Am curious if folks find that D&D Encounters in 4e are too Static- ie. little or no interaction between encounter elements in a dungeon? So you have one encounter, wait, rest, continue to the next in a very MMO style of dungeon delving.
I wrote some ideas down in my blog trying to make my encounters more dynamic and the dungeon crawls less like a flowchart... but I'm curious if most players and DMs even mind about having static encounters?
Would welcome any and all feedback.
Am curious if folks find that D&D Encounters in 4e are too Static- ie. little or no interaction between encounter elements in a dungeon? So you have one encounter, wait, rest, continue to the next in a very MMO style of dungeon delving.
That sort of encounter is not a function of the 4E system. If that's happening, it is because of DM style, not the game. You could have that sort of encounter in any edition.
Check out Keep on the Shadowfell. I think that module had some stuff about encounter that develop overtime. The one that pops to mind is the part where if a group of kobolds is not taken down fast enough, a second group comes. If you beat them down fast enough, you get an advantage over the other group.
4E gives you the ability to make more dynamic and fun encounters than any previous edition ever has (and I've played them all). So, as said above that has to be the dm, maybe he should try throwing in puzzles in the dungeons, interesting non-combat encounters, and skill challenges both in and out of combat. All of these things will make your dungeon crawls/encounters much mroe flavorful.
The DMG's actually touch on these ideas and can be a great guideline to spark ideas.
First of all, from a realistic point of view...a 5 minute rest after a fierce combat is pretty crucial. I used to take martial arts for a time and even just a few minutes of intense fighting is enough to drain you pretty good. From this point of view, taking that 5 minute rest after combat feels real and necessary.
If you're talking about the party getting into combat then running off to take an extended rest, your DM isn't putting enough realism in the game or enough pressure on the group. The whole world doesn't stop turning while the PCs chill for 6 hours. Guards do rounds, creatures wander, spies skulk and report, search parties are formed when creatures don't come back, alarms are raised...etc etc.
I think the "Drawing Characters Onward" section of the DMG2, pg 54 would help a lot here. It gives you some basic ideas and guidelines to pulling the PCs out of their protective shell and into a more active state.
Am curious if folks find that D&D Encounters in 4e are too Static- ie. little or no interaction between encounter elements in a dungeon? So you have one encounter, wait, rest, continue to the next in a very MMO style of dungeon delving.
I wrote some ideas down in my blog trying to make my encounters more dynamic and the dungeon crawls less like a flowchart... but I'm curious if most players and DMs even mind about having static encounters?
Would welcome any and all feedback.
I do actually think this is an issue, but your use of words dynamic and static has put a few posters off the scent.
The issue (correct me if I'm wrong) is that bundling encounters together, or in a constant unending stream, used to work in previous versions because characters could access all their resources for the day. So technically they could take on a days' worth of encounter in one extended combat, provided the number disadvantages could be kept in check.
I remember playing in a group in G1 "Against the Giants" where we made a mistake and had the entire population of the dungeon descend upon as as we defended a small corner of the map. We won . . . and we were not in any way over-powered for the scenario, we just had enough oomph (and luck) to win with a days' resourses. Anyway, enough reminiscing . . .
The introduction of Healing Surges and Encounter Powers in 4E has radically altered that, and I think for the better. The trick is in making the new dynamic work for you. It doesn't have to feel like a computer game.
I find it helps to make minimal fuss about short rest mechanics. They just happen when they happen, it's a book-keeping term. If there's no time pressure, and the group take 15 minutes to access their healing powers, likewise, just tick 15 mins off the clock, no need to even describe it.
I generally allow the short rest and "search/explore location" to overlap in terms of game play - i.e. I will be describing everything in the area, the group will be talking about their next options etc. I don't rule it as they all sit down and do nothing. I expect the players to be able to do their book-keeping and negotiating who heals who whilst I continue to narrate and discuss details with them.
Also, it's quite easy to run encounters together when either you or the players want them to. Some players might want to continue use of a Daily power to carry the advantage forward, or there might be time pressure. Or you might have purposefully split a big encounter into two phases, where its either necessary or there's an advantage to push forward. Just keep in mind the balance factor - don't push the PCs through more than they should be able to handle. Two level+4 encounters with no rest in-between is a high probability of TPK.
