have to use minions that ruin the consistency of the game world for me.


----------



## Teemu (May 24, 2010)

I'd use ogre minions at levels where the 'regular' ogre warriors have long ceased to be a threat. I'd use dragon minions the same way -- something like 'young dragon' minions at late paragon or early epic maybe.


----------



## Garthanos (May 24, 2010)

Imaro said:


> EDIT:  This is also part of the reason, I'm not too sure that 4e as it stands now is all that great for introducing new people and kids to the hobby with.  Yes, this is anecdotal and I know others have had different experiences... but I can only speak on mine.




I find children's imagination extraordinary in this arena  especially when they realize the might get rewarded for cool descriptions of what there characters do which fit the scene. Check out DMs best friend for this. The cards as I said are a great memory aid too...


----------



## Hussar (May 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Only when dealing with combat issues. D&D doesn't have any character worth measurement for status. So Queen Victoria:
> 
> (AC 9, NM, hp:3, Att: 1,Dmg; by weapon, MV; 60' ,AL: L, Save as; NM)
> 
> Her status as Queen won't show up in the combat statblock. If skills were being used then they would be.




I find it rather telling that you would use an B/E D&D stat block for this.  Given that B/E has no skills and no social resolution mechanics everything is 100% left in the hands of DM fiat in determining how Queen Victoria deals with non-combat elements.

The funny thing is, 4e would take almost exactly the same approach.  The stat block would look identical, except for a line saying Insight+x and Diplomacy +y, both determined by the DM.

It's only in 3e that Queen Victoria would be a 15th level aristocrat (in order to actually have the skills required for her position) that includes the ability to fold, spindle and maul 99% of the population in hand to hand combat.


----------



## pemerton (May 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Taking out an opponent in a single hit is great. It is a hollow feeling though when that enemy is essentially a training dummy built sprcifically for that to happen.



I think that this comment relies on assumptions about what the players of the game are looking for that don't hold true for all groups.

What is it to take out a non-minion NPC/monster in a single hit? First, to succeed on an attack roll. Second, to make a reallly good roll on the damage dice.

What is it to take out a minion NPC/monster in a single hit? All that is needed is to succeed on the attack roll.

I don't see that one or the other is inherently awesome or non-awesome. They're just rolls of the dice. Roll enough to-hit dice and some will be good. Roll enough damage dice and some will be good.

What's awesome, at least for my group, is pretty context-specific. If there is a monster that has been doing a lot of damage and giving the PCs a lot of grief, than taking it down can be awesome - not because of the die rolls, but because of the context in the course of play. If a PC is surrounded by a whole lot of monsters, and then another PC AoEs them and they all drop because they're minions, that can equally be awesome, as (what seemed to the players to be) a potential disaster is averted.

At least for my group, it's the ingame situation rather than the probabilities that carries the burden of awesomeness, and minions just as much as other monsters can give rise to interesting ingame situations.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> It's only in 3e that Queen Victoria would be a 15th level aristocrat (in order to actually have the skills required for her position) that includes the ability to fold, spindle and maul 99% of the population in hand to hand combat.








pemerton said:


> I think that this comment relies on assumptions about what the players of the game are looking for that don't hold true for all groups.
> 
> What is it to take out a non-minion NPC/monster in a single hit? First, to succeed on an attack roll. Second, to make a reallly good roll on the damage dice.




Mechanics aside for a moment, it isn't the feat of rolling a particular set of numbers on some die rolls that is satisfying. The satisfaction is in knowing that when an opponent drops (or doesn't) that it is a creature that feels like it belongs with the rest of the world. 



pemerton said:


> I don't see that one or the other is inherently awesome or non-awesome. They're just rolls of the dice. Roll enough to-hit dice and some will be good. Roll enough damage dice and some will be good.




The feeling of awesome is diminished when the circumstances are set up specifically to provide an outcome that is intended to give off a feeling of awesome. 



pemerton said:


> What's awesome, at least for my group, is pretty context-specific. If there is a monster that has been doing a lot of damage and giving the PCs a lot of grief, than taking it down can be awesome - not because of the die rolls, but because of the context in the course of play. If a PC is surrounded by a whole lot of monsters, and then another PC AoEs them and they all drop because they're minions, that can equally be awesome, as (what seemed to the players to be) a potential disaster is averted.
> 
> At least for my group, it's the ingame situation rather than the probabilities that carries the burden of awesomeness, and minions just as much as other monsters can give rise to interesting ingame situations.




The context is excactly what I am talking about. If a horde of nasty looking demons is approaching and they get taken out with a flyswatter the context of being charged by scary demons just isn't there.


----------



## MrMyth (May 24, 2010)

But the question becomes, how can you present that horde of enemies without one of the following being true: 

1) The enemies are designed to be a valid threat to the PCs, but individually easy to defeat (such as 4E minions).
2) The enemies are designed as a large number of lower-level enemies, not necessarily dying in one hit, but also not presenting a genuine threat. 
3) The enemies are designed as genuine threats to the PCs, providing a real feeling of success if they triumph - but more likely leading to the PCs being overwhelmed and defeated.

Keep in mind, a minion being individually easy to take out doesn't mean an _encounter_ with them will be just as easy. Hacking down a single enemy might not provide that feeling of accomplishment you are after - but wading through a sea of enemies and emerging triumphant? I've seen players accomplish that, and be genuinely excited at doing so. 



ExploderWizard said:


> Mechanics aside for a moment, it isn't the feat of rolling a particular set of numbers on some die rolls that is satisfying. The satisfaction is in knowing that when an opponent drops (or doesn't) that it is a creature that feels like it belongs with the rest of the world.




So what is your solution? Never have a fight in which the PCs face a horde of enemies? Since your only options are lower-level enemies that can't threaten the group - or threatening enemies that are thus overwhelming. Which might be acceptable for very occasional combats, if the PCs prove lucky enough to survive or escape - but would by and large remove that entire category of encounters from being an option. 

And that aside - when a player drops a minion, that creatures feels like it belongs with the rest of the world. When my soldier cleaves through a half-dozen orcs on the way to the orc chieftain, it feels appropriate they died easily - they are regular orcs, unable to stand up to the blows of a mighty warrior. What is out of place about that?

I mean - tying this to classic fantasy stories, how often do we see an author describe the hero having to swing a half-dozen times to drop _every single enemy _in his path? We don't - the hero cuts down lesser enemies with ease. Quite often with single blows! At the same time, he doesn't dismiss them - if he leaves himself open, even the least opponent could land a serious blow. 

And in some ways, enemies dying in one hit and everything being a threat could be argued to be even more realistic than the alternatives. Honestly, it is the PCs themselves, and the stronger enemies they face who take dozens of attacks to drop, that aren't 'realistic'. Which most people accept, because its a game, and having every character die as soon as they take a single hit from a sword just isn't all that fun.


----------



## Scribble (May 24, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Can you also see how this may not be true for others... and for some 4e may actively get in the way.




Sure can- that's why I said it's why I like it, but not everyone has to.



> (And yes I realize one had to announce a feat or spell being used in 3e.. but for some reason for me and my group it seemed to flow with immersion better than the powers do in 4e).




Shrug- I have some players that do, some that don't and some that bounce back and forth. This kind of stuff has never bothered me. (It's just another thing in a list of things we pop in and out of immersion for at my games... Jokes, comments, rules things, stories... whatever.  I don't know if I could get into a "super focused" game of any sorts.)


----------



## billd91 (May 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> It's only in 3e that Queen Victoria would be a 15th level aristocrat (in order to actually have the skills required for her position) that includes the ability to fold, spindle and maul 99% of the population in hand to hand combat.




But *why* would I want to model a 19th century queen in a class-based fantasy RPG? More modern societies don't model well with class-based games as ones centuries earlier. 

And why would I think the character needed to be 15th level to have the skills required for her position? A lot of people seem to think that people at the pinnacle of society by birth need to have skills higher than anyone else in order to lead them. But that's not the case. 

If I were to use D&D to stat up the old bird, I certainly wouldn't be going as high as 15th level when 8th-10th level would do (and by the time she hit such lofty levels, age-based stat-reduction would be significantly reducing her combat ability). And I'd consider plunking a few feats into Skill Focus if I felt I needed to get some of her skills up.


----------



## Imaro (May 24, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> I find children's imagination extraordinary in this arena especially when they realize the might get rewarded for cool descriptions of what there characters do which fit the scene. Check out DMs best friend for this. The cards as I said are a great memory aid too...




What I've seen with my young nephew is that his imagination doesn't mesh well with the powers. So I've had to do double duty with my nephew, where he describes what he wants to do... and I find one of his powers I can reskin into a similar effect of what he is trying. He looks at it as an imaginary game of heroics, and sometimes the tactical nature of the game... as well as the dependence on team interaction doesn't necessarily vibe well with his improvisational (and always zany) comabat maneuvers.


----------



## AllisterH (May 24, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I mean - tying this to classic fantasy stories, how often do we see an author describe the hero having to swing a half-dozen times to drop _every single enemy _in his path? We don't - the hero cuts down lesser enemies with ease. Quite often with single blows! At the same time, he doesn't dismiss them - if he leaves himself open, even the least opponent could land a serious blow.
> 
> And in some ways, enemies dying in one hit and everything being a threat could be argued to be even more realistic than the alternatives. Honestly, it is the PCs themselves, and the stronger enemies they face who take dozens of attacks to drop, that aren't 'realistic'. Which most people accept, because its a game, and having every character die as soon as they take a single hit from a sword just isn't all that fun.





THIS

THIS is why I love the minion concept even with its rough edges. 

The idea of a minion isn't superheroic or even Hollywoodesque...it's STANDARD fantasy that D&D is supposedly modelling....

Hell, it's not even fantasy, but more akin to real life...

I truly don't understand complaints about minions being unrealistic when ironically, they most closely match how the real world works...uch better than the increasing HP method we are accustomed to.


----------



## Rechan (May 24, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> "I get the feeling that they are selling many more modules now than they were 2 years ago." is the exact quote, to which you replied "It would SHOCK me if this were the case."



Yes. And then Wicht asked if I thought their place in the MARKET is shrinking.


----------



## Wicht (May 24, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Yes. And then Wicht asked if I thought their place in the MARKET is shrinking.




And I ask you again to clarify...

Do you think they are selling less and yet increasing their presence in the market?


----------



## Sir Wulf (May 24, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> 2) The enemies are designed as a large number of lower-level enemies, not necessarily dying in one hit, but also not presenting a genuine threat.



While I've employed "minions" of one sort or another in previous games, the idea that lower-level foes aren't a genuine threat seems to be an artifact of 4th Edition mechanics. In every other edition, I've been able to challenge PCs with hordes of lower-level foes. Since the party's defenses didn't consistently rachet up with their level, low-level enemies could potentially overwhelm them.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 24, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> So what is your solution? Never have a fight in which the PCs face a horde of enemies? Since your only options are lower-level enemies that can't threaten the group - or threatening enemies that are thus overwhelming. Which might be acceptable for very occasional combats, if the PCs prove lucky enough to survive or escape - but would by and large remove that entire category of encounters from being an option.




I stated my preferred solution in an earlier post. Get rid of the ever escalating defenses, let damage increase with level/training, and just have hit points do their job. The minion problem is only a problem due to the MMO style narrow effective level range. If a monster is too many levels below a PC it can never hit. Likewise, a monster that is too many levels above cannot be hit. 



MrMyth said:


> And that aside - when a player drops a minion, that creatures feels like it belongs with the rest of the world. When my soldier cleaves through a half-dozen orcs on the way to the orc chieftain, it feels appropriate they died easily - they are regular orcs, unable to stand up to the blows of a mighty warrior. What is out of place about that?




Not a thing. Without any staying power the scrawny scribe will also be able to lay them out with a punch. That feels out of place. If we alter the nature of something to be relevant in different ways to different people then we have narrative constructs, not representative attributes. If a declaration is made that orc mook #1 gets dropped by a mean stare by Hulko the fighter, but linkboy Nodwick would have to carve through 25 hp against that same mook based on some circumstance or outcome that we desire for a story then we have waved goodbye to the game portion of rpg. 



MrMyth said:


> I mean - tying this to classic fantasy stories, how often do we see an author describe the hero having to swing a half-dozen times to drop _every single enemy _in his path? We don't - the hero cuts down lesser enemies with ease. Quite often with single blows! At the same time, he doesn't dismiss them - if he leaves himself open, even the least opponent could land a serious blow.




Absolutely correct. In a fantasy story, the author has happen whatever is needed to advance said story to it's _desired conclusion. _Does the author roll dice to see if his/her hero makes it through alive? Of course not because there is no game being played. The story is what it is. No serious blow could be landed without the will of the author allowing it.


----------



## MrMyth (May 24, 2010)

Sir Wulf said:


> While I've employed "minions" of one sort or another in previous games, the idea that lower-level foes aren't a genuine threat seems to be an artifact of 4th Edition mechanics. In every other edition, I've been able to challenge PCs with hordes of lower-level foes. Since the party's defenses didn't consistently rachet up with their level, low-level enemies could potentially overwhelm them.




I'm certainly glad to hear you never ran into any such issues, but that doesn't mean they weren't there for others. A large part of the design for 4E minions was that this was a regular problem for many groups. I know that in my own games, all the characters worked on making sure their defenses went up as they levelled, such that I had to actively work to optimize lower level enemies, or give up on threatening them with a horde of foes. There were plenty of ways to do so, of course - monsters with naturally good attack bonus, support NPCs with buffs to give out, or monsters with attacks that bypassed defenses entirely. But in some ways, that was its own problem that needed to be fixed - when there was so much disparity in power for monsters of the same exact level (all depending on how well the DM optimized their creation), something is clearly wrong with the CR system. 

It is certainly true that 4E made it more relevant when it addressed this, and placed more focus on balancing the numbers. That made the need for 4E style minions even more significant. But I don't think one can deny that the problem existed beforehand - it might not have cropped up for everyone, but it certainly was there for many.


----------



## AllisterH (May 24, 2010)

Sir Wulf said:


> While I've employed "minions" of one sort or another in previous games, the idea that lower-level foes aren't a genuine threat seems to be an artifact of 4th Edition mechanics. In every other edition, I've been able to challenge PCs with hordes of lower-level foes. Since the party's defenses didn't consistently rachet up with their level, low-level enemies could potentially overwhelm them.




Been true since AT LEAST 2nd edition.

Taken from the black cover PHB.

Pg. 99, Full plate armour + shield  = AC 0. While not achievable at 1st level due to monetary concerns, it most assuredly was by at least 5th level.

(look at the table for followers a fighter got and you'll notice that if a fighter had a 5th level fighter as leader of his followers, the minimum gear it came with was plate mail + shield. I personally used this as a minimum level or "expected" gear for fighters

keep in mind that if you look at the table of FOLLOWERS from the fighter excerpt, there was something very weird going on...For Elite units that the fighter gained as followers, one of the options was 10 mounted knights wearing field plate + shield)

THACO of kobolds, orc and bugbears 20,  19 and 17 respectively.

I certainly don't call being "effective" when you need to throw 20 kobolds just to get the possible of one hit.

Indeed...if you look through the Monstrous Manual, most monsters (60%) don't have a THACO better than in the teens...

Given that I didnt include magic armour, rings and/or dexterity bonuses, the idea that this is either a 3e or 4e problem I don't agree with.


----------



## MrMyth (May 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I stated my preferred solution in an earlier post. Get rid of the ever escalating defenses, let damage increase with level/training, and just have hit points do their job. The minion problem is only a problem due to the MMO style narrow effective level range. If a monster is too many levels below a PC it can never hit. Likewise, a monster that is too many levels above cannot be hit.




I can see that as an interesting approach to a game. On the other hand, I imagine such a fundamental shift would have more than a few other difficulties arise. Among other things, I would expect to see a system like that end up with a much more limited array of options, in order to avoid potential abuse from over-optimization. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing - a more limited system would also make for an easier one to adapt to - but it might not be for all players. 



ExploderWizard said:


> Not a thing. Without any staying power the scrawny scribe will also be able to lay them out with a punch. That feels out of place. If we alter the nature of something to be relevant in different ways to different people then we have narrative constructs, not representative attributes. If a declaration is made that orc mook #1 gets dropped by a mean stare by Hulko the fighter, but linkboy Nodwick would have to carve through 25 hp against that same mook based on some circumstance or outcome that we desire for a story then we have waved goodbye to the game portion of rpg.




Except 4E minions still have scaling defenses. The scrawny scribe doesn't have a great melee attack bonus without investing _something_ in it. It might scale somewhat to level, but Hulko the fighter has significant bonuses from his strength, magic weapon, and random bonuses from class, feats, etc. 

