Centauri's blog listings. Feed Zend_Feed_Writer 1.10.8 (http://framework.zend.com) http://community.wizards.com/centauri Provocation
First of all, while I arrived at the idea independently, I have seen it posted in other places. I've just never seen it gain much traction.

Second of all, it doesn't matter very much anymore. The designers have changed the monster "math" to deal with the "problem." I'm only still thinking about it because I haven't moved to the new monster math (partly because I have a solution I prefer) and because questions about combat speed still show up on the "What's A DM To Do?" forum, which I frequent.

With that out of the way, here's the basic idea with details and background to follow: [b]Use the monsters' HP and defenses as resources to enable it to move where it wants on the battlefield, and attack with impunity. The PCs will do more damage through opportunity attacks, defender marks, zones and the like; the monsters will be more of a threat to the party as a whole (and certain members in particular); there will be more movement; and combat will be faster, more dynamic, and more interesting.[/b]

The basic issue with combat in 4th Edition is that it takes longer than many people prefer to spend to fullfil the baseline assumption of D&D combat, which is to reduce the monsters to 0 HP. This is largely due to the fact that monsters originally (and some would say still) have relatively high HP and defenses, so that even a party's encounter powers are not enough to finish the monsters off and, unless dailies are used (which I believe is the intent, but that's for a different article) the PCs are quickly reduced to "grinding" the monsters down with at-will powers.

Compounding this is the relatively low amount of damage monsters used to do. This doesn't itself increase the length of combat, but it makes it more frustrating for certain DMs and groups, because despite all the time spent in combat, the monsters don't seem to be much of a threat.

I became fully aware of these issues during one particular combat with my group and it dawned on me what I could do about them.

I first discussed this in another blog entry: community.wizards.com/centauri/blog/2010... Basically, I decided in that encounter, that the monster would quickly (if not prior to the battle) realize how physically tough it is compared to the PCs attacks. However one imagines HP to be represented inside the game, it's plausible that a creature knows how hurt it is, so, if a character's attack takes off only a small fraction of its HP, the creature would come to think of the attacks as not much of a deterrent. If the PCs are having a hard time hitting the creature's defenses, it would also probably conclude that the PCs aren't an immediate threat.

A creature would also probably draw some conclusions from how much of a threat its own attacks seemed to be toward the PCs it was attacking. HP are abstract, but if the creature has unleashed a barrage against the fighter and wasn't able to bloody it or drive it off, it might reasonably conclude that the fighter is too hard a nut to crack, and look for targets that seem softer.

What this all adds up to is provoking more opportunity attacks and defender marks from monsters, in order to allow the monsters to put their damage where it will have the most effect. Creatures might also brave damaging effects, either staying within them, or moving through them, to deal damage to the right targets.

I think part of why this idea has trouble gaining traction is that I think there's a general perception that if a monster is provoking opportunity attacks then something has gone terribly wrong. It's never necessary to provoke them, and accidentally doing so is, I believe, taken by many as a mark of inexperience, and, yes, doing so will cause the monsters to die sooner. But monsters don't necessarily know any of that. They would plausibly come to think both that they are relatively safe (at least for a while) from PC attacks, and that sustaining a few extra hits might be worth it to chomp on the guy in the robes at the back. I think even mindless or dimwitted monsters might reach that conclusion, or be guided to it by some internal or external imperative.

This technique is not guaranteed to make combat more dangerous. After all, a marked creature might still have a hard time damaging other targets. It also might not be more dangerous if the PCs realize the threat, realize that opportunity attacks and defender marks aren't enough to deter the monsters from attacking their softer allies, and step up the defense. But in that case, the PCs are probably using up more resources to improve their defensive line, and using up resources in one battle means later battles will be that much more challenging.

And it doesn't need to be used if it just seems too improbable that a creature would take that approach. I switch back and forth during battles, as the creature becomes more wounded, and the softer targets get out of the way, or as other conditions change, making the tactic more or less effective for the creature. Monster goals might also change. Not all monsters want to take risks, not all monsters have the goal of killing PCs at any cost. In fact, I encourage DMs to give their monsters more interesting goals, but it's common for people to run monsters as if all of them have dreams of TPKs in their horrible little hearts.

