- Monsters go on the same initiative, which effectively (thanks to delaying and such) allows the players to go in any order they wish
I don't know about that one. So either all of the monsters go first or all of the players go first every time?
Naw, PC initiative is still used to determine who gets a turn before the monsters on the first round (forgot to mention it... now added to my previous post)
That sounds like it's going to lead some really one-sided combats.
Since I'm averaging the monster initiatives when I combine them, there is actually less chance of a lop-sided result now.
At the end of the day we need to ask this question - Has this encounter stopped being fun for the players and DM before the encounter was completed?
I think that a number of good points about judge and player responsibility have been made here, and I don't think that I need to go into it further. So I want to talk some other pieces - module design, tier selection, role play and table size.
Module Design:
This is the one I really want to expound on - the other sections are shorter...
We currently have modules that are created to allow players to level every two to four modules, depending on the character's current level and if they are playing on the low or high tier version. In order to scale the modules to this rate of advancement, it seems reasonable that the modules have a specifc XP budget that they have to adhere to within each tier. If we had a slower per module rate of advancement, the combats should be less difficult, and the individual modules would be completed faster. However, players derive a great sense of joy out of hitting the Level Up button, and increasing that rate would probably turn off a lot of players. Changing or tuning this really couldn't be done in LFR, but it seems like something to consider if a new Living campaign is launched.
On the other hand, another way to tune this would be to offer some smaller, faster mods that don't have below average rewards. Modules that are designed to only offer, for comparison sake, 200/280 xp for level 1-4, but would fit comfortably in a 3 hour block of time. I think these would be surprisingly popular, ESPECIALLY for pickup games. At our FLGS, we always have a few people who think about hanging around and playing one more slot, but don't necessarily want to play until 1:00 a.m.
I've seen a lot of modules with encounters that are specifically designed either intentionally or unthinkingly in a way that drastically prevents characters from bringing their full power to bear, thus increasing play time. To a degree that is necessary to challenge the players, but I think module writers should be more cautious about combining some of these effects: high defenses, dazing, stunning, immobilization of melee characters, terrain features that are designed to prevent PC's from reaching their threats, domination, swarms, insubstantial monsters, sending PC's to other planes or some other form of effective penalty box, regeneration, healing, etc. I'm not saying don't use these things...I'm saying be conscious that used in conjunction with each other, they have an exponential effect on the length of the module. Authors should ask themselves if the insubstanitial swarm soldier solo with self healing that can banish characters to a primordial soup kitchen, save ends, as an at-will minor, is really a good idea.
Tier Selection
As I noted above - more XP means faster leveling on a per module basis, so people tend to play on high tier exclusively in my neck of the woods. However, this isn't always appropriate. Players should be reminded that playing on high tier isn't only more dangerous, but it also results in a mod that simply takes longer to get through than a mod on low tier.
Role Play
Like it or not, roleplay takes time. There isn't any getting around this. I would make the point that for a lot of players, a 5 hour session with good roleplay is far more satisfying than a 2 1/2 hour session that is speed-played. Judges and players alike need to gauge what is more fun for the group at any given time.
Table Size A table with four PC's scales very differently than a table of 6 or even in extreme cases 7. You have more downtime between each PC's turn as other PC's act, you have more monster resources as the DM scales up the encounter, you have a greater chance of bottlenecking as all of these additional PC's and monsters take up squares on the terrain, and you have a greater chance of game changing effects going off that require sudden shifts in planning that take time.
- Monsters go on the same initiative, which effectively (thanks to delaying and such) allows the players to go in any order they wish... and I generally just go clockwise around the table, skipping (then coming back to) any player that isn't immediately ready. PC initiative is still used to determine who gets a turn before the monsters on the first round.
That's a really nasty thing to do to Rogues - they usually get free sneak attack on someone based on them going after the Rogue does - the more monsters rolling init, the more likely that is to happen.
That sounds like it's going to lead some really one-sided combats.
Since I'm averaging the monster initiatives when I combine them, there is actually less chance of a lop-sided result now.
It doesn't quite reduce the chance of a lop-sided combat. It reduces the chance of a lopsided initiative, but that is not quite the same thing.
Simply having all the monsters go at once can make an encounter significantly more deadly. For instance, one of the PC deaths I observed was a fellow player. His tempest fighter rode into the room on round 1 and got hit by a couple bad guys for relatively low damage. Then the rest of the party moved. Since he wasn't very injured (not bloodied, I think he was down by a little less than one healing surge), we didn't heal him. Then, at the bottom of the round, an owlbear came out of hiding, smacked him twice on its standard action, grabbed him, then spent its action point to do automatic bite damage, dropping him. The fighter's turn came up and he made a death save. Then all of the remaining soldiers coup de graced the fighter. He survived two, but the third coup de grace dropped him below negative bloodied. Then the rest of our team got to go.
Now, I don't think much of the "all coup de grace, all the time" philosophy adopted by that judge, but it is a good illustration of something that only could happen because all the monsters were effectively going at once with no PCs in between them. If any of our PCs had been able to act in between any of the monsters (the owlbear and the soldiers, or any of the three soldiers), the fighter would not have died because we would have healed him (with a potion, power, or something). Usually, the results are not so extreme as they were under "all coup de grace, all the time" rules, but the principle is the same. When all of the monsters go at once, PCs are more likely to drop than they would be otherwise. It is true the other way too--monsters are more likely to drop without acting than they would be otherwise as well. The combination of these two factors means that combats will be more swingy with those rules: more likely to be easy and more likley to be difficult.