Thus, if they both wade into a room filled with orc minions, Hulko will cleave through them, cutting them down in all directions. The scribe will probably be cowering behind him, and occasionally get in a lucky swing and smack an orc over the head with his spellbook, dropping it. 

Is that really unreasonable? What benefit would your system have over this? Instead of swinging 4 times and getting in one lucky blow to drop a mook, a wizard caught in melee would swing 4 times for trivial damage until the enemy finally drops? Or would the wizard's attack bonus still be poor, and thus he would need to swing 16 times in order to accumulate enough trivial damage to fell a simple enemy mook?

Or was your reference to a scribe not referring to a wizard PC for some reason forced to use fists instead of magic, but to a purely mundance scribe NPC caught in battle with orc minions. In which case... again, he probably will only drop a minion with the occasional hit, which I have no issues with - a companion of the PCs, in over his head, who occasionally lands a lucky blow seems entirely reasonable. Or are you proposing some hypothetical off-screen fight between a bunch of scrawny scribes and random orc raiders? 

In which case... really, that's not a scene you need to be rolling out to begin with. 



ExploderWizard said:


> Absolutely correct. In a fantasy story, the author has happen whatever is needed to advance said story to it's _desired conclusion. _Does the author roll dice to see if his/her hero makes it through alive? Of course not because there is no game being played. The story is what it is. No serious blow could be landed without the will of the author allowing it.




Look, I'll be the first to admit that drawing comparisons between a game and a story can oft be a futile approach. But you are specifically complaining about minions _not making sense_ in the context of the game world. Whether it is random or decided by an author, it makes perfect sense for a hero to still perceive basic enemy grunts as possible threats, and it makes perfect sense that he can dispatch them with ease when he needs a more serious duel to take down their leader. 

I'm really not sure what your response has to do with the argument at hand. You laid the claim that the problem with minions is that they don't feel real within the game world. Whether dice are being rolled or not, they work just as well in the game as in classic fantasy stories, as in movies like Lord of the Rings - most enemies the main characters fight are felled with ease, with only the truly dangerous threats requiring more significant opposition. The fighter can carve through orc mooks in order to do battle with the orc chieftain. Whether in the context of a story or a game, it seems entirely consistent to me!


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 24, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Except 4E minions still have scaling defenses. The scrawny scribe doesn't have a great melee attack bonus without investing _something_ in it. It might scale somewhat to level, but Hulko the fighter has significant bonuses from his strength, magic weapon, and random bonuses from class, feats, etc.
> 
> Thus, if they both wade into a room filled with orc minions, Hulko will cleave through them, cutting them down in all directions. The scribe will probably be cowering behind him, and occasionally get in a lucky swing and smack an orc over the head with his spellbook, dropping it.
> 
> Is that really unreasonable?




Nope. Not at all. In fact that works as a satisfactory answer for me. 
As long as 1hp remains 1hp to the world at large, I'm fine with it.


----------



## billd91 (May 24, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> <snip>
> 
> THACO of kobolds, orc and bugbears 20,  19 and 17 respectively.
> 
> ...




I would definitely call it much more of a 3e/4e problem than any other edition. For one thing, AC was virtually impossible to get lower than -10 (equivalent to 3e's 30). And it was much harder to get to that point in the first place because there simply weren't that many powers or special gear that could work together to achieve it. That meant that, with modest bonuses, there were fewer cases reduced to just rolling a 20 to hit.

There was also the issue of facing. While flanking takes part of the place of facing rules, it doesn't completely confer the same advantages a low-power attacker might have received in 1e/2e (loss of shield, +2 attacking from behind, loss of Dex bonus). The fighter with a +1 shield, +1 plate mail, 15 Dex, and +2 ring of protection (which won't help his AC because he already has magic armor boosting it), goes from AC -1 to, effectively, AC 4 to the orc attacking him from behind. 

Whether this is a worse problem in 3e or 4e depends substantially on how many splatbooks the 3e game is using and how the player is able to stack up his defenses. I'm inclined to say that 3e shows the problem less in some respects because 3e touch defenses tend to be substantially worse than AC defenses for most characters, leaving characters reasonably vulnerable to low-level opponents tripping them up and grappling.


----------



## Sir Wulf (May 24, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Pg. 99, Full plate armour + shield = AC 0. While not achievable at 1st level due to monetary concerns, it most assuredly was by at least 5th level.




Edit: Some of this is redundant with the earlier post. (Sigh...)

Even in 1st edition, AC 0 was not uncommon for a fighter by 4th level. To be fair, let's assume a fighter with a +1 shield and +1 Dex bonus while we're at it, for AC -2. Kobolds surround him, but only eight can attack him each round. The first three need a 20 to hit, but his shield only blocks three attacks/round. The next two need a 19 to hit. The last three only need a 16 to hit because they are "behind" him, gaining +2 and depriving him of his Dex bonus. In 1st edition AD&D, the fighter would realistically kill three kobolds each round. He'd slaughter them, but not without a few wounds: Assuming he faced 12 kobolds, the lone fighter would still only suffer about 9 points of damage from his total of about 31 hp. Then the few surviving kobolds would flee.

In the meantime, the rest of the tribe (20 more kobolds) would cut his allies into minestrone. The AC 5 Magic User and AC 3 Thief would be cut to ribbons, leaving only the fighter and AC 1 cleric standing. Once the kobold horde engulfed the party, the magic user would be lucky to get a spell off.

That example assumed two advantages for the kobolds: terrain where they could swamp their foes and nearby hiding places so they could close in before missile weapons and spells decimated them. Fortunately for kobolds, they avoid that sort of fight anyway. They'd attack after the party's first rank fell into a pit, then sick their pet giant weasel on the fighter, since they can barely hit the guy.

Allowing grappling makes things even worse for the party...


----------



## pemerton (May 25, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Mechanics aside for a moment, it isn't the feat of rolling a particular set of numbers on some die rolls that is satisfying. The satisfaction is in knowing that when an opponent drops (or doesn't) that it is a creature that feels like it belongs with the rest of the world.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If a horde of nasty looking demons is approaching and they get taken out with a flyswatter the context of being charged by scary demons just isn't there.



I like this, although I don't share the play preferences it expresses, because it makes very clear what those preferences are about.

You're linking _satisfaction_, here, to facets of ingame reality and their mechanical expression - a creature feeling like it belongs with the rest of the world in virtue of its stat block and the action resolution mechanics that govern it, and a creature being scary for the same reasons, namely, being a mechanical threat to the PCs _in virtue of its stat block alone, and the action resolution mechanics that statblock invokes_.

In my own play experience, these are not very important contributors to feelings of satisfaction. My players' concerns and emotional responses are tyically to what is going on either in the storyline of the game or (during combat) to what is going on tactically in the game. Their responses do not correlate in any very strong way to the mechanical modelling of the ingame elements. It is the ingame _situation_ that matters.

Two pick up on your two examples:

In my own approach to play, a monster feels like it belongs in the gameworld because, for example, it's a hobgoblin working with other hobgoblins to do wicked things. It's location within the gameworld is established _before_ the combat statblock comes into play - once its minion-ness matters (ie once combat starts), the monster _already_ has a place in the gameworld. The auto-oneshotting that comes with minion-ness contributes to the tactical situation, and (if my group stops to think about it, which frequently they don't) tells us that that was one unlucky hobgoblin, but it doesn't undermine its place in the gameworld. In particular, the players don't lose their suspension of disbelief because they learn that this particular hobgobling has been mechanically implemented as a minion.

Similarly, scariness is in part a function of player expectations, and in part a function of how events unfold. Again, it is about _situation_, not about the mechanical properties of particular game elements abstracted from that situation. Thus, if 6 demons surround a PC, that is scary whether or not they're minions. (I usually play that the players don't know if a monster is a minion until at least one is hit - at that point they can generally guess the rest because of the sameness of token, and often they can guess in advance that some minions are around by metagaming an assumption of balanced encounters. But even if the players know that the 6 monsters are  minions it can still be scary to be surrounded by them.)

If the minions are then dropped by an enemy-only burst hitting them all for at least 1 point, the fear will pass and feelings of relief and/or awesomeness may replace it, but that is fine. The fear was still there, even if it has now passed. I find that the game has plenty of ways of generating sustained anxiety in the players if I want to do this (eg elites and solos), and that the presence of minions in encounters doesn't undermine this. Indeed, sometimes it can enhance it - as the minions gradually drop, and then some of the lower level ordinary monsters, leaving only the elite leader left, apparently unfazed by the best the party has had to offer, the tension and anxiety can be enhanced rather than undermined. Again, it is about situation, not individual game elements. I find that the variety of game elements that 4e offers - minions, elites and solos as well as ordinary monsters - helps rather than hinders the process of building up a compelling ingame situation.


----------



## pemerton (May 25, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Get rid of the ever escalating defenses, let damage increase with level/training, and just have hit points do their job. The minion problem is only a problem due to the MMO style narrow effective level range. If a monster is too many levels below a PC it can never hit. Likewise, a monster that is too many levels above cannot be hit.



4e has the increase in damage (although perhaps not at the rate needed to implement your preferred solution), with the growth in power damage output and the growth in the ratio of encounter and daily powers to total powers avaible.

Personally, I think the function of the "MMO style" level increases is not to model anything in the gameworld, but to establish a basic storyline for the game - you start with kobolds and work up to Orcus. Getting rid of level-based defences and attacks would significantly reduce this aspect of the game. It's an aspect I like, but of course others may not.



ExploderWizard said:


> Without any staying power the scrawny scribe will also be able to lay them out with a punch.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If a declaration is made that orc mook #1 gets dropped by a mean stare by Hulko the fighter, but linkboy Nodwick would have to carve through 25 hp against that same mook based on some circumstance or outcome that we desire for a story then we have waved goodbye to the game portion of rpg.



I don't want to retread all the ground of your exchange with MrMyth, but like him I'm not sure what you've got in mind here. If the "scrawny scribe" is the PC wizard then s/he gets to attack and try and drop the minion like any other PC. In my session last weekend exactly this sort of thing happened - hobgoblins (a mixture of soldiers and grunts) were running away with kidnapped children and the wizard charged them, attacking with his spellbook (as an improvised weapon for d4). The fact that his STR is low and there is no proficiency bonus meant that he wasn't too effective as a melee combatant (of course things changed once he started the round in melee and was able to use Colour Spray).

If the "scrawny scribe" is an NPC then either they're a companion character, in which case the PC rules apply, or they're under the GM's control, in which case (at least in my game) they are not going to be part of the combat except as part of overall colour for the scene - and if a player chooses to "activate" that bit of colour via the rules on page 42 of the DMG, I have their to-hit and damage chances already set out for me. But if the PCs are not involved, then the notion of enemy hit points, or "minimum 1 damage on a hit", just aren't relevant to working out what is going on in the gameworld.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 25, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Personally, I think the function of the "MMO style" level increases is not to model anything in the gameworld, but to establish a basic storyline for the game - you start with kobolds and work up to Orcus. Getting rid of level-based defences and attacks would significantly reduce this aspect of the game. It's an aspect I like, but of course others may not.




I think the scaling introduces an artificial feeling of scaling. I prefer that the inhabitants of a gaming fantasy world not have their interactions dictated by some sort of forced story line. I like the idea of a mob of peasant militia taking down a marauding giant even though the cost would be horrendous. Of course a small band of heroes could down that giant in less than a minute and it might take the peasants hours and cost over a hundred lives. This still allows the PC's to be amply heroic without the need for such a dividing line of absolutes. It also means that enough low level opposition can still be deadly to the party which is also not undesirable.


----------



## Hussar (May 25, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Mechanics aside for a moment, it isn't the feat of rolling a particular set of numbers on some die rolls that is satisfying. The satisfaction is in knowing that when an opponent drops (or doesn't) that it is a creature that feels like it belongs with the rest of the world.




To you. 


> The feeling of awesome is diminished when the circumstances are set up specifically to provide an outcome that is intended to give off a feeling of awesome.



For you.



> The context is excactly what I am talking about. If a horde of nasty looking demons is approaching and they get taken out with a flyswatter the context of being charged by scary demons just isn't there.




Again, for you.

Now, if your claim is that "I don't like minion mechanics because they don't serve *my playstyle*, I'm 100% with you.  However, you've phrased this as statements of fact.  That this will be true of everyone.  Instead of "The feeling of awesome is diminished", why not say, "My feelings of awesome are diminished"?  

Because, as I said earlier, there are a whole host of games that either don't use hit points at all, or, like say, Savage Worlds, all creatures other than PC's and named NPC's, have exactly ONE hit point.  If what you were saying was true, then all those fans of Savage Worlds are mistaken about how they feel about the game.

The idea that hit points are the only model of reality in a game is ludicrous.



billd91 said:


> But *why* would I want to model a 19th century queen in a class-based fantasy RPG? More modern societies don't model well with class-based games as ones centuries earlier.




Fair enough.  Queen Elizabeth then.  Take your pick.  



> And why would I think the character needed to be 15th level to have the skills required for her position? A lot of people seem to think that people at the pinnacle of society by birth need to have skills higher than anyone else in order to lead them. But that's not the case.




Because, if she doesn't have those skills then the setting fails to be believable.  Either someone with greater skills comes along and dominates her through bluff and diplomacy, or the PC's do.  



> If I were to use D&D to stat up the old bird, I certainly wouldn't be going as high as 15th level when 8th-10th level would do (and by the time she hit such lofty levels, age-based stat-reduction would be significantly reducing her combat ability). And I'd consider plunking a few feats into Skill Focus if I felt I needed to get some of her skills up.




Snort.  Does it really matter?  10th level aristocrat, even with stat penalties (which you now have to account for, this is a thread about GM prep time) still folds, spindles and mauls 99% of the population of the nation, which consists of 1st level commoners.  Quibbling over the level is a bit pointless don't you think?  Even 8th level, she's obliterating the local blacksmith (lvl 1 commoner) in unarmed combat.  

Go granny go.

So, in a thread about GM prep time, which is easier?  Taking about an hour to properly stat up an 8th level aristocrat, or the thirty seconds to actually give our NPC the stats she will actually use, and if the PC's actually attack her, she does the totally realistic thing, and dies?

Which is precisely how she'd be statted up in AD&D, BECMI, and 2e.  It's only 3e that requires me to take that much time to do it properly.


----------



## billd91 (May 25, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Because, if she doesn't have those skills then the setting fails to be believable.  Either someone with greater skills comes along and dominates her through bluff and diplomacy, or the PC's do.




Feh. What did you think governments by guys like Gladstone, Disraeli, and Lord Salisbury were for? That's where the *real* expertise was.
Thinking Victoria was some kind of super-skilled monarch wouldn't exactly make the setting particularly believable.

Wouldn't work all that well with QE1 either. Frankly, the aristocrat as presented as an NPC class fits lords and monarchs like Richard III better - people who actually learned something about fighting, had fencing instructors, actually participated in tournaments or led men into battle, than QE1 or Victoria. It's one of the mild drawbacks of a class-based system, the archetype a class is based on tends to limit it's applicability to atypical real-world cases.


----------



## FireLance (May 25, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Feh. What did you think governments by guys like Gladstone, Disraeli, and Lord Salisbury were for? That's where the *real* expertise was.



That's just shifting the problem one level down. The 3e NPC building Rules As Written pretty much require high skill ranks and high attack bonuses to go hand in hand. Admittedly, you can get a lot of mileage out of a high ability score, Skill Focus and synergy bonuses, but even that will only get you so far. Beyond a certain point, you have to add more levels (and more hit points, base attack bonuses, saving throw bonuses, etc.) in order to raise an NPC's skill level. Because high skill ranks tend to go hand in hand with high combat skill in 3e, you need to push the limits of the rules to get a highly skilled NPC who is poor in combat.

In the interest of fairness, I should note that 4e has the same problem for the PCs because skill checks gain a bonus equal to half the character's level. If skilled diplomat NPCs in 3e are required by the rules to be decent fighters*, skilled fighter PCs in 4e are required by the rules to be decent diplomats. 4e NPCs, on the other hand, can be either, both, or neither, as the DM requires.

* EDIT: Insert snarky comment about 3e diplomat NPCs being able to trip, sunder, disarm and overrun, which 4e fighters cannot do without selecting special powers.


----------



## pemerton (May 25, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I think the scaling introduces an artificial feeling of scaling. I prefer that the inhabitants of a gaming fantasy world not have their interactions dictated by some sort of forced story line.



Well, in my game I don't particularly see the mechanics as dictating the interactions of any of the inhabitants of a gaming fantasy world _other than the PCs_. And the players of those PCs have chosen to follow this rough story line (start with kobolds, end with Orcus) in virtue of having chosen to play D&D at all.