It's worth noting that some defender players will not like it if monsters ignore their marks, especially if the mark has an effect than can miss, such as Combat Challenge, and if the attack always seems to miss. Be mindful of this, and remember that the point of this technique is to make the game more fun. If it's not achieving that, don't use it.

The technique also requires attentive players, as they will be making attacks off their turn. I find that players quickly get into the swing, so to speak, of their basic attacks, and can be quick about them, once they see that the attacks will often be provoked. Having the players roll more attacks means more critical hits, which is always fun. Combat also tends to be more dynamic under this technique, because monsters are harder to "lock down" merely with the threat of damage. There is more movement of monsters to get at targets, and more movement of PCs to protected those targets.

I recognize this technique is not for everyone, and as I said above, the time of its larger relevance and usefulness has mostly passed. Despite this, it's a useful thing to keep in mind not just for 4th Edition games but for other editions, and even other games, in which monsters have resources that they can use either to stay alive, or to make the most of what life they have left.
6 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Sat, 09 Jun 2012 06:56:57 -0500 http://community.wizards.com/centauri/blog/2012/06/09/provocation http://community.wizards.com/centauri/blog/2012/06/09/provocation
First of all, while I arrived at the idea independently, I have seen it posted in other places. I've just never seen it gain much traction.

Second of all, it doesn't matter very much anymore. The designers have changed the monster "math" to deal with the "problem." I'm only still thinking about it because I haven't moved to the new monster math (partly because I have a solution I prefer) and because questions about combat speed still show up on the "What's A DM To Do?" forum, which I frequent.

With that out of the way, here's the basic idea with details and background to follow: [b]Use the monsters' HP and defenses as resources to enable it to move where it wants on the battlefield, and attack with impunity. The PCs will do more damage through opportunity attacks, defender marks, zones and the like; the monsters will be more of a threat to the party as a whole (and certain members in particular); there will be more movement; and combat will be faster, more dynamic, and more interesting.[/b]

The basic issue with combat in 4th Edition is that it takes longer than many people prefer to spend to fullfil the baseline assumption of D&D combat, which is to reduce the monsters to 0 HP. This is largely due to the fact that monsters originally (and some would say still) have relatively high HP and defenses, so that even a party's encounter powers are not enough to finish the monsters off and, unless dailies are used (which I believe is the intent, but that's for a different article) the PCs are quickly reduced to "grinding" the monsters down with at-will powers.

Compounding this is the relatively low amount of damage monsters used to do. This doesn't itself increase the length of combat, but it makes it more frustrating for certain DMs and groups, because despite all the time spent in combat, the monsters don't seem to be much of a threat.

I became fully aware of these issues during one particular combat with my group and it dawned on me what I could do about them.

I first discussed this in another blog entry: community.wizards.com/centauri/blog/2010... Basically, I decided in that encounter, that the monster would quickly (if not prior to the battle) realize how physically tough it is compared to the PCs attacks. However one imagines HP to be represented inside the game, it's plausible that a creature knows how hurt it is, so, if a character's attack takes off only a small fraction of its HP, the creature would come to think of the attacks as not much of a deterrent. If the PCs are having a hard time hitting the creature's defenses, it would also probably conclude that the PCs aren't an immediate threat.

A creature would also probably draw some conclusions from how much of a threat its own attacks seemed to be toward the PCs it was attacking. HP are abstract, but if the creature has unleashed a barrage against the fighter and wasn't able to bloody it or drive it off, it might reasonably conclude that the fighter is too hard a nut to crack, and look for targets that seem softer.

What this all adds up to is provoking more opportunity attacks and defender marks from monsters, in order to allow the monsters to put their damage where it will have the most effect. Creatures might also brave damaging effects, either staying within them, or moving through them, to deal damage to the right targets.

I think part of why this idea has trouble gaining traction is that I think there's a general perception that if a monster is provoking opportunity attacks then something has gone terribly wrong. It's never necessary to provoke them, and accidentally doing so is, I believe, taken by many as a mark of inexperience, and, yes, doing so will cause the monsters to die sooner. But monsters don't necessarily know any of that. They would plausibly come to think both that they are relatively safe (at least for a while) from PC attacks, and that sustaining a few extra hits might be worth it to chomp on the guy in the robes at the back. I think even mindless or dimwitted monsters might reach that conclusion, or be guided to it by some internal or external imperative.