So, while it reduces the chance of a lopsided initiative to have all the monsters go at once on their average init, it will, at least sometimes, increase the chance of a lopsided combat. In combats that are not unusually sensitive to initiative, I suspect the net effect will usually be to increase rather than decrease the odds of a lopsided combat.
I don't think the 4e game mechanics force paragon or epic adventures to run longer
*sputter*
Heh... with more HP, status effects, options, chained abilities, etc. it's been pretty darn hard not to run longer strictly due to mechanics.
I'm thinking that you haven't played a lot of paragon tier games. One of the things I have noticed running a game from level 1 to currently level 17 is that, in terms of rounds, combats are actually over quicker in paragon tier. Certainly, the rounds tend to run longer, but when it takes half as many to finish the encounter, it balances out.
The character sheet generated by the CB (which is effectively the campaign-standard character sheet) is ill-suited for managing the number of options a paragon character has. It's not even particularly well-suited for managing a heroic character. If a player doesn't have a good handle on what their PC can do, they end up flipping aimlessly through their cards trying to figure out what their next move is and whether they've forgotten the perfect power for dealing with the situation.
Truth be told, even before power cards this was a problem with players. With power cards it seems to be exacerbated, but what it really points to is a lack of planning on the player.
It is all about the player. Different classes/builds are easier with or without power cards, but it really is about the player being prepared. I like using power cards for most of my PCs. I don't take longer for it. I make my own power cards using Magic Set Editor and each card is very easy for me to read quickly and contains only what I need to read. Most of my powers can be grouped by type based on how they are used (healing, offense, defense, reactions, movement, etc.). For any particular PC I know where in my deck to find what I want. It doesn't take me long at all... for those PCs I know well. (Don't ask my home campaign how long it took me to take a turn the first two games I played an 8th-level bear shaman... sorry, guys!).
Then, at the bottom of the round, an owlbear came out of hiding, smacked him twice on its standard action, grabbed him, then spent its action point to do automatic bite damage, dropping him.
I love that mod and the creature! That owlbear critted three times in two rounds for me. The player still mentions it from time to time (he judges too, so it is just a matter of time before he gets me back).
Back on the main topic, I am seeing some leveling off of the time increase. P2 and P1 are both fitting into 4 to 4.5 hours for me. Now, there is always table variation. When tables miss a lot it can especially prolong a combat. But, I tend to also see a very fast fight where the PCs win init and just roll well and/or are strong for the combat and mop up a fight quickly. I'm not that concerned (certainly not enough to merit anything like the thread's subject).
Simply having all the monsters go at once can make an encounter significantly more deadly. For instance, one of the PC deaths I observed was a fellow player. His tempest fighter rode into the room on round 1 and got hit by a couple bad guys for relatively low damage. Then the rest of the party moved. Since he wasn't very injured (not bloodied, I think he was down by a little less than one healing surge), we didn't heal him. Then, at the bottom of the round, an owlbear came out of hiding, smacked him twice on its standard action, grabbed him, then spent its action point to do automatic bite damage, dropping him. The fighter's turn came up and he made a death save. Then all of the remaining soldiers coup de graced the fighter. He survived two, but the third coup de grace dropped him below negative bloodied. Then the rest of our team got to go.
Now, I don't think much of the "all coup de grace, all the time" philosophy adopted by that judge, but it is a good illustration of something that only could happen because all the monsters were effectively going at once with no PCs in between them.
I am going to start a new thread on coup de grace using this as an example. How much coup de grace is expected or tolerated? The repeated coup de grace attempts, or perhaps even the first coup de grace attempt, would be seen as unacceptable behavior by the GM.
Not to over-analyze, but this might explain some of the differences in EB's play experience in paragon and the play experience of others. To me, it sounds like EB plays with one or more killer GMs. A GM acting as a referee can make a hard module fun even if the party is not successful. A killer GM, on the other hand, will treat the hard module like a blunt instrument and bludgeon the players with it as much as possible. For me, that's no fun at all.
As mentioned in the previous thread regarding GM tactics, I think that plays a far larger part than whether one is a "killer" GM, with none of the stigma of actively trying to screw players over.
I like using power cards for most of my PCs. I don't take longer for it. I make my own power cards using Magic Set Editor and each card is very easy for me to read quickly and contains only what I need to read. Most of my powers can be grouped by type based on how they are used (healing, offense, defense, reactions, movement, etc.). For any particular PC I know where in my deck to find what I want. It doesn't take me long at all... for those PCs I know well.
My statement on the power cards is more to with the fact that PCs have many more things they can do in 4e then previous editions. Previous editions, you just had an attack bonus. Sure in 3e you had other options (trip, grapple, sunder, disarm, bull rush, etc.) but honestly, I hardly ever saw anyone use anythign beyond Full Round Attack and Charge. Except for spellcasters, and sometimes they dragged combats down digging through their prepped spells to see which one they wanted to cast. Now, essentially, everyone is a spellcaster with the roster of powers they can use and you have a decent amount by the time you hit Paragon.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e?
1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