As for the NPCs, it is the storyline that dictates the stats, and not vice versa. That is, Drow are mysterious undearth beings who are a mere rumour to ordinary surface dwellers. Which is to say, we know it is part of the story that only unusual heroes will actually meet with, let alone fight, Drow in their underground homelands. Which is to say that Drow are paragon-tier monsters.


----------



## Lanefan (May 25, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I find it rather strange that people seem to be claiming that HIT POINTS are the best way to model in game realities.  Because, y'know, it makes perfect sense that Queen Victoria would be a 15th level Aristocrat with a hundred hit points.



A 15th level *undead* Aristocrat by now, wouldn't you think? 

Lan-"and she's still not amused"-efan


----------



## Wicht (May 25, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Snort.  Does it really matter?  10th level aristocrat, even with stat penalties (which you now have to account for, this is a thread about GM prep time) still folds, spindles and mauls 99% of the population of the nation, which consists of 1st level commoners.  Quibbling over the level is a bit pointless don't you think?  Even 8th level, she's obliterating the local blacksmith (lvl 1 commoner) in unarmed combat.
> 
> Go granny go.




Using Pathfinder rules: 

Queen - 80 years old; for the sake of arguement we'll make her 10th level aristocrat, (though I think thats a bit high myself.) She has therefore a BAB of +7. Her strength is 4 (original 10; -6) for a -3 penalty to hit and damage. In unarmed combat she would have a +4 to hit  and do 1d3-3 points of non-lethal damage.  She also with her constitution of 5 (original 11; -6 ) has a total of 14 hps.  

The Blacksmith, a level 3 expert in the prime of his life has a BAB of 2, a 14 strength and a 12 constitution. He's going to have a +4 to hit, identical to the queen (who is after all divinely appointed) and do 1d3+2 points of non-lethal damage on a punch. He has 16 hps.

It will take the queen 17 rounds of hits, doing 1 non-lethal point of damage each round she hits, to knock the blacksmith out.

Assuming he fights back, he knocks her out in about 4 rounds, maybe 5.

If we want to model wrestling, the queen has a CMB of +4 and a CMD of 10 (I'm assuming a dexterity of about 2 - it was her dump stat  ). The Blacksmith also has a CMB of 4 but he has a CMD of 14.  Assuming the Blacksmith wins initiative, which is likely considering the queen's dexterity, he puts her in a pin on a roll of 6+ and proceeds to hold her to the ground, knocking her head against the floor or what not, while she struggles to escape.  He ends up with a few scratches, but the queen is out in about 4 or 5 rounds again.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 25, 2010)

Imaro said:


> No one claimed 4e and 3.x worked on the same rules foundation for monsters and NPC's, so I'm not sure what point you are making here.



I didn't say anyone claimed that.
My point is that you only need (elaborate) monster customization rules if monsters and pcs share the same ruleset.


Imaro said:


> And how, pray tell,do you balance powers that do something besides damage? Or a power that does damage and an effect?



I recommended to look at monster powers from a comparable level. Assuming the power was balanced to begin with, you'll end up with a balanced power. About the only caveat I can think of is synergy effects. But almost every monster is already designed to have synergetic powers.

And if you invent your own monster powers including status effects all you have to do is decide if it is bad enough to warrant using the low damage expression or if it's a negligible effect.


Imaro said:


> Making stuff up isn't always easier than looking stuff up (since you can ultimately limit your sources, a dozen books isn't necessary) when you want to keep the game running right.



Well, using a dozen books to customize monsters (in 3e) is not required if the players don't get to use a dozen books to optimize their pcs. If they get access to all supplements then monsters definitely should, too.


Imaro said:


> Making stuff up isn't a strength of 4e... it's a strength of any and every rpg.



Well, turn the argument around then, if you prefer: 3e was a system that discouraged 'making stuff up' and for good reason (the very reason mentioned above).


Imaro said:


> EDIT: Oh, and just as an FYI... 4e does have monster and NPC customization rules... they've also been discussed earlier in the thread.



I never refuted that. I claim they're not needed, though (apart from the two-page spread 'customizing monsters' with the tables on hp/attacks/defenses per monster role and the damage progression table).

Check out the official 4e modules: Almost none of the npcs use the DMG guidelines. They're all custom-created.

Note further the evolution of the DMG templates into DMG2 themes. Apparently, the game designers realized that adding a bunch of additional powers will not increase the challenge a monster represents in a significant way.

One of the designers even wrote in his blog that he felt the DMG templates aren't working well.


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I didn't say anyone claimed that.
> My point is that you only need (elaborate) monster customization rules if monsters and pcs share the same ruleset.




Yet there are games where the PC's and monsters/NPC's don't share the same ruleset... yet there are "elaborate" (maybe comprehensive would be a better term.) customization rules, a prime example I know of are the Angel and Buffy rpg's. So your general statement doesn't necessarily ring true.



Jhaelen said:


> I recommended to look at monster powers from a comparable level. Assuming the power was balanced to begin with, you'll end up with a balanced power. About the only caveat I can think of is synergy effects. But almost every monster is already designed to have synergetic powers.




Sooo... guesstimate...by finding a power that is similar in function, and attached to a monster that is similar in level and role, then pour through the MM's (since we all know there were design flaws in 1... it only makes sense to compare powers in both books.) to first make sure the power you have selected to compare it to is balanced to most powers that are similar, if not select a new power to compare... When this is finally finished then you can actually compare the power you created to a balanced one you have now located...uhm ok.



Jhaelen said:


> And if you invent your own monster powers including status effects all you have to do is decide if it is bad enough to warrant using the low damage expression or if it's a negligible effect.




How?



Jhaelen said:


> Well, using a dozen books to customize monsters (in 3e) is not required if the players don't get to use a dozen books to optimize their pcs. If they get access to all supplements then monsters definitely should, too.




It's not "required" at all...it is an option and any DM can choose to limit or expand the books they want to use for preparation... and in doing so accept the fact that his choice may increase or decrease preparation time. 



Jhaelen said:


> Well, turn the argument around then, if you prefer: 3e was a system that discouraged 'making stuff up' and for good reason (the very reason mentioned above).




It never discouraged me from making stuff up, and it provided structure for times that I wanted to fall back on it. Again a general sweeping statement, that unless you can show where the text in the actual books discouraged making stuff up, is only subjectively truthful for those that chose to interpret 3e that way. 



Jhaelen said:


> I never refuted that. I claim they're not needed, though (apart from the two-page spread 'customizing monsters' with the tables on hp/attacks/defenses per monster role and the damage progression table).




Not needed... for you. Others may need (though I think want is a better term since very little is technically "needed" in an rpg) exactly this. 



Jhaelen said:


> Check out the official 4e modules: Almost none of the npcs use the DMG guidelines. They're all custom-created.




Okay, and? Again making stuff up is possible in any roleplaying game... however the reason I'm paying money is to have the rules to do so... if those rules do not cover what I want to make up or how I want to make it up... then I have no reason to purchase them.



Jhaelen said:


> Note further the evolution of the DMG templates into DMG2 themes. Apparently, the game designers realized that adding a bunch of additional powers will not increase the challenge a monster represents in a significant way.




Citation please? Where have the designers stated this... or are you inferring this?



Jhaelen said:


> One of the designers even wrote in his blog that he felt the DMG templates aren't working well.




That would be interesting reading indeed... do you happen to have a link.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 25, 2010)

Hussar said:


> The idea that hit points are the only model of reality in a game is ludicrous.




Well IMHO and all that, the idea that hit points model reality at all is kind of ludicrous.


----------



## MrMyth (May 25, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Sooo... guesstimate...by finding a power that is similar in function, and attached to a monster that is similar in level and role, then pour through the MM's (since we all know there were design flaws in 1... it only makes sense to compare powers in both books.) to first make sure the power you have selected to compare it to is balanced to most powers that are similar, if not select a new power to compare... When this is finally finished then you can actually compare the power you created to a balanced one you have now located...uhm ok.




Making up powers completely on the spot, in 4E, _for me_, takes only a few moments and consistently yields absolutely more balanced results than strictly following every formula for monster advancement in 3.5. This is because the numbers largely stay balanced, and it is typically pretty obvious where something falls in the power level: an area-effect at-will stun (save ends) is at the top end, while a power that reduces someone's movement by 1 is not that big a deal. 

For the times when you really are unsure, it honestly doesn't take that long to flip open the MM level index, find something similar of the right level, and make a quick comparison. And once you've done that a time or two, you often don't need to for future powers.

Now, I'm not going to claim that such free-form design is going to be the easiest approach for everyone. But I think you are vastly overestimating how much time it takes to check the balance of a power, as well as underestimating how forgiving the system is when adding conditions to powers. And at least for me, I can go crazy adjusting a monster in 4E without ending up with the sort of unbalanced nonsense I could get by advancing 3.5 monsters strictly by the book (either by hit dice, templates or class levels). 

Now, was every monster creation in 3.5 flawed? Absolutely not. And for many people, those guidelines remained a solid anchor for their own design. But again speaking from my own experience, 3rd Edition very much felt like it discouraged 'tinkering', while 4E feels like it encourages it, and both makes it quick and easy. 

You don't need to agree with this, you are perfectly free to prefer another system, but I don't think it fair to imply that it takes forever to create a new power and quickly compare it to existing ones of that level.


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Making up powers completely on the spot, in 4E, _for me_, takes only a few moments and consistently yields absolutely more balanced results than strictly following every formula for monster advancement in 3.5. This is because the numbers largely stay balanced, and it is typically pretty obvious where something falls in the power level: an area-effect at-will stun (save ends) is at the top end, while a power that reduces someone's movement by 1 is not that big a deal.




Is it really obvious? How do you determine whether a power should have a "recharge" value, a "save ends", or "until end of your next turn" effect? If you decide on a recharge... how do you determine what that power should recharge on? Is a burst power that does less damage equal to a single attack that does the same damage but inflicts a condition? If so, what conditions are balanced and which aren't? In designing a monster how does one determine how many recharge, save ends, encounter, at-will, minor action...etc. powers to give it? Should this be influenced by it's role?

And so on... I think it's often stated as "simple" because many people (though not all) give little to no thought to many of these things when designing freeform monsters and powers (or else we would have concrete rules for them.). I don't know if that necessarily makes it simple or they are simplifying what goes into designing new monsters and powers themselves and claiming 4e did it.



MrMyth said:


> For the times when you really are unsure, it honestly doesn't take that long to flip open the MM level index, find something similar of the right level, and make a quick comparison. And once you've done that a time or two, you often don't need to for future powers.




I don't have my MM with me right now, but I think it would be interesting to see what type of disparity exists in things like number of powers for monsters of the same level as well as monsters of the same role. What's the disparity in effects available (types, number of, type of action, etc.)... is there a low level monster that can stun and damage? How much damage does he do? Is it less, more or equal to a monster of the same level that can't?



MrMyth said:


> Now, *I'm not going to claim that such free-form design is going to be the easiest approach for everyone.* But I think you are vastly overestimating how much time it takes to check the balance of a power, as well as underestimating how forgiving the system is when adding conditions to powers. And at least for me, I can go crazy adjusting a monster in 4E without ending up with the sort of unbalanced nonsense I could get by advancing 3.5 monsters strictly by the book (either by hit dice, templates or class levels).




Emphasis mine... and I think you are vastly underestimating the paralysis and uncertainty that can arise from such freeform design for monsters and NPC's... especially when one has chosen a generally non-freeform rpg to play. 

In 3.5 once I got comfortable with the system and had used it's rules (brokenness and all)... it was easy enough for me to start shaping the game outside of the guidelines provided by the rules because I understood them. I'm not so sure "make it up without guidelines"... or even "make it up without complete guidelines" is the best approach. I like 4e and wish they would provide some more guidelines and rules for constructing monsters NPC's and powers.



MrMyth said:


> Now, was every monster creation in 3.5 flawed? Absolutely not. And for many people, those guidelines remained a solid anchor for their own design. But again speaking from my own experience, 3rd Edition very much felt like it discouraged 'tinkering', while 4E feels like it encourages it, and both makes it quick and easy.




Well I can respect that you felt like that... it just irks me that the whole 4e encourages/ 3e discourages thing is often stated by fans of 4e as if it were an objective truth... and it's not.



MrMyth said:


> You don't need to agree with this, you are perfectly free to prefer another system, but I don't think it fair to imply that it takes forever to create a new power and quickly compare it to existing ones of that level.





I didn't imply that "it takes forever to create a new power and quickly compare it to existing ones of that level." especially since you have added a qualifier of "quickly compare". What I did argue is that some people may not find this freeform method as simple and easy to use. They may in fact find it confusing and


----------



## MrMyth (May 25, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I didn't imply that "it takes forever to create a new power and quickly compare it to existing ones of that level." especially since you have added a qualifier of "quickly compare". What I did argue is that some people may not find this freeform method as simple and easy to use.




Well, that I won't argue with. But it did feel like you were dismissing the method entirely rather than just saying it isn't to your style. 

I certainly agree that more guidelines with powers would be a good thing. For myself, I do find the rules adaptable enough to play around with powers without feeling like I will break the balance of the system. But I certainly understand that it may not seem so for everyone - and there are, after all, still rules for advancement, NPCs, levelling, etc. Or, in the end, just swapping in appropriate powers from other monsters - which I do think is a relatively manageable task. Finding other appropriate monsters of similar level and role is easy enough with the books themselves, and outright trivial with DDI. 

In the end - yes, not everyone will prefer this approach. But I do recommend at least trying it, even if you find it confusing or intimidating, and seeing how the results actually work out in the game.


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Well, that I won't argue with. But it did feel like you were dismissing the method entirely rather than just saying it isn't to your style.
> 
> I certainly agree that more guidelines with powers would be a good thing. For myself, I do find the rules adaptable enough to play around with powers without feeling like I will break the balance of the system. But I certainly understand that it may not seem so for everyone - and there are, after all, still rules for advancement, NPCs, levelling, etc. Or, in the end, just swapping in appropriate powers from other monsters - which I do think is a relatively manageable task. Finding other appropriate monsters of similar level and role is easy enough with the books themselves, and outright trivial with DDI.
> 
> In the end - yes, not everyone will prefer this approach. But I do recommend at least trying it, even if you find it confusing or intimidating, and seeing how the results actually work out in the game.




Hey, in all honesty...even though it may seem like I'm totally down on 4e, I'm not... this thread has given me an inkling to start playing around with the monster and NPC creation tools as well as trying it freeform( Doesn't mean I don't still want some codified rules WotC ). I do wish WotC would allow companion character rules, templates and some of the other stuff to be added to the Monster Builder tool as well.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 25, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Snort. Does it really matter? 10th level aristocrat, even with stat penalties (which you now have to account for, this is a thread about GM prep time) still folds, spindles and mauls 99% of the population of the nation, which consists of 1st level commoners. Quibbling over the level is a bit pointless don't you think? Even 8th level, she's obliterating the local blacksmith (lvl 1 commoner) in unarmed combat.
> 
> Go granny go.




Personally, I thought this was an interesting implication about the D&D3 rules. 

A 1st level Aristocrat is perfectly capable of ruling the Brittish Empire (or its fantasy equivalent). There's nothing mandating that an aged queen be 10th level. People sort of assume she must be because "power = levels, right?", but that's not necessarily true in 3e, even as far as PC's go. She could just have a very loyal 20th level party at her disposal or somesuch.  

The guideline of "99% of humanity is 1st level commoners, so anyone who is not one of those things is already pretty exceptional" makes this believable. 

However, the implication of "if you gain levels, you become more mighty in all ways" always seemed to imply a very interesting world to me, one where, in order to become a 10th level Aristocrat, you needed to actually fight things, or at least confront them. A 10th level Queen Victoria wouldn't have gotten that way by sitting on a throne and offering up decrees. She would have killed goblins, fought elves, confronted demons. She would have been a warrior-queen, a glorious beacon to all.

You could totally be an awesome monarch just by being a 1st level Aristocrat (especially if you had a heroic, non-11 Charisma or somesuch), because most of the world was worse than you, but if you were a truly heroic Aristocrat, you would have been an Adventurer, a reputation forged in blood and battle. 

To be 10th level, in other words, you need to enter the Fantasy genre, and you're out of the realm of normal human stuff. Any person who isn't an adventurer would only be 1st level or so, and they could still be quite amazing.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 25, 2010)

Imaro said:


> How?



 It's definitely not rocket science - but I can see where answering this question will lead me 
Okay, I'll admit that this is something you can only figure out with some experience (or by reading a post from someone with some experience). Basically, the conditions that warrant a reduction in damage are the ones that players hate the most: stun, dominate, daze, restrained, immobilize - roughly in that order - did I forget one?
It would have been easy to add a sentence or two in the DMG to indicate the 'severity' of conditions. I have no idea why they didn't do this.