This technique is not guaranteed to make combat more dangerous. After all, a marked creature might still have a hard time damaging other targets. It also might not be more dangerous if the PCs realize the threat, realize that opportunity attacks and defender marks aren't enough to deter the monsters from attacking their softer allies, and step up the defense. But in that case, the PCs are probably using up more resources to improve their defensive line, and using up resources in one battle means later battles will be that much more challenging.

And it doesn't need to be used if it just seems too improbable that a creature would take that approach. I switch back and forth during battles, as the creature becomes more wounded, and the softer targets get out of the way, or as other conditions change, making the tactic more or less effective for the creature. Monster goals might also change. Not all monsters want to take risks, not all monsters have the goal of killing PCs at any cost. In fact, I encourage DMs to give their monsters more interesting goals, but it's common for people to run monsters as if all of them have dreams of TPKs in their horrible little hearts.

It's worth noting that some defender players will not like it if monsters ignore their marks, especially if the mark has an effect than can miss, such as Combat Challenge, and if the attack always seems to miss. Be mindful of this, and remember that the point of this technique is to make the game more fun. If it's not achieving that, don't use it.

The technique also requires attentive players, as they will be making attacks off their turn. I find that players quickly get into the swing, so to speak, of their basic attacks, and can be quick about them, once they see that the attacks will often be provoked. Having the players roll more attacks means more critical hits, which is always fun. Combat also tends to be more dynamic under this technique, because monsters are harder to "lock down" merely with the threat of damage. There is more movement of monsters to get at targets, and more movement of PCs to protected those targets.

I recognize this technique is not for everyone, and as I said above, the time of its larger relevance and usefulness has mostly passed. Despite this, it's a useful thing to keep in mind not just for 4th Edition games but for other editions, and even other games, in which monsters have resources that they can use either to stay alive, or to make the most of what life they have left.
6 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0 Morale Check community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/...) opens with speculation as to why the Morale rules disappeared from the last few editions of D&D. I assume a poll of some kind was taken when those editions were created, to decide if the rules were worth keeping on the books and that the results convinced the designers not to bother. I didn't miss them, myself. I created a poll below to see if anyone else had a relationship to the morale rules that was similar to mine.

I don't think Morale rules are inherently bad or problematic, and wouldn't mind seeing them on the books again, but I do think they need to some with good, clear advice on how to use them, why one might use them, when not to, and how to adjust them to suit one's preferences.

0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:35:18 -0500 http://community.wizards.com/centauri/blog/2012/04/13/morale_check http://community.wizards.com/centauri/blog/2012/04/13/morale_check community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/...) opens with speculation as to why the Morale rules disappeared from the last few editions of D&D. I assume a poll of some kind was taken when those editions were created, to decide if the rules were worth keeping on the books and that the results convinced the designers not to bother. I didn't miss them, myself. I created a poll below to see if anyone else had a relationship to the morale rules that was similar to mine.

I don't think Morale rules are inherently bad or problematic, and wouldn't mind seeing them on the books again, but I do think they need to some with good, clear advice on how to use them, why one might use them, when not to, and how to adjust them to suit one's preferences.

0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0 Trust, Mistrust, and Points Between community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/... does not reflect how my sessions with the early editions of D&D proceeded

Most of it's fine, until this point:

Me: “Well, I guess we shouldn’t look a gift horse in—”

DM: “Around the corner of the room come four orcs! ‘Surface dwellers! Kill them! Cut them to mincemeat! Pound them to hamburger!’ they yell. The first two catch you by surprise and attack. [The DM rolls dice.] One misses. One rolls a 17 and hits you for 5 points of damage! The other two go around you and charge the wizard.”

Me: “By Moradin’s tangled beard! I attack the closest one. [I roll dice.] An 18!”

In my groups this would have been:

Me: “Well, I guess we shouldn’t look a gift horse in—”

DM: “Around the corner of the room come four orcs! ‘Surface dwellers! Kill them! Cut them to mincemeat! Pound them to hamburger!’ they yell. The first two catch you by surprise and attack. [The DM rolls dice.] One misses. One rolls a 17 and hits you for 5 points of damage! The other two go around you and charge the wizard.”

Group: "Wait, we didn't see them?" "Hold on, how are they going before me, I'm super quick?" "I should have been able to cast Sleep before they attacked!" "I didn't say I entered the room." "Wait the room's 20 feet wide, and we're lined up in front of the chest, so how did they get past the front line?" "I disbelieve the illusion!" etc.

All of which essentially boiled down to the group questioning the fairness of the DM's move, regardless of how much of a threat it was. I really doubt I was the only person to have this kind of experience, and have it repeatedly.

I don't know the exact reasons behind the creation of tactical, grid-based combat rules, but I do know that I was relieved to find that 3rd Edition used them and had finally begun to clamp down on so many of the questions that could arise during a fight. Players could, by and large, figure out for themselves who was where, who had what advantage, what was at risk, how to defend, where was safe. There were still arguments, I won't say there weren't, but the grid minimized a lot of these and allowed the game to move on, even if people didn't like the situation.

The core issue is trust. My groups didn't trust their DMs not to adjudicate in such a way as to kill the characters. The DMs didn't trust the players not to claim some sort of unfair advantage over the monsters. Was the thief really in a position to backstab? The DM thought not, the player thought so. Some DMs and players also don't trust themselves and enjoy being freed from having to state that their character actually IS in the blast zone of the fireball. It's there for anyone to see.

Bruce's group probably trusted their DM. I hope most groups did, but I'm sure not all of them did. Grid-based combat was a blessing for groups like that, and the use of the grid has nothing to do with the ability of those groups to use their imagination.

I play and enjoy 4th Edition. My groups generally use a grid, but because I trust them, I tend to handwave a lot of movement and range and say "Yes, and..." to the cool ideas they come up with. As DM, I try to avoid handwaving anything for my monsters, because I don't want to lose what trust I have with my group. Sometimes I have to strain that trust by asking them to let my monsters do something cool, and by putting the PCs in unforseen trouble, but their trust is important. When I play, I also try to build trust with the DM, abiding by rulings even if I disagree or don't like them, pointing out advantages he can gain, abiding religiously to my characters limits. This isn't because I lack imagination but because I value my DM's trust. Given enough time with a DM, I'll strain that trust a little and ask to try something that might not quite be in the rules, but I am careful not to seem like the kind of player who damages and unravels games. Despite all that conservatism though, no one who knows me would ever say I lack imagination.

So, the key is trust. If you want us to have the courage to run games without a grid, because you think that's some sort of ideal, great: give us advice on how to build the necessary trust. I don't think advice is enough; I think it takes trust between friends, which takes time either before or during play. Give us the tools to build that trust. Give us tactical, grid-based play as an option and ALSO advise us how to begin to step away from that. I'm doing that now, loosening the grip on the security the grid gave me, after my horrible early experiences, but it's because I'm trying to prove gridless or grid-light combat can work in 4th Edition, not because I think it's the ideal that some people think it is.

Trust.
5 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:04:27 -0500 http://community.wizards.com/centauri/blog/2012/04/11/trust,_mistrust,_and_points_between http://community.wizards.com/centauri/blog/2012/04/11/trust,_mistrust,_and_points_between community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/... does not reflect how my sessions with the early editions of D&D proceeded

Most of it's fine, until this point:

Me: “Well, I guess we shouldn’t look a gift horse in—”

DM: “Around the corner of the room come four orcs! ‘Surface dwellers! Kill them! Cut them to mincemeat! Pound them to hamburger!’ they yell. The first two catch you by surprise and attack. [The DM rolls dice.] One misses. One rolls a 17 and hits you for 5 points of damage! The other two go around you and charge the wizard.”

Me: “By Moradin’s tangled beard! I attack the closest one. [I roll dice.] An 18!”

In my groups this would have been:

Me: “Well, I guess we shouldn’t look a gift horse in—”

DM: “Around the corner of the room come four orcs! ‘Surface dwellers! Kill them! Cut them to mincemeat! Pound them to hamburger!’ they yell. The first two catch you by surprise and attack. [The DM rolls dice.] One misses. One rolls a 17 and hits you for 5 points of damage! The other two go around you and charge the wizard.”