Imaro said:


> It's not "required" at all...it is an option and any DM can choose to limit or expand the books they want to use for preparation... and in doing so accept the fact that his choice may increase or decrease preparation time.



Well, that's your opinion. I disagree for the reasons I already stated.


Imaro said:


> It never discouraged me from making stuff up, and it provided structure for times that I wanted to fall back on it.



Good for you!
However, if you felt it was easy to make stuff up in 3e, I cannot for the life of me understand why you'd think it would be harder in 4e.


Imaro said:


> however the reason I'm paying money is to have the rules to do so... if those rules do not cover what I want to make up or how I want to make it up... then I have no reason to purchase them.



Apparently, you're considering different things worth purchasing than I do. I assume you're never buying adventure modules then? Because they typically don't include any rules. How about setting books or monster ecologies?
You make it sound as if you are only interested in 'toolbox' books.

As a DM I'm mostly interested in buying books (or tools) that will allow me get my creative juices flowing, to save work when prepping for a session and to allow me to run a session more smoothly.

Complicated rules for monster customization do none of these things for me.


Imaro said:


> Citation please? Where have the designers stated this... or are you inferring this?[...]That would be interesting reading indeed... do you happen to have a link.



I've found the link. It's an entry in Peter Schaefer's blog.


----------



## Stormonu (May 25, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Personally, I thought this was an interesting implication about the D&D3 rules.
> 
> A 1st level Aristocrat is perfectly capable of ruling the Brittish Empire (or its fantasy equivalent). There's nothing mandating that an aged queen be 10th level. People sort of assume she must be because "power = levels, right?", but that's not necessarily true in 3e, even as far as PC's go. She could just have a very loyal 20th level party at her disposal or somesuch.
> 
> ...




I think this is a bit of flawed thinking for two (possibly three) reasons.  The first is, of course that you don't only gain XP for combat.  It could be quiet possible, were the queen to be a PC, that she could gain many levels for being involved in political plots and maneuvering.  For example, she might get XP for resolving a squabble between two nobles and preventing it from escalating into a civil war.  Perhaps she makes a royal appearance at the founding of a new library in her name and makes an inspiring speech that encourages other nobles to build other libraries - gaining XP for the act.  And so on.

Then, of course, there are the kings and queens known for their battle prowess, who lead armies and plot against heroic characters (such as Queen Maeve who bedeviled Cuchulainn).

Lastly, it would seem appropriate that the heroic figures of legend _should_ have levels because they stand a cut above the rest of humanity.  Good ol' Queen Victoria might have 100 hp because she's a tough ol' bitch to kill - she's important to the story and seeing her go down like a mook is a bit of a letdown (I'd give Queen Victoria, of "Tooth and Claw" from Dr. Who season 2 [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9TZzVKzHx4&feature=related"]<clip here>[/ame], some heroic levels)


----------



## BryonD (May 25, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Making up powers completely on the spot, in 4E, _for me_, takes only a few moments and consistently yields absolutely more balanced results than strictly following every formula for monster advancement in 3.5. This is because the numbers largely stay balanced, and it is typically pretty obvious where something falls in the power level: an area-effect at-will stun (save ends) is at the top end, while a power that reduces someone's movement by 1 is not that big a deal.



I 100% agree that mathematical consistency is a major attribute of 4E.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 25, 2010)

Imaro?  Are you a D&D Insider subscriber?  Reason I ask is that the Monster Builder allows me to sort all monsters by any order I want.  And the ability to see _all_ published L4-7 Soldiers really helps me design a new level 5 Soldier...


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> It's definitely not rocket science - but I can see where answering this question will lead me
> Okay, I'll admit that this is something you can only figure out with some experience (or by reading a post from someone with some experience). Basically, the conditions that warrant a reduction in damage are the ones that players hate the most: stun, dominate, daze, restrained, immobilize - roughly in that order - did I forget one?
> 
> It would have been easy to add a sentence or two in the DMG to indicate the 'severity' of conditions. I have no idea why they didn't do this.





Honestly, I don't know if you forgot one, you're the master at freeform monster creation in 4e... but you've not touched on recharges vs. save ends vs. end of turn vs.... there's plenty that still needs to be addressed in designing powers and monsters. Also what is the reduction in damage necessary per condition... and there's also the many enemies vs. singular. My point being it is in no way "simple" if the numerous building blocks that go into a power are actually addressed and some sembelance of balance desired.



Jhaelen said:


> Well, that's your opinion. I disagree for the reasons I already stated..




No, it's a fact. Your assumption is false. Nothing in the players using numerous books forces me as DM to use them. I can choose to or choose not to.



Jhaelen said:


> Good for you!
> However, if you felt it was easy to make stuff up in 3e, I cannot for the life of me understand why you'd think it would be harder in 4e.




I have tried to give insight to this in other posts. AllI can do is suggest you read the exchange between myself and MrMyth if you truly don't understand since he was able to at least grok my point (though he disagreed with it.). 



Jhaelen said:


> Apparently, you're considering different things worth purchasing than I do. I assume you're never buying adventure modules then? Because they typically don't include any rules. How about setting books or monster ecologies?
> You make it sound as if you are only interested in 'toolbox' books..




No I think you misread (or added your own inferences to) what I wrote... I addressed a specific product... a roleplaying game's rules... not sourcebooks or campaign books or adventures. I buy a roleplaying game's rules for the... well rules.



Jhaelen said:


> As a DM I'm mostly interested in buying books (or tools) that will allow me get my creative juices flowing, to save work when prepping for a session and to allow me to run a session more smoothly.




Again... I was commenting on a specific thing... you are commenting on something else. 



Jhaelen said:


> Complicated rules for monster customization do none of these things for me..




Didn't ask for complicated rules... again you are inferring...



Jhaelen said:


> I've found the link. It's an entry in Peter Schaefer's blog.




Thanks, I'll take a look at this when I get a minute.


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Imaro? Are you a D&D Insider subscriber? Reason I ask is that the Monster Builder allows me to sort all monsters by any order I want. And the ability to see _all_ published L4-7 Soldiers really helps me design a new level 5 Soldier...





I was at one point and time, but I have canceled my subscription.  I think this clouds the issue as this brings in additional tools one must pay for to use... so yes I understand your point but I think it is irrelevant to someone who only has the books and is trying to design their own monsters.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 25, 2010)

Keep in mind that for this, I'm essentially describing why I thought the D&D world implied by "10th level Aristocrats" was kind of a cool place. I'm not necessarily promoting this as the ideal or best way to present a D&D world. I'm just saying that for me, it was kind of neat to have a D&D world that conformed to these ideas.



			
				Stormonu said:
			
		

> The first is, of course that you don't only gain XP for combat. It could be quiet possible, were the queen to be a PC, that she could gain many levels for being involved in political plots and maneuvering. For example, she might get XP for resolving a squabble between two nobles and preventing it from escalating into a civil war. Perhaps she makes a royal appearance at the founding of a new library in her name and makes an inspiring speech that encourages other nobles to build other libraries - gaining XP for the act. And so on.




Theoretically, yes.

Practically, how many 10th level anythings have you ever seen or heard about who haven't been in at least a few combats?

This sort of D&D world is a violent, war-weary place, filled to the brim with monsters and demons. The idea that any character can be 10th level entirely through "ad hoc" XP like this is pretty unlikely on the face of it. The idea that even in a big urban center, she could avoid monsters, is also pretty unlikely. Monsters and battle are a fact of life for characters in this sort of D&D world, even for characters who are not PC's. It's implied that even farming peasants on the edges of civilization probably get into scrapes with low-level beasties of some sort. 

That's part of why the world is appealing to me. It suggests that almost every NPC has an interesting story to tell about "that one time the ankheg got into the fields and we all got a militia together and stabbed it 'till it didn't move, even though it killed half of the Smith family" or "that group o' kobolds that wandered into the village that we had to take care of" or "when those cultists in the sewers came up spoilin' for a fight" or something like that.

It suggests that monsters are a fact of life, especially on the fringes of civilization, that even normal people regularly have fights to the death with these beasts. Given the fragility of most 1st level commoners, this implies a world where heroes are needed in daily life, where Adventuring is a necessary proposition, where mercenaries are something every farming village wants and needs. It helps create a more heroic setting for the party, and a world in which adventurers make sense, and are part of the setting, rather than apart from it.

In other words, XP is rewarded for the same things regardless of PC or NPC status. I wouldn't let a PC get to 10th level simply by giving speeches and talking to nobles, any more than I'd let them get to 10th level simply by getting in bar fights and drinking contests. They'd have to go be big fat heroes to get to that point. The same is true of Queen Victoria. She'd have to slay a dragon just like anyone else to get to 10th level. And if she can slay a dragon, she is probably not a frail old lady. 



> Then, of course, there are the kings and queens known for their battle prowess, who lead armies and plot against heroic characters (such as Queen Maeve who bedeviled Cuchulainn).




A 10th level Aristocrat Queen would be such a being in my mind: a legendary, heroic, magical, powerful Queen. If Queen Victoria were a 10th level Aristocrat, she would be a being of legend and might, not a frail old woman. 

This is actually another awesome thing about the world this implies. While you can be a 1st level regent just fine, if the world has a few 10th or 20th-level Aristocrats in it, it implies that the world is a world of heroes, that great figures like this exist alongside the PC's, and that they party may eventually become heroes like this. It turns Queen Victoria into Queen Maeve, just like your 1st-level barbarian becomes Conan by 20th level. 

And if she were a 1st level Aristocrat, she could still ably rule an entire fantasy-equivalent British Empire, without *needing* to be 10th level. 



> Lastly, it would seem appropriate that the heroic figures of legend should have levels because they stand a cut above the rest of humanity. Good ol' Queen Victoria might have 100 hp because she's a tough ol' bitch to kill - she's important to the story and seeing her go down like a mook is a bit of a letdown




That's using HP/combat power more narratively than anything else, which is fine, but leads to Hussar's point: it doesn't make sense to not be able to easily kill a frail old lady. 

My argument is: if you're a 10th level aristocrat, you're not a frail old lady. 

And if you want a frail old lady, a 1st level aristocrat can do the job of being a ruling regent of a world-spanning empire _just fine_. The fact that she's not 10th level doesn't make her any less politically powerful because in any edition of D&D that I know of, political power is from DM fiat (perhaps justified with a high Charisma and Skill Focus: Diplomacy and other things).


----------



## Jhaelen (May 25, 2010)

Imaro said:


> there's plenty that still needs to be addressed in designing powers and monsters. Also what is the reduction in damage necessary per condition... and there's also the many enemies vs. singular. My point being it is in no way "simple" if the numerous building blocks that go into a power are actually addressed and some sembelance of balance desired.





Imaro said:


> No, it's a fact. Your assumption is false. Nothing in the players using numerous books forces me as DM to use them. I can choose to or choose not to.



Okay. You're right, nothing forces you to do anything at all. What do YOU do, though, when you have a party of highly optimized pcs stomping over your encounters and you don't want to make stuff up?

Your assumption, that anything beyond what is already given in the DMG (and can be implied by perusing the examples in the MM) 'needs' to be addressed is false, too.
No custom-created monster will ever be perfectly balanced (heck, official monsters aren't either!), but they don't need to. The system is robust enough to deal with minor imbalances.

Further, no amount of rules will ever be able to guarantee perfect balance in a system (that is not trivial). I think you are looking for rules where none are needed.

You see, I believe that sometimes providing rules can even be a bad thing. One example for this are the item creation guidelines in the 3.5 DMG. If you strictly follow these guidelines you can end up with all kinds of broken stuff. All that these guidelines really achieve is to provide DMs with a false sense of security that everything will work out just fine if all of the formulas have been properly used.

A couple of years later the MIC came along and told the DM to forget about the item creation guidelines and just compare custom creations with existing items to come up with reasonable costs because (here it comes!) no amount of rules could ever hope to provide an accurate guideline. Best. Advice. Ever.


Imaro said:


> Didn't ask for complicated rules... again you are inferring...



So what ARE you asking for?!


----------



## Wicht (May 25, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That's part of why the world is appealing to me. It suggests that almost every NPC has an interesting story to tell about "that one time the ankheg got into the fields and we all got a militia together and stabbed it 'till it didn't move, even though it killed half of the Smith family" or "that group o' kobolds that wandered into the village that we had to take care of" or "when those cultists in the sewers came up spoilin' for a fight" or something like that.




It's also why I've always thought the idea that 1st level was the most common level was sort of silly. 1000 xp is pretty easy to get, given enough time, and 3000 xp total is not out of reach of your average life.  I've always considered 2nd and 3rd level to be a better baseline upon which to model your average citizen.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 26, 2010)

> It's also why I've always thought the idea that 1st level was the most common level was sort of silly. 1000 xp is pretty easy to get, given enough time, and 3000 xp total is not out of reach of your average life. I've always considered 2nd and 3rd level to be a better baseline upon which to model your average citizen.




The 3e DMG wouldn't disagree with you. 2nd and 3rd level NPC's, according to it, were certainly present (even if 90% of the world was 1st level). I assumed this was mostly because the first battle most NPC's fought happened to kill them, so there's only a few that survive, and more than those few survivors protect.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 26, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I was at one point and time, but I have canceled my subscription. I think this clouds the issue as this brings in additional tools one must pay for to use... so yes I understand your point but I think it is irrelevant to someone who only has the books and is trying to design their own monsters.




Honestly, without the monster builder, I wouldn't be running 4E at all. If I had to do all the work by hand then a system with much less baggage than 3 or 4E would be played.


----------



## Imaro (May 26, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Okay. You're right, nothing forces you to do anything at all. What do YOU do, though, when you have a party of highly optimized pcs stomping over your encounters and you don't want to make stuff up?




Hmm... I could increase the EL. 



Jhaelen said:


> Your assumption, that anything beyond what is already given in the DMG (and can be implied by perusing the examples in the MM) 'needs' to be addressed is false, too.
> No custom-created monster will ever be perfectly balanced (heck, official monsters aren't either!), but they don't need to. The system is robust enough to deal with minor imbalances.




Who is asking for perfect balance... but these are big, glaring holes that some players (even in this thread) want the answers to when designing their own stuff. If 4e is as balanced as most claim it is this shouldn't be that big of a deal to stick in a reference chart.



Jhaelen said:


> Further, no amount of rules will ever be able to guarantee perfect balance in a system (that is not trivial). I think you are looking for rules where none are needed.




Again you're creating this call for perfect balance and thus arguing against a point that was never made. I think you are dismissing the fact that these rules could help people better design (for both personal and professional use) monster, NPC's and powers. You don't need them, great for you... but if you aren't using them now, how will their inclusion in any way affect you? Or will you suddenly be forced to use them?



Jhaelen said:


> You see, I believe that sometimes providing rules can even be a bad thing. One example for this are the item creation guidelines in the 3.5 DMG. If you strictly follow these guidelines you can end up with all kinds of broken stuff. All that these guidelines really achieve is to provide DMs with a false sense of security that everything will work out just fine if all of the formulas have been properly used.




No these rules can also show flaws in the system DM's should be aware of... the design mechanics of the game, and so on. Your view seems a little narrow on what these type of rules provide.



Jhaelen said:


> A couple of years later the MIC came along and told the DM to forget about the item creation guidelines and just compare custom creations with existing items to come up with reasonable costs because (here it comes!) no amount of rules could ever hope to provide an accurate guideline. *Best. Advice. Ever.*




WOW, you really have a knack for making general sweeping statements of opinion as if they were fact... all I'll say is... Best. Advice. Ever. FOR YOU.

Personally I would have preferred a system that worked.



Jhaelen said:


> So what ARE you asking for?




More comprehensive does not equal more complicated... in fact sometimes when something is more comprehensive it can make it easier to use.


----------



## pemerton (May 26, 2010)

Imaro, there's something I'm not following in your posts.

You're concerned that in 4e there's not much guidance for balancing conditions vs damage (but trap creation in DMG 2 helps a bit here), or enc vs recharge X vs recharge Y. I agree that such guidance might help, although my experience is consistent with that of others who say that there is a fair bit of "give" in the system, such that eyeballing things is unlikely to cause too much trouble.

But I think it's generally accepted that the CR rules for 3E are not especially robust, especially when used with HD advancement, templates, adding classes etc. So I don't understand how you think you're better off with 3E in this respect. After all, if you can eyeball it in 3E, why not in 4e?


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 26, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Imaro, there's something I'm not following in your posts.
> 
> You're concerned that in 4e there's not much guidance for balancing conditions vs damage (but trap creation in DMG 2 helps a bit here), or enc vs recharge X vs recharge Y. I agree that such guidance might help, although my experience is consistent with that of others who say that there is a fair bit of "give" in the system, such that eyeballing things is unlikely to cause too much trouble.
> 
> But I think it's generally accepted that the CR rules for 3E are not especially robust, especially when used with HD advancement, templates, adding classes etc. So I don't understand how you think you're better off with 3E in this respect. After all, if you can eyeball it in 3E, why not in 4e?