Group: "Wait, we didn't see them?" "Hold on, how are they going before me, I'm super quick?" "I should have been able to cast Sleep before they attacked!" "I didn't say I entered the room." "Wait the room's 20 feet wide, and we're lined up in front of the chest, so how did they get past the front line?" "I disbelieve the illusion!" etc.

All of which essentially boiled down to the group questioning the fairness of the DM's move, regardless of how much of a threat it was. I really doubt I was the only person to have this kind of experience, and have it repeatedly.

I don't know the exact reasons behind the creation of tactical, grid-based combat rules, but I do know that I was relieved to find that 3rd Edition used them and had finally begun to clamp down on so many of the questions that could arise during a fight. Players could, by and large, figure out for themselves who was where, who had what advantage, what was at risk, how to defend, where was safe. There were still arguments, I won't say there weren't, but the grid minimized a lot of these and allowed the game to move on, even if people didn't like the situation.

The core issue is trust. My groups didn't trust their DMs not to adjudicate in such a way as to kill the characters. The DMs didn't trust the players not to claim some sort of unfair advantage over the monsters. Was the thief really in a position to backstab? The DM thought not, the player thought so. Some DMs and players also don't trust themselves and enjoy being freed from having to state that their character actually IS in the blast zone of the fireball. It's there for anyone to see.

Bruce's group probably trusted their DM. I hope most groups did, but I'm sure not all of them did. Grid-based combat was a blessing for groups like that, and the use of the grid has nothing to do with the ability of those groups to use their imagination.

I play and enjoy 4th Edition. My groups generally use a grid, but because I trust them, I tend to handwave a lot of movement and range and say "Yes, and..." to the cool ideas they come up with. As DM, I try to avoid handwaving anything for my monsters, because I don't want to lose what trust I have with my group. Sometimes I have to strain that trust by asking them to let my monsters do something cool, and by putting the PCs in unforseen trouble, but their trust is important. When I play, I also try to build trust with the DM, abiding by rulings even if I disagree or don't like them, pointing out advantages he can gain, abiding religiously to my characters limits. This isn't because I lack imagination but because I value my DM's trust. Given enough time with a DM, I'll strain that trust a little and ask to try something that might not quite be in the rules, but I am careful not to seem like the kind of player who damages and unravels games. Despite all that conservatism though, no one who knows me would ever say I lack imagination.

So, the key is trust. If you want us to have the courage to run games without a grid, because you think that's some sort of ideal, great: give us advice on how to build the necessary trust. I don't think advice is enough; I think it takes trust between friends, which takes time either before or during play. Give us the tools to build that trust. Give us tactical, grid-based play as an option and ALSO advise us how to begin to step away from that. I'm doing that now, loosening the grip on the security the grid gave me, after my horrible early experiences, but it's because I'm trying to prove gridless or grid-light combat can work in 4th Edition, not because I think it's the ideal that some people think it is.

Trust.
5 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0 More Lessons Learned
Given the unusual party size, I had planned, even before I knew what the characters would be, to keep the monsters roughly the same, but to give them goals other than killing the PCs. In the first encounter, a removed one of three kobold slingers and kept the minions mostly busy moving two prisoners and a McGuffin into a tunnel in the floor of the encounter. The slingers and two minions did all the fighting.

The monsters' goal was to move their prisoners and another item into their tunnels. They moved one prisoner in quickly; there was not meant to be a way to prevent this. The other prisoner and the item took more time, as I wanted the PCs to be ablle to stop one or both. They did stop the prisoner from going down the hole, and were rewarded with two potions of healing (as well as the quest XP for rescuing her).

There followed a chase through the kobold tunnels. I modeled this as two concurrent skill challenges, with plenty of description. One challenge was the chase, and one was general navigation through the underground environment. However, due to my descriptions the two challenges wound up basically being sequential instead of concurrent. But the point of concurrent challenges is to prevent the best skill from being spammed, and this was not an issue. I described the environment, including some "gotcha" traps, and they tended to deal with these in ways that made sense and worked to their strengths, without the most skilled character simply doing all the work.

They succeeded on both challenges. I disobeyed my own advice and did not have a good success and failure in place for the navigation challenge. I think I meant for this to give them a surprise round, or an alternate means of approach. I offered them an alternate means of approach, but it probably wasn't a great alternative. They got a surprise round anyway.

The creaturers were 6 minions, a slyblade, the slinger who survived the first encounter, and a white dragon wyrmling (I used weaker minions and one fewer slyblade than written.) The goals of the monsters in this encounter were less clear, probably because I neglected to put as much thought into it as I should have. Basically, the white dragon wyrming wanted to get a door open. The prisoners and the item could each enable this, but he had the kobolds get all three to be sure. I didn't set a timer of any kind for how long this goal would take to achieve. Instead, I used it as a way to govern whether or not the dragon joined the fight.

And it was a pretty tough fight. They cleared out the minions pretty well, but their shiftiness allowed the slyblade to get combat advantage on the fighter, which was enough to take him down. The warlock dosed him with a potion, but then rolled three 1s for damage with her daily and was subsequently dropped herself. The half-orc got up and missed twice with his reliable daily before taking out the slyblade. Then he took out the slinger.

The dragon made an appearance, but I made him appear hesitant to join in and very interested in the doorway, which I placed around a corner. With the warlock down, when the dragon's turn came back up, I had the door open and the dragon fly through, with the book.

The sharmind failed three deathsaves while the fighting was on. I felt like the fighter could have helped with a Heal check, but taking out the slinger was probably best. The fighter rescued the last prisoner and got the treasure and a level 4 item (left behind in the dragon's haste). He is interested in raising the shardmind.

This didn't go as well as I'd hoped. The player who lost the character was quite cheerful about it, talking about making a new one, or getting the old one raised - which she wasn't even sure was possible. It was the other player who seemed a little bummed. It's possible that he felt like I pulled my punches

What I almost immediately realized after the game is that I needed to make the characters aware of the monster's goals. In the first encounter, the fighter stayed behind cover, waiting for the monsters to pass him on their way to attack the party. I gave him one kobold, but the others fell back, so he essentially wasted two turns waiting.

I also didn't give the PCs much in the way of alternate goals. They new they needed to rescue the hostages and the items, but the only obvious way to do that was to kill all the monsters. I'm terrible at map design so I fell back on the ones provided for the encounter. These, of course, were designed only with combat in mind, so there were no real ways to sneak around to where the prisoners and items were.

Or maybe there were. Maybe they just weren't looking. They're new players. I can imagine a group that might have been more inquisitive about the areas I'd described and more eager to avoid a straight fight.

So, I still need work with skill challenges and alternate goals.
4 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:08:35 -0600 http://community.wizards.com/centauri/blog/2011/11/15/more_lessons_learned http://community.wizards.com/centauri/blog/2011/11/15/more_lessons_learned
Given the unusual party size, I had planned, even before I knew what the characters would be, to keep the monsters roughly the same, but to give them goals other than killing the PCs. In the first encounter, a removed one of three kobold slingers and kept the minions mostly busy moving two prisoners and a McGuffin into a tunnel in the floor of the encounter. The slingers and two minions did all the fighting.

The monsters' goal was to move their prisoners and another item into their tunnels. They moved one prisoner in quickly; there was not meant to be a way to prevent this. The other prisoner and the item took more time, as I wanted the PCs to be ablle to stop one or both. They did stop the prisoner from going down the hole, and were rewarded with two potions of healing (as well as the quest XP for rescuing her).

There followed a chase through the kobold tunnels. I modeled this as two concurrent skill challenges, with plenty of description. One challenge was the chase, and one was general navigation through the underground environment. However, due to my descriptions the two challenges wound up basically being sequential instead of concurrent. But the point of concurrent challenges is to prevent the best skill from being spammed, and this was not an issue. I described the environment, including some "gotcha" traps, and they tended to deal with these in ways that made sense and worked to their strengths, without the most skilled character simply doing all the work.

They succeeded on both challenges. I disobeyed my own advice and did not have a good success and failure in place for the navigation challenge. I think I meant for this to give them a surprise round, or an alternate means of approach. I offered them an alternate means of approach, but it probably wasn't a great alternative. They got a surprise round anyway.