I kind of have to agree here. When creating monsters for my Basic/1E games I kind of just slapped something together and went with it. In my curent 4E campaign I use the monster builder as a huge menu of starting ideas, then proceed to just slap stuff together and go with it. 

Also, if your 3E party does not consist of Tordek, Mialee, Lidda, and Jozan the CR's will be out of whack anyway. The only useful thing that I found 3.X monster construction did was provide a bit of backwards deconstruction for custom monster builds in the event of a monster audit.


----------



## Imaro (May 26, 2010)

It's not about 3e vs. 4e. Let me reiterate, I am playing 4e right now... I would like these rules for 4e... regardless of 3e's faults, the priciple of robust and comprehensive monster/NPC guidelines is, IMO, a good one. Just because 4e's designers haven't implemented an idea well (as expressed in the Peter Schaefer blog linked to earlier) doesn't make the idea a bad one... especially if they were on what I feel was the right track and there are plenty of rpg's that have implemented the idea well.

I guess my question is how would these rules hurt people who already make up or handwave their own stuff? Keep doing it and I'll use my rules, why is this even an issue?

Note: It's funny how in that blog I saw an admittance that the templates for 4e sucked, a reason, and....surprise, surpise... a fix. Again maybe it's the implementation and not the idea that is flawed in 4e.


----------



## Gimby (May 26, 2010)

Imaro said:


> It's not about 3e vs. 4e. Let me reiterate, I am playing 4e right now... I would like these rules for 4e... regardless of 3e's faults, the priciple of robust and comprehensive monster/NPC guidelines is, IMO, a good one. Just because 4e's designers haven't implemented an idea well (as expressed in the Peter Schaefer blog linked to earlier) doesn't make the idea a bad one... especially if they were on what I feel was the right track and there are plenty of rpg's that have implemented the idea well.
> 
> I guess my question is how would these rules hurt people who already make up or handwave their own stuff? Keep doing it and I'll use my rules, why is this even an issue?
> 
> Note: It's funny how in that blog I saw an admittance that the templates for 4e sucked, a reason, and....surprise, surpise... a fix. Again maybe it's the implementation and not the idea that is flawed in 4e.





I suppose some of the confusion may be over whether 3e actually had some of the things you are worrying about.  It had strong rules/heavy guidelines for advancing existing monsters by HD, a strong procedural method of adding class levels (and a huge library of classes to add) but creating stranger monster abilities was, to my recollection more handwaved.

Compare the Medusa with the Ogre Barbarian:

Medusa :: d20srd.org
Ogre :: d20srd.org

Both apparently CR7, but how do you come up with the poison and petrify effects? I don't recall any strong guidelines on when to introduce these types of properties.  Both the 3e and 4e guidelines are good at producing something like the Ogre (a slab of numbers to hit people with) but less guidance is given for the more involved stuff.   Chaos beasts (also apparently CR7) would be another good example.

As I recall it, the guidance was to compare with other example monsters, essentially what's being suggested for 4e rider effects.  

Now the differences I see are that 3e gave you feats as a baseline, so something like Awesome Blow, which would be a power rider in 4e was part of the design process while 4e's more codified effects should allow for a stronger point-buy method for riders that the designers just seem to have failed to publish.   Is that fair?


----------



## Hussar (May 26, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Using Pathfinder rules:
> 
> Queen - 80 years old; /snip





Umm, what?  Where in my example did we specify that Queen Victoria has to be inches from her deathbed?

Yes, you can move the goalposts as far as you like to prove your point, but, it would be nice to give a bit of warning first.



ExploderWizard said:


> Well IMHO and all that, the idea that hit points model reality at all is kind of ludicrous.




Then why the beefs with minions?  Or, do I have you mixed up with someone else?  

KM - the problem with trying to model Queen Victoria as a 1st level aristocrat is that the rules get in the way in all sorts of ways.  Any significantly higher level character will never fail in a skill contest with her.  Ever.  She will be totally dominated by those around here.  No matter what.

This does not model Queen Victoria to me at all.  I want someone who is savvy enough to be able to run the most powerful nation on the planet without being able to kick every commoner's ass.

Now, cheating by making her on her deathbed and then altering our commoner smith to an elite array and more than 2 hit points doesn't prove anything.  

The problem is, if I want a skilled NPC, I HAVE to have a leveled NPC and those levels come with all sorts of abilities that do not fit with the concept.  Never mind the time it takes to stat up that NPC as well.


----------



## pemerton (May 26, 2010)

Imaro said:


> It's not about 3e vs. 4e.



OK, I'd missed that.


----------



## billd91 (May 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> KM - the problem with trying to model Queen Victoria as a 1st level aristocrat is that the rules get in the way in all sorts of ways.  Any significantly higher level character will never fail in a skill contest with her.  Ever.  She will be totally dominated by those around here.  No matter what.
> 
> This does not model Queen Victoria to me at all.  I want someone who is savvy enough to be able to run the most powerful nation on the planet without being able to kick every commoner's ass.




I think, at this point, I'm going to have to advise you to stop using Queen Victoria as an example. Some of us know enough about her that seeing her, early in her reign, as a 1st level aristocrat is fairly appropriate and that she didn't have to be particularly savvy or skillful to be the monarch of a powerful empire.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 26, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> KM - the problem with trying to model Queen Victoria as a 1st level aristocrat is that the rules get in the way in all sorts of ways. Any significantly higher level character will never fail in a skill contest with her. Ever. She will be totally dominated by those around here. No matter what.




Well, I think your first mistake is in thinking that "Any significantly higher level character will never fail in a skill contest with her. Ever."

Even if it were true, mechanically, it needn't be true, functionally. It doesn't matter if a higher level character would fail in a skill contest with her, just if a PC comes into direct conflict with her in a skill contest, and, in that case, you can give her whatever you think is appropriate (Rule 0). Give her a a +10 "I'm the Bleedin' Queen" circumstance bonus, if you need to justify it. It's still pure DM fiat, but that's what the circumstance bonus is for, and unless you're a pretty hardcore sim player all you need it to do is make basic sense to have fun. Having a massive bonus to a specific skill contest in her home kingdom, or in places her home kingdom is respected, makes sense, and as long as the player feels like it represents some reality (e.g.: you're not just making it high to hose them), fun is had by all. 

But that's also not true, mechanically. If you are a hardcore sim player, you can giver her skill bonuses that are very significant, even at level 1. It requires a bit of "CharOping", but if you're a hardcore sim player, you're doing that for your big NPC's anyway. Even if she has mere mortal level Charisma and Intelligence (max 11 for most NPCs), skill focus and synergies can drive up her wheeling and dealing to levels that most higher level characters don't bother with. That's something of the simulationist strength of the 3e skill point modeling: you don't increase in skill unless you put points into the skill, so a 20th level character who never felt the need to invest in Diplomacy or Charisma can still have a lower Diplomacy than a 1st level Queen Victoria.

A level 1 Diplomacy from a Charisma 11 1st level generic NPC can be as high as +7. Which means that, while Taking 10, she can convince anything that wants to insult her, and make them neutral. She can stop someone who wants to attack her from doing so by rolling a 14 (so a 30% chance of asking the blacksmith to please stop). 

That's not insignificant by any means. 

And all of this assumes she is a generic "1st level Queen" right out of the box, not special in any way, and that you want to go crazy with the sim approach (which is not, as I have hopefully shown, required). 

I think your next mistake is in believing that "She will be totally dominated by those around here. No matter what."

Even if she didn't have those massive bonuses she could have above, she'd only need to have _relatively high_ skill bonuses -- higher than most of those around her -- to be seen as a great monarch. Since most people implied by this world have a Diplomacy bonus of exactly 0, having even the +7 that she can have at level 1 is already *huge*. Because most NPC's are 1st level mooks, without much skill trianing, you don't need to have a high-level character to be significantly skillful in comparison to most NPC's. 

Now, a 1st-level Queen Victoria wouldn't hold her own against even a low-level PC empath psion (for instance), but that empath psion is not a normal member of society. That character is a character of legend, and so they should essentially trump a generic 1st-level queen out of the box. Yes, a 1st-level Queen Victoria should basically succumb to the first incubus that comes along -- she's friggin' first level, she's not heroic, she's not a big fat deal in the heroic setting of D&D. She's someone the PC's will maybe save, or someone the PC's will maybe have a low-level skill contest with. She's not a heroic figure, because she's level 1. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> This does not model Queen Victoria to me at all. I want someone who is savvy enough to be able to run the most powerful nation on the planet without being able to kick every commoner's ass.




You can have that in 3e. She doesn't need to be 10th level. The easiest way is by DM fiat, the second easiest is by a circumstance bonus (a mechanical DM fiat), and if you want to be sim about it, a Diplomacy bonus of +7 will achieve that. Heck, a Diplomacy of +4 or +3 will probably achieve that. A Diplomacy of +0 could achieve that by luck.

That said, I think there's some genre clash going on here. "The most powerful nation on the planet" here in the real world is nothing like "the most powerful nation on the planet" in the heroic fantasy world of D&D. 

No Queen Victoria here has to worry about psionicists, mind flayers, assassins (the prestige class), sorcerers, bards, umber hulks, incubi, enchanters, or Asmodeus. Any ruler of "the most powerful nation on the planet" in the implied D&D world would certainly be putting up with these things, and more. Thus, the ruler of "the most powerful nation on the planet" has probably had to get her hands dirty more than once on her bloody rise to power, and would be able to bop the local blacksmith down, no problem. Because the ruler of "the most powerful nation on the planet" would be a heroic figure. They would be Queen Maeve. They would've had to slay goblins and kill kobolds, wrestle with demons, out-think angels, and use a brilliant tongue on the giants who wanted to eat her. 

Now, you can still have an exceptional monarch who hasn't had to deal with any of these things who still rules the most powerful nation on the planet, even if that does stretch credibility a bit, simply because *you don't need to be high level to wield non-combat power*. 

However, if you're making someone the ruler of the most powerful nation on the planet in D&D, and in a world rife with monsters and danger, that person has never had to lift a sword to defend herself, you're starting to strain credibility. It's hard to have your cake here and eat it too. Either they are a powerful ruler of a powerful nation in a fantasy world of dragons and doppelgangers, or they are a powerful ruler of a powerful nation in the real world of jerks and arrogance. If the former, it makes sense that they are also powerful in combat. If the latter, you don't need to use D&D to make their stats (though you can still make a damn good 1st level ruler with simple DM fiat OR sim-heavy mechanics, if you wanted). 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> The problem is, if I want a skilled NPC, I HAVE to have a leveled NPC and those levels come with all sorts of abilities that do not fit with the concept. Never mind the time it takes to stat up that NPC as well.




I hope I've demonstrated that you don't have to do any of that in 3e (though you can stat them up if you are a gearhead for stats, you certainly don't have to). 

In fact, nothing whatsoever stops you from just going Rule 0 on it and saying "this lady has a high Diplomacy score 'cuz I think it makes sense." 

Which is essentially the same as the only 4e NPC model out there. 

3e has a lot of granularity between that and being a statmonkey, but that's always an available option.


----------



## Garthanos (May 26, 2010)

I have http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...non-combatant-princess-how-abuse-warlord.html
 I dont think I would enjoy playing her as a demure yet commanding and perceptive elderly queen --- just not as much fun as clutzy comedy relief or cool as a Galadriel flavored ritualist witch (who is technically still a demure and command perceptive elderly woman with a different base race and a different feat or two on the tree ;p).


----------



## Garthanos (May 26, 2010)

KM ... it sounds like your rule zero.... is the same as admit when the rules suck at doing something they weren't meant to do but pretend they don't because you can always ignore them when they do.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 26, 2010)

> KM ... it sounds like your rule zero.... is the same as admit when the rules suck at doing something they weren't meant to do but pretend they don't because you can always ignore them when they do.




Not sure I grok what you're saying, but using Rule 0 doesn't imply that the rules you're not using suck.

For one, they could just be more useful for DMs who aren't *you*. It'd be wrong to assume that just because I don't need detailed NPC rules that nobody who plays D&D needs detailed NPC rules.

Indeed, I liked 3e's NPC rules, because I liked the world they implied, where normal monarchs were crafty enough, and where the Greatest Queen in the World was entirely likely to be a mythic creature in her own right, not just some frail old lady, due to the unique problems of being the Greatest Queen in the World in a world filled with monsters.

However, I personally didn't really stat out 10th-level Aristocrats very often, mostly because I'm improv-heavy (my PC's mostly wound up fighting monsters rather than engaging in protracted political games with NPC's just 'cuz I didn't have easy NPC stat blocks, though everyone seemed to have enough fun wailing on monsters, anyway  ). 

I think a weakness of 4e's "just use fiat" method is that it doesn't provide me with the same baseline. I can't say "okay, your basic ruling monarch as a Diplomacy of X, and your epic-hero monarch has a Diplomacy of Z, so this monarch should probably have a Diplomacy of Y,"  because monarchs don't have Diplomacy at all unless the PC's are somehow making use of the skill.


----------



## Garthanos (May 26, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Not sure I grok what you're saying, but using Rule 0 doesn't imply that the rules you're not using suck.
> 
> For one, they could just be more useful for DMs who aren't *you*. It'd be wrong to assume that just because I don't need detailed NPC rules that nobody who plays D&D needs detailed NPC rules.




Fair enough.

I  like a nice set of sample characters to give me a baseline..(uber detailed mechanics system primarily restricting me can go sit on the shelf) but you know I already have some of those in monster manual and don't agree with so many as is... For instance I like S&S style action so I think most soldiers and citizenry ought to be statted as minion class characters. ... I think they ought to feel like normal joes and fall down / flee or similar when wounded. (no heroic luck to change that).

I really don't think the game system is going to give me the information to have a cool encounter with say the local locksmith. Because what i want out of it... is more like this

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-dis...-locksmith-d-d-4th-edition-2.html#post5012171

A module might be written that gave it to me, but I dont think that is game system dependent at all.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 26, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Hmm... I could increase the EL.



And go against the guidelines for appropriate encounters? Oh, dear! And here I thought you cared about rules 
Yeah, I know, don't reply: I'm making false assumptions again.


Imaro said:


> but these are big, glaring holes that some players (even in this thread) want the answers to when designing their own stuff.



Except, that's your opinion. I don't see anything deserving to be called 'glaring holes'.



Imaro said:


> WOW, you really have a knack for making general sweeping statements of opinion as if they were fact... all I'll say is... Best. Advice. Ever. FOR YOU.



Of course! Everything I'm posting reflects my opinion, just as everything you are posting reflects your opinion. I happen to disagree with your opinion just as you are disagreeing with mine.







Imaro said:


> Personally I would have preferred a system that worked.



In theory, I'd agree. But I prefer no system to a system that does not work.

It's also not quite true, that it wouldn't affect me negatively if they provided more accurate guidelines:
It costs development resources to provide them; resources that might be better spent developing something more useful (to me). Imho, this is an example of the pareto principle: Providing a system that works in 80% of all cases requires only 20% of available resources.

See, this reminds me of a reaction I've seen regarding errata:
'I don't like errata. Why don't they get things right the first time, instead, then we'd never need errata!'

Well, yeah. The problem is: Then we'd still wait for the next edition of D&D. It's like waiting for Godot!


----------



## Jhaelen (May 26, 2010)

pemerton said:


> OK, I'd missed that.



No worries, so did I 

What IS this thread about after all? Cognitive Dissonance?!


----------



## Coldwyn (May 26, 2010)

@KM:

I find this very unconclusive. So instead of sticking to the rules to archive the numbers, you simply slap some boni on. Either way, said NPC has the same plusses to skills and so on at the end. That´s Rule0 at work for me.

@Imaro:

Take a look at DMG p. 184 - Monster statistics by role. Then add in DMG p. 185 Damage per Level - Choose Low for AoE damage, Med for standard attacks, High for recharging.
IMO really hard coded rules like in 3E prevent you from creating the critter you need right now. Also IMO, sticking to balance is a waste of time here and if I notice my critter turned out to tough or too deadly, I simply give more exp.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 26, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I was at one point and time, but I have canceled my subscription. I think this clouds the issue as this brings in additional tools one must pay for to use... so yes I understand your point but I think it is irrelevant to someone who only has the books and is trying to design their own monsters.




I don't see the Monster Builder as anything much less fundamental than the Monster Manuals for designing a monster.  And a one month subscription to DDI is _cheap - _and you get to keep the tools when you unsubscribe.



Imaro said:


> Who is asking for perfect balance... but these are big, glaring holes that some players (even in this thread) want the answers to when designing their own stuff. If 4e is as balanced as most claim it is this shouldn't be that big of a deal to stick in a reference chart.