The creaturers were 6 minions, a slyblade, the slinger who survived the first encounter, and a white dragon wyrmling (I used weaker minions and one fewer slyblade than written.) The goals of the monsters in this encounter were less clear, probably because I neglected to put as much thought into it as I should have. Basically, the white dragon wyrming wanted to get a door open. The prisoners and the item could each enable this, but he had the kobolds get all three to be sure. I didn't set a timer of any kind for how long this goal would take to achieve. Instead, I used it as a way to govern whether or not the dragon joined the fight.

And it was a pretty tough fight. They cleared out the minions pretty well, but their shiftiness allowed the slyblade to get combat advantage on the fighter, which was enough to take him down. The warlock dosed him with a potion, but then rolled three 1s for damage with her daily and was subsequently dropped herself. The half-orc got up and missed twice with his reliable daily before taking out the slyblade. Then he took out the slinger.

The dragon made an appearance, but I made him appear hesitant to join in and very interested in the doorway, which I placed around a corner. With the warlock down, when the dragon's turn came back up, I had the door open and the dragon fly through, with the book.

The sharmind failed three deathsaves while the fighting was on. I felt like the fighter could have helped with a Heal check, but taking out the slinger was probably best. The fighter rescued the last prisoner and got the treasure and a level 4 item (left behind in the dragon's haste). He is interested in raising the shardmind.

This didn't go as well as I'd hoped. The player who lost the character was quite cheerful about it, talking about making a new one, or getting the old one raised - which she wasn't even sure was possible. It was the other player who seemed a little bummed. It's possible that he felt like I pulled my punches

What I almost immediately realized after the game is that I needed to make the characters aware of the monster's goals. In the first encounter, the fighter stayed behind cover, waiting for the monsters to pass him on their way to attack the party. I gave him one kobold, but the others fell back, so he essentially wasted two turns waiting.

I also didn't give the PCs much in the way of alternate goals. They new they needed to rescue the hostages and the items, but the only obvious way to do that was to kill all the monsters. I'm terrible at map design so I fell back on the ones provided for the encounter. These, of course, were designed only with combat in mind, so there were no real ways to sneak around to where the prisoners and items were.

Or maybe there were. Maybe they just weren't looking. They're new players. I can imagine a group that might have been more inquisitive about the areas I'd described and more eager to avoid a straight fight.

So, I still need work with skill challenges and alternate goals.
4 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0 Taken to School I ran three Living Forgotten Realms games this weekend, a first (and second, and third) for me. It was an interesting experience. My first two games went reasonably well, with players engaged in the story and having a reasonably challenging time with the combat. I'm no tactical genius myself, nor do I wish to be, so I generally rely on the monsters to have an interesting variety of powers to make life hard for the players.

In my third game, things took a turn, and I was taken to school. Everyone was pretty well optimized, and even with the "harder" batch of monsters they carved through them quite handily. One fellow had a brawling fighter. I'm fine with that in theory, even if the monsters can't escape (which these couldn't) because at least the monster can keep attacking the fighter. This guy, though, had some sort of sash that let him maintain the grab even when he wasn't adjacent. Turns out he wasn't playing it exactly right, since he loses some of the abilities of the sash while it's grabbing things, but it was frustrating enough that I called all three of the fights early once the most effective monsters were grabbed.

Another guy had ranger with a mount, a dire wolf. I hate mounts. They play havoc with many of the assumptions of the games, a key one being that the PCs generally don't have mounts (another being that grabbing won't be a common play tactic, so no need to train monsters in Athletics). The bottom line is that I wasn't prepared for it and it frustrated me. Part of the frustration was getting repeatedly corrected on the effects of the unfamiliar rules.

It was also frustrating that I lacked the courage to step back, think, and deal with these problems. Part of the reason for this is that I was feeling like I wanted to take these characters (and their players, to be honest) down a notch or two and so I didn't trust myself to say "No" to them. I would have been completely within my rights to tell the ranger that his mount was unsuitable for the mission they were on, for instance.

I thought about complaining about my problems to the Community boards, but that reminded me of posts I've seen about over-optimized groups. I've given advice to those posts, and I stand by my suggestions, but I found myself unable and unwilling to implement them during this game. For instance, I'm an advocate for adding alternate goals to combat so that the PCs can't focus entirely on destroying the creatures. One such goal is to have an NPC that the monsters want dead and the PCs want alive. In an LFR game it might be hard to add something like this on the fly, but this adventure even provided an NPC that I could use for this purpose and in my haste, frustration, and fatigue, couldn't think of how to go about doing it, though I'm glad to say that the idea did at least occur to me.

I'm willing to DM Living Forgotten Realms again, if the fellow who recruited me is willing (and I think he is). Honestly, I'm not sure I'll be able to do much better against a similar group in the future, except possibly to stick out the fights a little longer (I might have been able to knock over one of them, or kill the ranger's beast companion or mount, if I'd stuck with the second fight), and to end them more graciously. I have a feeling that it might not be according to Hoyle if I were to add to the pre-written encounters hard-to-reach skill challenge that buff the monsters, or other alternate winning conditions, but I'll be on the look-out for any small advantages I can give to my monsters to make the encounter challenging and enjoyable for everyone at the table, not the just the optimizers.

2 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:49:20 -0600 http://community.wizards.com/centauri/blog/2011/01/24/taken_to_school http://community.wizards.com/centauri/blog/2011/01/24/taken_to_school I ran three Living Forgotten Realms games this weekend, a first (and second, and third) for me. It was an interesting experience. My first two games went reasonably well, with players engaged in the story and having a reasonably challenging time with the combat. I'm no tactical genius myself, nor do I wish to be, so I generally rely on the monsters to have an interesting variety of powers to make life hard for the players.

In my third game, things took a turn, and I was taken to school. Everyone was pretty well optimized, and even with the "harder" batch of monsters they carved through them quite handily. One fellow had a brawling fighter. I'm fine with that in theory, even if the monsters can't escape (which these couldn't) because at least the monster can keep attacking the fighter. This guy, though, had some sort of sash that let him maintain the grab even when he wasn't adjacent. Turns out he wasn't playing it exactly right, since he loses some of the abilities of the sash while it's grabbing things, but it was frustrating enough that I called all three of the fights early once the most effective monsters were grabbed.

Another guy had ranger with a mount, a dire wolf. I hate mounts. They play havoc with many of the assumptions of the games, a key one being that the PCs generally don't have mounts (another being that grabbing won't be a common play tactic, so no need to train monsters in Athletics). The bottom line is that I wasn't prepared for it and it frustrated me. Part of the frustration was getting repeatedly corrected on the effects of the unfamiliar rules.

It was also frustrating that I lacked the courage to step back, think, and deal with these problems. Part of the reason for this is that I was feeling like I wanted to take these characters (and their players, to be honest) down a notch or two and so I didn't trust myself to say "No" to them. I would have been completely within my rights to tell the ranger that his mount was unsuitable for the mission they were on, for instance.

I thought about complaining about my problems to the Community boards, but that reminded me of posts I've seen about over-optimized groups. I've given advice to those posts, and I stand by my suggestions, but I found myself unable and unwilling to implement them during this game. For instance, I'm an advocate for adding alternate goals to combat so that the PCs can't focus entirely on destroying the creatures. One such goal is to have an NPC that the monsters want dead and the PCs want alive. In an LFR game it might be hard to add something like this on the fly, but this adventure even provided an NPC that I could use for this purpose and in my haste, frustration, and fatigue, couldn't think of how to go about doing it, though I'm glad to say that the idea did at least occur to me.

I'm willing to DM Living Forgotten Realms again, if the fellow who recruited me is willing (and I think he is). Honestly, I'm not sure I'll be able to do much better against a similar group in the future, except possibly to stick out the fights a little longer (I might have been able to knock over one of them, or kill the ranger's beast companion or mount, if I'd stuck with the second fight), and to end them more graciously. I have a feeling that it might not be according to Hoyle if I were to add to the pre-written encounters hard-to-reach skill challenge that buff the monsters, or other alternate winning conditions, but I'll be on the look-out for any small advantages I can give to my monsters to make the encounter challenging and enjoyable for everyone at the table, not the just the optimizers.

2 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0