An eyeball reference chart, possibly.  But only as rules of thumb - I'm unaware of a detailed system I can't bend double.  Or one that would cover the range of monsters I sometimes want.  What they have is guidelines on the hit points, attack, defence, and damage values.  Which more or less leaves the movement and the status effects.  (I'm pretty sure the guidelines including the damage expressions are close to being able to design many brutes, soldiers, and artillery - but when it comes to controllers, lurkers, and (Leaders) it's _always_ going to be case by case.)



> Personally I would have preferred a system that worked.




That's just it.  I don't think that one is theoretically possible.  At least not without massive restrictions in the design space.



> More comprehensive does not equal more complicated... in fact sometimes when something is more comprehensive it can make it easier to use.




Here I agree.  But I also think that a bad system is worse than useless.  And that a good system would be impossible.


----------



## Nagol (May 26, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> I don't see the Monster Builder as anything much less fundamental than the Monster Manuals for designing a monster.  And a one month subscription to DDI is _cheap - _and you get to keep the tools when you unsubscribe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If that were true then 'toolbox' games like Hero, GURPS, and Mutants and MAsterminds wouldn't exist in usable form.  While there are corner cases in these systems, by and large they produce workable and similarly effective abiiltiies for similar cost.

Relatively simple to use and relatively balanced rulesets can be made -- they just take a lot of work.


----------



## Wicht (May 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Umm, what?  Where in my example did we specify that Queen Victoria has to be inches from her deathbed?




Sorry, I thought someone wrote, "Go Granny, Go." or something like that.


----------



## Wicht (May 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> KM - the problem with trying to model Queen Victoria as a 1st level aristocrat is that the rules get in the way in all sorts of ways.  Any significantly higher level character will never fail in a skill contest with her.  Ever.  She will be totally dominated by those around here.  No matter what.
> 
> This does not model Queen Victoria to me at all.  I want someone who is savvy enough to be able to run the most powerful nation on the planet without being able to kick every commoner's ass.
> 
> Now, cheating by making her on her deathbed and then altering our commoner smith to an elite array and more than 2 hit points doesn't prove anything.




Where to start. 

First of all, there was no cheating - I would assume you would want a queen to have her high stats in intelligence, charisma and wisdom and a blacksmith would put his high stats in strength and constitution.  A strength of 14 for your average blacksmith doesn't really seem much like cheating to me.  Using the Pathfinder rules, as a human he gets a +2 bonus to any one stat of his choice. So even if he starts with a str 12 it becomes 14.  Furthermore, a smith would not be a commoner, he would be an expert and typically, I would think a successful smith ought to be about level 3.  If the queen needs in game levels to model her "abilities" why not the blacksmith? Of the two, I would think the smith more likely to have handled himself in a fight a time or two.  Also, why would any smith have only 2 hitpoints? Even a 1st level commoner would have 3-4.  

Secondly, a young queen should be 1st level, and even easily dominated.  As she gains experience, she will toughen up her mental stance, focus on improving her skills and become a more accomplished diplomat (one hopes). I think for your average non-fantasy monarch, level 6-8 is probably a good retirement level. Level 3-4 though is where I would think most monarchs spend most of their lives.  IMO.  

Thirdly, your statement that higher level characters dominate her make me wonder if you aren't applying a double standard.  Why would your average courtesan and diplomat be 10th level?  PCs maybe, but I thought your assumption was PCs are exceptional anyway. If most of the people the queen deals with are only 2-4th level, then she doesn't need to be 10th to model her interactions with these folks.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 26, 2010)

Nagol said:


> If that were true then 'toolbox' games like Hero, GURPS, and Mutants and MAsterminds wouldn't exist in usable form.  While there are corner cases in these systems, by and large they produce workable and similarly effective abiiltiies for similar cost.
> 
> Relatively simple to use and relatively balanced rulesets can be made -- they just take a lot of work.



Ah, I've already been waiting for someone to play the GURPS card! 

I agree with your conclusion. Another example is the spell design rules in Ars Magica. It's quite beautiful and works very well for most purposes. It's still easy to abuse for someone who is looking for ways to abuse it. If there was a CO board for Ars Magica it would probably be full of insanely broken spells respecting all of the rules.

And you brought up the second important part: It's a lot of work. And I believe that investing that amount of work is only worthwhile if it improves a central, integral part of the system. And that's simply not the case with 4e monster customization.

If D&D was a system centered on a party of monster-breeders competing to design the most terrifying creature imaginable and pitting them against each other in arena-style combat scenarios I'd expect something a lot more elaborate.

Speaking of elaborate systems that I personally could do without: For me the hybrid rules in PHB3 were a waste of precious paper space. I'd rather have seen another two well-designed classes.

I know that many have been clamouring for an improved multiclassing system but the result didn't convince me at all. It's clunky, especially if you're adding psionic classes to the mix. 
It's also interesting that the designers felt they had to include a disclaimer 'use at your own risk'.

If a sufficiently large number of people were showing interest, they could decide to do something similar for monster customization. Maybe DMG3 will have more to say on that topic. We'll see.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 26, 2010)

Coldwyn said:
			
		

> I find this very unconclusive. So instead of sticking to the rules to archive the numbers, you simply slap some boni on. Either way, said NPC has the same plusses to skills and so on at the end. That´s Rule0 at work for me.




Well, since Rule 0 was my very first recommendation (and I readily admitted a hefty circumstance bonus was essentially the same thing), I'm not sure exactly what you find unconclusive. Looks like we're in agreement -- you can make a ruler have a high skill check when you need it simply by decreeing it to be so as a DM, so you don't need to have a high-level queen to have an influential queen. 

For me, what 3e also provided was a baseline world that implied that monsters were attacking NPC's, even when PC's weren't around. A world where monsters were a fact of life for NPC's. 4e struggles more to give that world to me, and part of it is because it doesn't give me a sense of what a mundane skill check would be in the world for normal people vs. what a truly epic skill check is for the best person at that skill in the world. It just says "Use Rule 0." Which is a great thing to do, but I am not a big fan of it being the only thing to do.


----------



## Wicht (May 26, 2010)

Pathfinder scalable diplomacy bonuses for the queen by the book (no fiat): assuming a 16 charisma (14 starter stat; +2 racial bonus)

1st level aristocrat - 16 cha (+3 bonus), feats: persuasive, skill focus (diplomacy) = +12 diplomacy
2nd level = +13 diplomacy
3rd level aristocrat = +14 diplomacy
4th level, 17 cha (+3 bonus) = +15 diplomacy
etc...
8th level, 18 cha (+4 bonus) = +20 diplomacy

Diplomacy, in Pathfinder, as generally used, is an uncontested skill check. The difficulty for changing a hostile attitude is 25+cha modifier. an Unfriendly attitude 20+,  indifferent 15+, friendly 10+.

This means that our first level queen makes all friendly people helpful 100% of the time. She will almost always be able to make indifferent people helpful or at least friendly, and over half the time she will be able to make unfriendly people less so and about a quarter of the time might even make them friendly.  By the time she is 8th level, she is a world class diplomat and can almost 100% of the time make unfriendly people friendly and hostile people, more often than not forget to be mad at her.

Furthermore, in Pathfinder, diplomacy is used to ferret out secrets.  At first level, there are few common secrets she can't find out, as the DC for obscure rumors and secrets is 20, given time, at 1st level, she'll know all the court secrets and over half the time will be able to find out such information in less than an hour.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 26, 2010)

Nagol said:


> If that were true then 'toolbox' games like Hero, GURPS, and Mutants and MAsterminds wouldn't exist in usable form.  While there are corner cases in these systems, by and large they produce workable and similarly effective abiiltiies for similar cost.
> 
> Relatively simple to use and relatively balanced rulesets can be made -- they just take a lot of work.



I love GURPS.  But it's certainly not balanced if someone's trying.  (I believe it's 53 points to selectively kill everyone in the solar system - and under the old edition, almost everyone went high Dex/Int for a good reason).  Toolbox games generally break against skilled users (if they are remotely trying) - and give the toolbox to everyone playing rather than to one person some of the time.

And Jhalen, there were two well-designed classes in the PHB3?  Which ones?  [/Snark]


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Then why the beefs with minions? Or, do I have you mixed up with someone else?




Hey, as long as 1hp means 1hp( no matter what hp may or may not represent) and that remains a constant in the gameverse then minions are fine. Very silly at higher levels but that's the nature of the beast.

Minion status as a subjective state that shifts with perspective isn't something I want or need in a game, let it stay in stories where it belongs.


----------



## Coldwyn (May 26, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> For me, what 3e also provided was a baseline world that implied that monsters were attacking NPC's, even when PC's weren't around. A world where monsters were a fact of life for NPC's. 4e struggles more to give that world to me, and part of it is because it doesn't give me a sense of what a mundane skill check would be in the world for normal people vs. what a truly epic skill check is for the best person at that skill in the world. It just says "Use Rule 0." Which is a great thing to do, but I am not a big fan of it being the only thing to do.




I hope that I don´t come over as obtuse right now. But reading this, my question really is: Do you really need intra-world mechanics here? If I understand you right, you take a look at the mechanics to get a clue about how things would work out in the background. Sure, the totalness of 3E mechanics provided that, also sure, the PC-centric approach of 4E don´t. But out of curiossity, would you really make invisible rolls (which don´t touch whatever the PCs are doing) to find out what two NSC are doing inbetween themselves?



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Well, since Rule 0 was my very first recommendation (and I readily admitted a hefty circumstance bonus was essentially the same thing), I'm not sure exactly what you find unconclusive. Looks like we're in agreement -- you can make a ruler have a high skill check when you need it simply by decreeing it to be so as a DM, so you don't need to have a high-level queen to have an influential queen.




To be frank I don´t like either of the methods. Creating a queen with high enough level to be able to resist charm and dominate spells, as well as being a good stateswoman in terms of social skills seems cludgy to me, rule-zeroing her seems cludgy, too. Here´s one of the situations where I really only come up with a more or less approrpiate DC and nothing more. Or, to put it another way, for me a skill challange portraits interacting with her better than interacting with her stats (notice stats, not person).


----------



## Coldwyn (May 26, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Minion status as a subjective state that shifts with perspective isn't something I want or need in a game, let it stay in stories where it belongs.




If you rephrase that from game to simulation, I´d agree.
But tell me, why does D&D have to be a simulation?


----------



## Wicht (May 26, 2010)

Coldwyn said:


> But out of curiossity, would you really make invisible rolls (which don´t touch whatever the PCs are doing) to find out what two NSC are doing inbetween themselves?




I actually do that at times. Especially when in "game mode." When in "writer's mode," crafting the adventure, things happen the way I want them to.  But if its happening near to the action (even social action) I will roll for NPCs interacting with other NPCs to maintain the random factor.  




Coldwyn said:


> To be frank I don´t like either of the methods. Creating a queen with high enough level to be able to resist charm and dominate spells, as well as being a good stateswoman in terms of social skills seems cludgy to me, rule-zeroing her seems cludgy, too. Here´s one of the situations where I really only come up with a more or less approrpiate DC and nothing more. Or, to put it another way, for me a skill challange portraits interacting with her better than interacting with her stats (notice stats, not person.)




Why does the queen need to be able to have a strong resistance to magic?  Why does she need good at everything to be a successful ruler?  If its a powerful nation, can't she hire magical guardians to protect her from evil magic?  Or have the church working with her?  It seems to me that a low level queen with high diplomacy skills perfectly models what most people would want in such a situation.  Princesses and queens typically act, not as a protagonist, but as a macguffin, an object to spur the action.  When she becomes a villain, as in the Curse oft he Crimson Throne, then you stat her up accordingly; likewise of she is a protagonist.  But most often the queen will be neither; and low level, high charisma/diplomacy will work just fine for everything you need. All without rule 0.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 26, 2010)

Coldwyn said:
			
		

> But out of curiossity, would you really make invisible rolls (which don´t touch whatever the PCs are doing) to find out what two NSC are doing inbetween themselves?




I don't think yer obtuse. 

I like to know that when the PC's are facing challenges, they're using essentially the same mechanics to solve these challenges that creatures that aren't PC's would use to solve these challenges. It helps create a fair baseline and a sense of immersion for me. They also make it easier to improv, since I know what a basic peon can do, what a focused NPC can do, and what a famous world-reknown heroic NPC can do, and can better put the PC's actions in context. It gives the world a reality apart from the party, which is essential to enjoying the game for me, knowing that abilities are not subjective things. 

I don't necessarily need to make rolls (I can assume 10 in a large portion of them anyway), but I do need to identify what is possible independent of what the PC's can do.



			
				Coldwyn said:
			
		

> To be frank I don´t like either of the methods. Creating a queen with high enough level to be able to resist charm and dominate spells, as well as being a good stateswoman in terms of social skills seems cludgy to me, rule-zeroing her seems cludgy, too. Here´s one of the situations where I really only come up with a more or less approrpiate DC and nothing more. Or, to put it another way, for me a skill challange portraits interacting with her better than interacting with her stats (notice stats, not person).




I don't see how coming up with an appropriate DC is really any different from rule-zeroing: you're plucking numbers out of the aether whose only real purpose is to provide a fun challenge for the party at the table. I think that's fine, and useful, and great, but I'd also like some numbers to show me how the world is like when the PC's aren't around, so I can figure out what role the party serves in the world. I don't think that necessarily takes the detailed method of NPC creation that 3e has to achieve, but I really do think it takes more than any tool 4e uses at the moment. Which means there's room for improvement for 4e, at least.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 26, 2010)

Coldwyn said:


> If you rephrase that from game to simulation, I´d agree.
> But tell me, why does D&D have to be a simulation?




It is simply a matter of the goals of play. Are you playing a game in which players explore a fantasy world (which needs to be simulated somewhat consistently) or are you telling a story in which the players portray the protagonists? 

It can be either depending on what the group decides it wants.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 26, 2010)

Coldwyn said:


> If you rephrase that from game to simulation, I´d agree.
> But tell me, why does D&D have to be a simulation?



Question seconded.  And to add a second question, even if your D&D is a simulation, ExploderWizard, why does _mine_ need to be?  No one is forcing you to use minions...


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 26, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Question seconded. And to add a second question, even if your D&D is a simulation, ExploderWizard, why does _mine_ need to be? No one is forcing you to use minions...




It doesn't. See the post above yours.


----------



## Nagol (May 26, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Question seconded.  And to add a second question, even if your D&D is a simulation, ExploderWizard, why does _mine_ need to be?  No one is forcing you to use minions...




Of course, your game doesn't need to follow someone else's preferences.

However, players are informed about the design philosophy by the available game options.  The more game options that do not appeal, the more likely it is that the wrong game is being used for what you are tryig to do with it.


----------



## Dausuul (May 26, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't think yer obtuse.
> 
> I like to know that when the PC's are facing challenges, they're using essentially the same mechanics to solve these challenges that creatures that aren't PC's would use to solve these challenges. It helps create a fair baseline and a sense of immersion for me. They also make it easier to improv, since I know what a basic peon can do, what a focused NPC can do, and what a famous world-reknown heroic NPC can do, and can better put the PC's actions in context. It gives the world a reality apart from the party, which is essential to enjoying the game for me, knowing that abilities are not subjective things.
> 
> I don't necessarily need to make rolls (I can assume 10 in a large portion of them anyway), but I do need to identify what is possible independent of what the PC's can do.




This is an important point. I used to be on board with the idea of the rules only simulating how the PCs interact with the world, but over the past year or two I've begun to appreciate how useful it is to have an idea of how the world interacts with itself.

These days, I regard minions as actually having only one hit point. If this results in situations where minions would die in silly ways (e.g., a thornbush which inflicts 1d4 points of damage for plowing through it), I regard that as a reason to reconsider the hazard, not the minion. After all, an ancient red dragon could be slain by that thornbush under the right circumstances; the minion merely points up the silliness.

Anything that deals hit point damage can kill you. If the idea of dying from it seems dumb, it shouldn't be dealing hit point damage.


----------



## Coldwyn (May 26, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I actually do that at times. Especially when in "game mode." When in "writer's mode," crafting the adventure, things happen the way I want them to.  But if its happening near to the action (even social action) I will roll for NPCs interacting with other NPCs to maintain the random factor.



 Ok, I´m impressed. That´s a level of detail I would more or less gloss over.


Kamikaze Midget said:


> I like to know that when the PC's are facing challenges, they're using essentially the same mechanics to solve these challenges that creatures that aren't PC's would use to solve these challenges. It helps create a fair baseline and a sense of immersion for me. They also make it easier to improv, since I know what a basic peon can do, what a focused NPC can do, and what a famous world-reknown heroic NPC can do, and can better put the PC's actions in context. It gives the world a reality apart from the party, which is essential to enjoying the game for me, knowing that abilities are not subjective things.
> 
> I don't necessarily need to make rolls (I can assume 10 in a large portion of them anyway), but I do need to identify what is possible independent of what the PC's can do.



Understood and accepted. Not my preferred method because it´s not relevant to the kind of games I run but interesting nonetheless.



Wicht said:


> Why does the queen need to be able to have a strong resistance to magic?  Why does she need good at everything to be a successful ruler?  If its a powerful nation, can't she hire magical guardians to protect her from evil magic?  Or have the church working with her?  It seems to me that a low level queen with high diplomacy skills perfectly models what most people would want in such a situation.  Princesses and queens typically act, not as a protagonist, but as a macguffin, an object to spur the action.  When she becomes a villain, as in the Curse oft he Crimson Throne, then you stat her up accordingly; likewise of she is a protagonist.  But most often the queen will be neither; and low level, high charisma/diplomacy will work just fine for everything you need. All without rule 0.






Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't see how coming up with an appropriate DC is really any different from rule-zeroing: you're plucking numbers out of the aether whose only real purpose is to provide a fun challenge for the party at the table. I think that's fine, and useful, and great, but I'd also like some numbers to show me how the world is like when the PC's aren't around, so I can figure out what role the party serves in the world. I don't think that necessarily takes the detailed method of NPC creation that 3e has to achieve, but I really do think it takes more than any tool 4e uses at the moment. Which means there's room for improvement for 4e, at least.



I´ll answer these two together. Please have a bit of patience with me, directly translating my thoughts into English is not my strong point 
So, I think neither stats nor rule0 should really be used, no matter what edition. I don´t think these can really portrait a complex person. Stats, no matter how they have been generated, should only come up in combat.
Having said this, IMO interacting with an important NPC like the queen should be broken down into tasks, with DCs tailored to the situation. Does she respond well to flattery? Is she the trusting kind? Does she have racist views towards a certain race or nation? That´s why I mentioned the skill challenge rules as an example. When I create stats for her and come up with a, let´s say, +12 Diplomacy as an end-result, it´s global. I could go on further and add or remove situational boni.
This can get messy real quick.


----------



## Coldwyn (May 26, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> It is simply a matter of the goals of play. Are you playing a game in which players explore a fantasy world (which needs to be simulated somewhat consistently) or are you telling a story in which the players portray the protagonists?
> 
> It can be either depending on what the group decides it wants.




Help me underestand this.
You´re talking about a sandbox kind of game here, right?

So, if I say: The hamlet you are in right now is attacked by orc raiders. The towns militia is present but handled as minions, four of the attacking orcs are minions as well. I chose this setup because of ease of gm´ing and the narration of quick deaths on both sides.

You say that everything I declared minion here must be minion all the time, right?

So to expand my example and with it the question, if I say whenever the PCs aren´t present or involved, the militia a lvl x warriors with appropiate equipment and hp, as well as the orcs, then this would be impossible for you because a thing can only be specified as one kind for the sake of simulation and can´t be situational nor different in a narrative context, right?

So you consistently handle background activities solely based on game mechanics, not on a narrative basis, if I understand it right.

But on what basis do you initiate background action then, if it´s not on a narrative on? Do you use random charts where you roll what happens on day x at location y and what parties are involved? If yes, on what basis have they been created?


----------



## Mallus (May 26, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Minion status as a subjective state that shifts with perspective isn't something I want or need in a game, let it stay in stories where it belongs.



Here's a question for you, EW: should objects in the game always be described in the same way, using the same descriptive language? --ie, with single global-scope descriptor as opposed to potentially several local-scope ones.

My experience is that mechanical definitions are situational. The majority of people, places and things are simply <undefined> in terms of game mechanics . "Grod is a tall orc with greenish skin, a sturdy build, and a savage twinkle in this bloodshot eyes".

As the need arises, the DM switches to a more precise mechanical description. "Grod has an AC of 15, 12 HP, and a 16 STR". (you're not advocating we stat everything and everyone in the game world, right?) 

And as the needs change, so too, does the descriptive language employed. "Grod has been conscripted in the Orc Army. He is now part of a squad of 20, with an Attack Value of 3, a Defense Value of 1, and Morale of 2". 

Which reminds me, don't mass combat rules introduce the same kind of subjectivity? Creatures that are described one way in a dungeon corridor are described completely differently once they join the service (unless you play some kind of masochistic homebrew mass combat system where every soldier is individually statted). 



Wicht said:


> But if its happening near to the action (even social action) I will roll for NPCs interacting with other NPCs to maintain the random factor.



This is a great way to keep social interactions lively, and surprising even to the DM. However, you don't gain much by using the actual game mechanics. Simple percentage rolls work fine.


----------



## Mallus (May 26, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> For me, what 3e also provided was a baseline world that implied that monsters were attacking NPC's, even when PC's weren't around.



Why wouldn't 1e or 4e provide the same thing? In all three systems monsters are described in terms of the their relative strength and provided with sufficient motivation for the doing of violence.


----------



## Wicht (May 26, 2010)

Coldwyn said:


> So, I think neither stats nor rule0 should really be used, no matter what edition. I don´t think these can really portrait a complex person. Stats, no matter how they have been generated, should only come up in combat.
> Having said this, IMO interacting with an important NPC like the queen should be broken down into tasks, with DCs tailored to the situation. Does she respond well to flattery? Is she the trusting kind? Does she have racist views towards a certain race or nation? That´s why I mentioned the skill challenge rules as an example. When I create stats for her and come up with a, let´s say, +12 Diplomacy as an end-result, it´s global. I could go on further and add or remove situational boni.
> This can get messy real quick.




Sticking with Pathfinder, which is what I play, the rules really cover this interaction already and it hinges completely on her beginning attitude and her charisma. Her level and will saves, et. al never enter into it.  You determine the beginning attitude of the Queen.  We'll say that she is indiffent.  DC is to make her Friendly is going to be 18 (15 + cha. modifier), and helpful is a DC 23. If she has some inherent bias, I'd adjucate a -2/+2 to difficulty as appropriate.  Furthermore, if the PCs are asking for simple advice its -5 DC and if they want complicated aid its +5 DC.  

Again, no DM ruling nor planning is needed.  You just adjucate based on the circumstances. There's really nothing messy about it.


----------



## Wicht (May 26, 2010)

Mallus said:


> This is a great way to keep social interactions lively, and surprising even to the DM. However, you don't gain much by using the actual game mechanics. Simple percentage rolls work fine.




To the contrary, by using the already existing mechanics I gain two things: consistency and simplicity. 

Simplicity in that I don't have to make up percentages on the spot, I just use the stats I already have or an average of average stats; furthermore I only have to roll 1d20 as opposed to 2d10s.  

Consistency in that I know I am being completely fair and impartial and the difficulty will remain uniform as opposed to being based on my mood at the moment.  

The consistency alone is reason enough for me to use the rules even when rolling for things "offstage."


----------



## Coldwyn (May 26, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Sticking with Pathfinder, which is what I play, the rules really cover this interaction already and it hinges completely on her beginning attitude and her charisma. Her level and will saves, et. al never enter into it.  You determine the beginning attitude of the Queen.  We'll say that she is indiffent.  DC is to make her Friendly is going to be 18 (15 + cha. modifier), and helpful is a DC 23. If she has some inherent bias, I'd adjucate a -2/+2 to difficulty as appropriate.  Furthermore, if the PCs are asking for simple advice its -5 DC and if they want complicated aid its +5 DC.
> 
> Again, no DM ruling nor planning is needed.  You just adjucate based on the circumstances. There's really nothing messy about it.




Maybe I missunderstand you or we´re talking about two different things.

The reaction chart has been with D&D sind the 3E DMG and you´re right, as just this point the NSC would be "Queen, Cha 16, indifferent, doesn´t react well to irishman" and that´s enough.
What I´m interrested in is what comes after the reaction tests. If, for example, I succeed on my diplomacy check and make her helpful, do I still need to haggle, bluff, sense motive and so on on each subject I talk with her, and if, how is it handled?


----------



## Stoat (May 26, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I like to know that when the PC's are facing challenges, they're using essentially the same mechanics to solve these challenges that creatures that aren't PC's would use to solve these challenges. It helps create a fair baseline and a sense of immersion for me. They also make it easier to improv, since I know what a basic peon can do, what a focused NPC can do, and what a famous world-reknown heroic NPC can do, and can better put the PC's actions in context. It gives the world a reality apart from the party, which is essential to enjoying the game for me, knowing that abilities are not subjective things.




I'm not the kind of person who throws references to Page 42 around, but I'd use page 42 for this.

In other words, a task with DC 5 is an easy task for a first level NPC.  First level NPC's routinely accomplish DC 5 tasks.  That's what a "basic peon" can do.  From there, you can use the other levels and DC's on the chart to extrapolate what a focused NPC can do and what a world-renowned heroic NPC can do.


----------



## billd91 (May 26, 2010)

Coldwyn said:


> What I´m interrested in is what comes after the reaction tests. If, for example, I succeed on my diplomacy check and make her helpful, do I still need to haggle, bluff, sense motive and so on on each subject I talk with her, and if, how is it handled?




That's the important question, isn't it? And that's what a lot of people focused on the mechanics of sticking the Diplomacy roll forget. A helpful queen doesn't mean she gives you the keys to the castle. She's got plenty of other issues on her plate, responsibilities to live up to, she may not be able to give the PC everything he wants. What the DM has to do is get the players to make their request and then weight that request against the other concerns of the queen. And there's no hard or fast way of determining what the queen's limits are - that's all DM judgement.
If the helpful queen disappoints the PCs by a little bit, I'd give them another Dip check to see if they could make her helpful + and get that little bit more help from her. If the helpful queen disappoints because their request is frankly outlandish, I'd give them another Dip roll to keep her opinion of them from sliding downward from helpful. But that's probably about it for mechanical resolution at that point.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 26, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> And Jhalen, there were two well-designed classes in the PHB3?  Which ones?  [/Snark]




Well, my two favorite classes in PHB3 are the monk and the seeker. 

Across editions I've always been a big fan of psionics, though I have to admit I'm on the fence about the 4e psionic classes. I'll reserve final judgement until I've had a chance to actually play one (preferably a telepath psion).


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 26, 2010)

Coldwyn said:


> Help me underestand this.
> You´re talking about a sandbox kind of game here, right?
> 
> So, if I say: The hamlet you are in right now is attacked by orc raiders. The towns militia is present but handled as minions, four of the attacking orcs are minions as well. I chose this setup because of ease of gm´ing and the narration of quick deaths on both sides.
> ...




If I bother to provide stats for something, then it's got what it's got. If events take place in the world that do not involve the PC's then whatever is most likely to happen given what is known about the situation simply happens. No stats, no tables, and no undetermined outcome needed.


----------



## Wicht (May 26, 2010)

Coldwyn said:


> Maybe I missunderstand you or we´re talking about two different things.
> 
> The reaction chart has been with D&D sind the 3E DMG and you´re right, as just this point the NSC would be "Queen, Cha 16, indifferent, doesn´t react well to irishman" and that´s enough.
> What I´m interrested in is what comes after the reaction tests. If, for example, I succeed on my diplomacy check and make her helpful, do I still need to haggle, bluff, sense motive and so on on each subject I talk with her, and if, how is it handled?




Again, the rules give you guidelines, each request requires an additional roll with the DC being based on the NPCs current attitude and the nature of the request.  Complicated aid +5, dangerous aid +10, aid that could result in punishment +15, each additional request pass the first +5.

Attitude shifts garnered through diplomacy last 1d4 hours or longer at the DMs discretion and any NPC can alway refuse a request that goes against the NPC's values or nature.  There is no rule that says the queen has to give the PCs the castle just because they have silver tongues. The answer to ridiculous requests should always be "no."


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 26, 2010)

Mallus said:


> My experience is that mechanical definitions are situational. The majority of people, places and things are simply <undefined> in terms of game mechanics . "Grod is a tall orc with greenish skin, a sturdy build, and a savage twinkle in this bloodshot eyes".
> 
> As the need arises, the DM switches to a more precise mechanical description.




How is "Grod is a tall orc with greenish skin, a sturdy build, and a savage twinkle in this bloodshot eyes" a mechanical definition?  How does "Grod has an AC of 15, 12 HP, and a 16 STR" change "Grod is a tall orc with greenish skin, a sturdy build, and a savage twinkle in this bloodshot eyes"?

What you are doing here is conflating two partial descriptions with two complete descriptions.  Moreover, only one is mechanical.  When the mechanical description changes, it reflects a change in the campaign world or in Grod -- Grod has thrown away his shield, so his AC is worse; he is wounded, so he has fewer current hit points; he has gained a level, and he has become stronger.



> And as the needs change, so too, does the descriptive language employed. "Grod has been conscripted in the Orc Army. He is now part of a squad of 20, with an Attack Value of 3, a Defense Value of 1, and Morale of 2".




Even these numbers are, presumably, based off of the other mechanics.  What Grod is has not changed at all.  Inside or outside the unit, his statistics are representative of the same base "reality".

A good, similar, example can be found in the 1e DMG, which gives a primer on altering D&D character stats to allow them to interact with the Boot Hill and Metamorphis Alpha games (and vice versa).  The goal in both the 1e DMG and in the skirmish system is to keep the character's statistics as consistent as possible within the framework being used.

The 4e minion rules -- if, and only if, the minions are quantum in nature, becoming minions when facing PCs but not when facing farmers -- are of a different nature entirely.  Their statistics are not being kept mechanically as close as possible within a given framework; what their statistics represent -- the underlying "reality" -- is itself being changed based upon the framework (often narrative framework) used.

Appropriate for some types of playstyles, of course, but certainly not approriate for all.


RC


----------



## Coldwyn (May 26, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Again, the rules give you guidelines, each request requires an additional roll with the DC being based on the NPCs current attitude and the nature of the request.  Complicated aid +5, dangerous aid +10, aid that could result in punishment +15, each additional request pass the first +5.
> 
> Attitude shifts garnered through diplomacy last 1d4 hours or longer at the DMs discretion and any NPC can alway refuse a request that goes against the NPC's values or nature.  There is no rule that says the queen has to give the PCs the castle just because they have silver tongues. The answer to ridiculous requests should always be "no."




I understand how these mechanics work.

But still we´re not talking about the same things. What about sense motive and bluff, for example? Or Innuendo when it still was around? These skills are more or less all level-based and we´re using comparing rolls here.

So if I flat-out lie to the queen that the endeavor I aks from her is purely positiv to her (bluff vs sense motive) it should influence the situation in any way, for example modifying the reaction test for the request from complicated aid to normal request. Else, diplomacy would be king and the other social skills a waste of skill points and space in the PHB.

If these skills matter, we´re in stat-country again.


----------



## Wicht (May 26, 2010)

Coldwyn said:


> I understand how these mechanics work.
> 
> But still we´re not talking about the same things. What about sense motive and bluff, for example? Or Innuendo when it still was around? These skills are more or less all level-based and we´re using comparing rolls here.
> 
> ...




Sure a PC can lie to the queen and get away with it.  I don't see your point.  Once she finds out it will then affect further interactions.  For long term relationships, diplomacy is king.  Lying to people is not the way to make long term friends.  And bluff only works if the people don't have reason to think you are a liar who has cheated them before.  

And I never said stats shouldn't be important.  A queen's sense motive is absolutely going to determine how well she knows who to trust.  But wouldn't a more experienced queen be better at this than an inexperienced princess? I don't see the problem here.


----------



## LostSoul (May 26, 2010)

The Alexandrian wrote a pretty good essay on the stats issue here: The Alexandrian - Misc Creations

The key point for me was that 5th level is the upper limit of the "mundane" world.  That ties into what KM is talking about with genre expectations.  Your 80-year-old Queen with 10 levels of Aristocrat can beat up a lot of 18-year-old men, but she's no longer really "human".

As for stats staying constant, I think they help players make decisions at a higher level than the encounter.


----------



## Mallus (May 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> How is "Grod is a tall orc with greenish skin, a sturdy build, and a savage twinkle in this bloodshot eyes" a mechanical definition?



It's not. That's why I used the description of Grod you quoted as an example of an NPC who's <undefined> in terms of game mechanics. At that point, Grod is only defined by exposition.



> How does "Grod has an AC of 15, 12 HP, and a 16 STR" change "Grod is a tall orc with greenish skin, a sturdy build, and a savage twinkle in this bloodshot eyes"?



It doesn't. I was pointing out things in the game world are typically described using different methods, depending on the circumstances.

I was trying to set up a sort of descriptive hierarchy, using Grod the Orc as an example. He start's off unstatted, like the bulk of the objects in the game world, described only using plain language. Next, he's presented with a simple mechanical description -- perhaps because he's guarding a pie in a dungeon room. Finally he's described using a different form of mechanical description, because he's now part of an orc army and a mass battle (apparently he survived the pie encounter).



> Inside or outside the unit, his statistics are representative of the same base "reality".



Sure. But he can be represented in different ways. Much like Minions are, in fact. All I'm getting at is that it's par for the course in D&D to represent the same (or like) in-game objects using different methods. So long as the objects basic relationship with the other game objects remains the same (ie, a Minion Ogre is still a lot stronger than a Minion farmer, and are described as such when they're both just box text), then the game's 'base reality' is being depicted well enough.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 26, 2010)

Mallus said:


> Next, he's presented with a simple mechanical description -- perhaps because he's guarding a pie in a dungeon room. Finally he's described using a different form of mechanical description, because he's now part of an orc army and a mass battle (apparently he survived the pie encounter).



Or perhaps he was smart about it, ate the pie himself and blamed it on adventurers?


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 26, 2010)

Mallus said:


> All I'm getting at is that it's par for the course in D&D to represent the same (or like) in-game objects using different methods.





Sure, but I would argue that the object's "basic relationship with the other game objects" does not remain the same in the case of minions (again, if and only if their minionhood is quantum).

Please note that I am not arguing that this is a bad practice, or that it does not work for some playstyles; I am only arguing that it is a poor choice for all playstyles.


RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 27, 2010)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Anything that deals hit point damage can kill you. If the idea of dying from it seems dumb, it shouldn't be dealing hit point damage.




I am fond of this guideline, actually. Hadn't thought of it before. It does bring up the question of "what should it be doing, then?", but I like the idea that just because something makes you bleed or loose morale doesn't mean it deals HP damage, because HP damage *kills you*. 



			
				Coldwyn said:
			
		

> Stats, no matter how they have been generated, should only come up in combat.
> IMO interacting with an important NPC like the queen should be broken down into tasks, with DCs tailored to the situation. Does she respond well to flattery? Is she the trusting kind? Does she have racist views towards a certain race or nation? That´s why I mentioned the skill challenge rules as an example. When I create stats for her and come up with a, let´s say, +12 Diplomacy as an end-result, it´s global. I could go on further and add or remove situational boni.
> This can get messy real quick.




I think that stats are useful in a variety of contexts. To my mind, the idea that "only combat needs stats" is a sort of absurd D&Dism. I think you need stats for anything you want to spend significant game time on. If the PC's only have to talk to the queen once, a skill challenge (or other DM fiat) might work fine, but if the party needs to do that, and similar things, over and over again, in the course of a highly political campaign, raw fiat isn't interesting, consistent, or variable enough. Messiness is a *virtue* in things you're going to be doing a lot of, because messiness is also the same as "variation." Messiness is just variation you don't want.

But that's kind of an orthogonal convo, I think. 



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't 1e or 4e provide the same thing? In all three systems monsters are described in terms of the their relative strength and provided with sufficient motivation for the doing of violence.




They could provide the same thing, but 4e, and, as far as I'm aware, 1e, don't.

This is because they don't present *NPC's* in terms of their relative strength.

So whether or not a town can marshall some militia members and go clear out a local goblin warren boils down to "I dunno, does the DM want that to happen?" Same thing with our theoretical mythical Queen Victoria seeing through the Incubus in her court. 

As a DM, I don't want to answer that question -- I want the rules to tell me: can they do it? How, specifically, might the PC's unique skills aid them? What can do it handily, without any help, and what might struggle a bit, and what would be totally out classed? What's the context, here?

I get that rules like that are way too sim for some people, and I do absolutely think they should be able to be ignored, but I think they should exist for people who want them. I won't even always want them, but a player or DM like Wicht (who seems to go farther into sim territory than I go) really might. And someone who might develop a little Java program for rolling those dice for me along the lines of some of the 3e town or dungeon generators? Yes, please, absolutely.

And it's totally possible that 4e can provide this. The exception-based design means you can tack on a complex NPC and Town Generation schema pretty well, I'd bet. Hell, one might me coming in the DMG4 (or so) for all I know.  



			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> The key point for me was that 5th level is the upper limit of the "mundane" world. That ties into what KM is talking about with genre expectations. Your 80-year-old Queen with 10 levels of Aristocrat can beat up a lot of 18-year-old men, but she's no longer really "human".
> 
> As for stats staying constant, I think they help players make decisions at a higher level than the encounter.




That's the idea behind E6, too, and it's really solid. It also, I think, explains part of why some DM's take issue with the things high level D&D characters are typically capable of (like teleportation, scrying, death magic, etc.): they believe the party never leaves that 1-5 level range, even after they do, so the DMs who don't change their game are caught by surprise by game-changing abilities.


----------



## Hussar (May 27, 2010)

For me, at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is the results.  How I got there I don't really care.  So, the idea of "quantum minions" doesn't bother me in the least.  Now, I could see how it might bug people, and that's fair enough.  Different strokes and all that. 

Grod is big and green and tall could be represented by ANY stats, from standard MM orc, to a 20th level barbarian orc.  If I, as DM, need Grod to be any of those things, then, *poof* that's what he'll be.

My problem with the Queen example, is that sure, I can build the Queen to have these uber skills - possibly not at 1st level since I'm going to run out of feats - but at relatively low level.  Fair enough.  It's been a while since I've run 3e and I'd kinda forgotten just how many bonuses you can actually get.

But, all that takes time.  I know what I want her to have.  The rules however, force me to build her in a certain way.  And, all the advice here presumes a fairly high degree of rules proficiency - that I know which skills synergize, which feats to take, and whatnot.  Again, this is a big time sink.

Why bother with all that?  I know what end result I want is.  Why not have rules that facilitate, instead of impede that?

BTW, just because I can't resist, Wicht, why is our blacksmith a 3rd level _expert_?  I mean, you JUST got through telling me how I can make this amazing skill monkey with a 1st level character, but, a blacksmith, whose only skill requirement is Craft Metal Stuff (not weapons or armor, that's not a blacksmith) suddenly needs to be a 3rd level expert?

Methinks your counter examples are a tad self serving.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 27, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, all that takes time. I know what I want her to have. The rules however, force me to build her in a certain way. And, all the advice here presumes a fairly high degree of rules proficiency - that I know which skills synergize, which feats to take, and whatnot. Again, this is a big time sink.
> 
> Why bother with all that? I know what end result I want is. Why not have rules that facilitate, instead of impede that?




I know the thread kind of exploded between your last post and this one, but did you miss where I pointed out Rule 0 and the all-powerful circumstance bonus? Honestly, these are the most likely for me to use in-game.

I do like the designers to bother with it in the first place, just so I vaguely know what a Diplomacy +10 means in context, with regards to other NPC's and the world, but you certainly don't have to do that work at the table in the thick of things.

It's there for background info and for statmonkey gearheads who love such things (stats are fun, as any baseball statmonkey would tell you). This becomes important at the table, even if it doesn't directly affect the die roll I make at the table (because it provides contextual info for that die roll).


----------



## Wicht (May 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> BTW, just because I can't resist, Wicht, why is our blacksmith a 3rd level _expert_?  I mean, you JUST got through telling me how I can make this amazing skill monkey with a 1st level character, but, a blacksmith, whose only skill requirement is Craft Metal Stuff (not weapons or armor, that's not a blacksmith) suddenly needs to be a 3rd level expert?




Its what the expert class is for, firstly.  Just like the aristocrat class is to model those that are born into wealth, the expert class is there to model true professionals.  As for the level, I almost always make any man of practiced skill about third level.  It just feels about right to me and I don't buy into the theory that 3rd level is that special. 

I only ever use 1st level commoners for those that don't do a lot of work, aren't especially trained in anything or are just out of their teens.  I even make a typical farmer an expert as there's a lot of things your average farmer knows how to do. Commoners are good for modeling a serf class but, honestly, most D&D worlds don't have a large serf class.

As for demonstrating the ability achievable at first level, its possible for any character to be really good at one thing at 1st level, but other skills will be less stellar. But if thats what you want in a character (a really diplomatic queen for instance)  then its pretty easy to model that without getting into high levels.


----------



## billd91 (May 27, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Its what the expert class is for, firstly.  Just like the aristocrat class is to model those that are born into wealth, the expert class is there to model true professionals.  As for the level, I almost always make any man of practiced skill about third level.  It just feels about right to me and I don't buy into the theory that 3rd level is that special.
> 
> I only ever use 1st level commoners for those that don't do a lot of work, aren't especially trained in anything or are just out of their teens.  I even make a typical farmer an expert as there's a lot of things your average farmer knows how to do. Commoners are good for modeling a serf class but, honestly, most D&D worlds don't have a large serf class.




Yeah, I pretty much see the 1st level NPC character as the greenhorn. The 1st level expert craftsman - he's just the kid finishing up his apprenticeship. Journeyman at 2nd. Master at 3rd or so. I usually level up my NPCs based on being out and doing their thing for a few years.


----------



## Hussar (May 27, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Its what the expert class is for, firstly.  Just like the aristocrat class is to model those that are born into wealth, the expert class is there to model true professionals.  As for the level, I almost always make any man of practiced skill about third level.  It just feels about right to me and I don't buy into the theory that 3rd level is that special.
> 
> I only ever use 1st level commoners for those that don't do a lot of work, aren't especially trained in anything or are just out of their teens.  I even make a typical farmer an expert as there's a lot of things your average farmer knows how to do. Commoners are good for modeling a serf class but, honestly, most D&D worlds don't have a large serf class.
> 
> As for demonstrating the ability achievable at first level, its possible for any character to be really good at one thing at 1st level, but other skills will be less stellar. But if thats what you want in a character (a really diplomatic queen for instance)  then its pretty easy to model that without getting into high levels.




Fair enough.  Just so's you know that this is your rules and not what actually stated in the game.  The actual demographics in the DMG pretty strongly contradict this, and, also, the description of the actual class of expert contradicts this as well.

A blacksmith no more needs to be an expert than a farmer does.  The Craft skill is the only skill he actually needs.  And, again, going by what's actually written in the game and not your specific campaign world, 99% of the population (or actually quite a lot more) is, in fact, 1st level.

But, your second point is interesting.  Ok, I want a queen who is diplomatic, has good sense motive and is pretty darn intimidating when she wants to be.

How do you do that without adding levels?

See, this idea that our Queen example has only one skill is not something I said.  Diplomacy only affects others.  It doesn't actually help me from being affected.  Thus, what I said earlier about our 1st level Queen being totally dominated in skill contests by others.  Sure, she can use diplomacy to make others do what she wants, but, she's completely bamboozled by any higher level character.

This doesn't really fit with my idea of this queen.

KM - sure, you can totally simply whack on a great honking circumstance bonus.  But, again, I STILL have to stat out even a 1st level aristocrat.  To me, the idea that NPC'S MUST be built the same as PC's is a weakness in the 3e ruleset because it just adds on so much work to the DM.

In 3e, by the rules (what I do in my own game is fine, but, I'm actually talking about RAW, not my game), I can't just say, Queen Victoria has +20 Diplomacy, +15 Sense Motive.  I have to build that.  Even if I can do it with a low level character, I still have to take the time to figure it all out.

Which is exactly the reason I never used classed monsters.  I'm just far too lazy to spend an hour statting up some NPC, when I can use a pregen monster in 5 minutes.


----------



## MichaelSomething (May 27, 2010)

Well, the best way to model a Queen in 3rd edition would be with a template.  While the Queen herself could be 5th or 6th level, by being a queen she would get the Queen template applied to her stats.  It would increase her CR and power level without having to figure out how she would gain so many levels.  I imagine that it would grant her bonus to skills, bonus feats like Skill Focus and Leadership, and maybe a boost to saves/hit dice to represent her plot importance.  Hmmm, now I want to write this up.


----------



## Wicht (May 27, 2010)

I've always thought the 3e DMG's advice on demographics to be total bunk.  I was pretty happy to see it gone for Pathfinder, which you will notice, is the ruleset I've been using. 

The idea that most of the world is 1st level commoners only works if you have a world of totally uneducated peasant serfs.  But most D&D worlds, official and unofficial don't model this.  They model a world of adventure and industrious, talented workers living in a pretty open capitalistic society. But thats, I guess another topic.

I actually like putting together stat blocks and I have always prefered the idea that PCs and NPCs work exactly alike.  I only have to learn one set of rules that way.  I can do the other.  In earlier editions, I memorized all the HD and abilities of most of the monsters and knew what was what, but the less variables, the better as far as I'm concerned and, again, I'm happy that Pathfinder has made monster abilities even more uniform. I don't stat up every PC, but I could probably do your queen for you in about 15 minutes or less.  Not that you really want her done, but stating up a leveled NPC with no real powers or equipment is just a matter of filling in the numbers in the right spots.


----------



## Primal (May 27, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Ah, I've already been waiting for someone to play the GURPS card!
> 
> I agree with your conclusion. Another example is the spell design rules in Ars Magica. It's quite beautiful and works very well for most purposes. It's still easy to abuse for someone who is looking for ways to abuse it. If there was a CO board for Ars Magica it would probably be full of insanely broken spells respecting all of the rules.
> 
> ...




As others have said, it need not be overly complex; I think it's a shame that in a "gamist" system which has very well-balanced PCs there are no comprehensive, well-balanced creation rules for monsters and NPCs. Besides, when the first three books came out somebody claimed (on this board) that WoTC was apparently using a point-based formula for balancing the PC powers (something like 0.5 points for every [w], 1.5 points for Stun, etc.). If that is true -- and even if it isn't -- I find it hard to believe that WoTC didn't have some sort of in-house rules for balancing powers. Especially considering how many designers and freelancers have participated in designing new mechanics in relation to how essential it is for 4E to maintain the balance as well as possible. If they didn't have some sort of method to the madness, we'd already be seeing serious power-creep in the game.

Not everyone is great at "eyeballing" or improvising stats; I know a lot of DMs who become "paralyzed" with this sort of stuff. It's not that they (or I) are "bad" DMs; it's just that people think and operate differently. Anyway, I'm really hoping that the new boxed sets will include more robust monster and NPC building rules.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 27, 2010)

> sure, you can totally simply whack on a great honking circumstance bonus. But, again, I STILL have to stat out even a 1st level aristocrat. To me, the idea that NPC'S MUST be built the same as PC's is a weakness in the 3e ruleset because it just adds on so much work to the DM.




Except you don't. Honest.  Rule 0 that homeboy. Eyeball it. Ad hoc it. Set a DC that "feels right." "What the DM says goes" works just as well in all editions of D&D, heck, in any tabletop RPG! NPC's needn't be built the same as PC's. Rather, you have the capability in the system to build them to a level of detail equal to the PC's, but you don't have to do that for everyone.

I mean, I didn't run fights against many NPC's in 3e because that would have involved statting them out, but I don't run fights against many homebrew monsters, period, because that means statting them out, and that's not really my cup.



> In 3e, by the rules (what I do in my own game is fine, but, I'm actually talking about RAW, not my game), I can't just say, Queen Victoria has +20 Diplomacy, +15 Sense Motive. I have to build that. Even if I can do it with a low level character, I still have to take the time to figure it all out.




You don't have to do anything. I mean, I guess if you were going to publish Queen Victoria in an official rules supplement or something, sure, they might want more detail than two skill check bonuses, but for your home game, you don't even have to give her skill bonuses. Roll a d20 and call it pass/fail if you want. It's your game. There's no fun police. 

I mean, that was one of 3e's *huge* positive developments: you can roll a d20, and, whatever you're doing, high rolls are good, and low rolls are bad, and that d20 roll works for anything you might want to do. 

Just because the option to use the rules is there doesn't mean you have to use them in all circumstances. 

I guess this is what some people point to when they say 3e constrained the DM, but this sounds more to me like a DM constraining himself. Who says you gotta give Queen Victoria an attack bonus? Who is looking over your shoulder? Do it well enough to satisfy yourself and your players, and if all you need to do to accomplish that is slap Dip+20 in the margins on a sheet of paper, I don't see where 3e tells you that you *MUST SHOW ALL YOUR WORK*. Function at the table has always trumped the rules that can be used to get to that point.



> Which is exactly the reason I never used classed monsters. I'm just far too lazy to spend an hour statting up some NPC, when I can use a pregen monster in 5 minutes.




I didn't use classed monsters in combat for essentially the same reason, but I certainly had a few sessions where the players needed to roll in social challenges, and I never really bothered coming up with the attack bonus of any of the critters they rolled against.

I was confident knowing that it was there if I really needed it, though. As an improv-heavy DM, having that backup, knowing the rules are going to support whatever weird turn my group decided to take ("we're going to beat up the queen and take her hostage!"), gave me a load of confidence to DM by the seat of my pants.


----------