Am curious if folks find that D&D Encounters in 4e are too Static- ie. little or no interaction between encounter elements in a dungeon? So you have one encounter, wait, rest, continue to the next.
I think the necesity of the short rest to re-charge hps & encounter powers tends to encourage that sort of design. With a little extra work, it can be avoided, though. If you, as a DM, want to consider the possibility that an encounter could attract the attention of other enemies, for instance, you'd want to consider the 'worst case' as an encounter in it's own right. If it turns out to be level+5 or more, you might want to re-think it, either bringing the component, potentially sepparate encounters down, or taking one of them off the list of what might potentially be drawn to the first. A good guideline might enough level-1 encounters to add up to a level+4. If the PCs blow through them, they'll have a series of easy fights, but be pretty 'tired' by the end. If they rest after the first one, they'll have one very tough fight on thier hands. If you take it a step further, and, and have the balance of related enounters come down on the PCs /wile/ they're resting, then it's a single encounter, with the enemies just entering at different times.
Another aproach is to have the order encounters are taken on matter. One encounter might provide information or loot helpful in another one, while taking on a different one first might result in the next being forewarned and more challenging. Such a setup could be designed to reward 'clever' play. For instance, if the PCs undertake a frontal assault on a small fortress, they might breach the initial defenses, only to find inner defenses closed and ready against them; conversely, if they undertake and pass a skill challenge, they might get in through a postern or secret passage, and have a chance to take out those gaurds before an alarm is raised, thus gaining a chance to surprise the inner defenders.
You could also have dynamic encounters that don't interact with eachother, directly, but change through time. A dragon might be encountered lounging on it's horde, if the party dispatches the first two or three encounters quickly, skipping a short rest after the easiest one; be found awake and alert if the first three encounters are handled normally, and be out burning a village if the party opts for a long rest before taking it on.
Am curious if folks find that D&D Encounters in 4e are too Static- ie. little or no interaction between encounter elements in a dungeon? So you have one encounter, wait, rest, continue to the next in a very MMO style of dungeon delving.
I wrote some ideas down in my blog trying to make my encounters more dynamic and the dungeon crawls less like a flowchart... but I'm curious if most players and DMs even mind about having static encounters?
Would welcome any and all feedback.
I do actually think this is an issue, but your use of words dynamic and static has put a few posters off the scent.The issue (correct me if I'm wrong) is that bundling encounters together, or in a constant unending stream, used to work in previous versions because characters could access all their resources for the day. So technically they could take on a days' worth of encounter in one extended combat, provided the number disadvantages could be kept in check.
That's exactly what I was referring to - I haven't run alot of modules in 4e, as I've been writing my own campaigns for something like 3 decades now - but when I started playing 4e, I ran the Loudwater "Barrow of the Ogre King" out of FR Campaign book.
And every encounter was compartmentalized, with no mention in tactics that the goblins would run for help or if other groups can hear and come running.
I don't think there is anything wrong with that style - but I am running a game for very seasoned players who have played from at least 2nd edition on - and when the adventure was over, the first question out of anyone's mouth was about why didn't the goblins work like a team?
And the 5 minutes feels artificial - like you get nothing back at all for 4 mintes 59 seconds, then bam - you're good to go? Oh what a difference 1 second makes! lol
So that was my purpose of my blog - seeing how others felt about this kinda thing. And I appreciate everyone's feedback so far! 
And the 5 minutes feels artificial - like you get nothing back at all for 4 minutes 59 seconds, then bam - you're good to go? Oh what a difference 1 second makes! lol
Really? A little petty don't you think? The time is an abstraction, if its that much of a problem then change it. It could be anywhere from 30 seconds to an hour, whatever floats your boat. And as far as goblin tactics go, I suppose that sucks that they didn't include them. My only question is if you've been playing for 3 decades, why would it be so hard to give them some tactics yourself?
And the 5 minutes feels artificial - like you get nothing back at all for 4 mintes 59 seconds, then bam - you're good to go? Oh what a difference 1 second makes! lol
So, yeah, it says in the book that I have to rest for 8 hours to get all my spells back, right? It just feels so artificial - like you get nothing back at all for 7 hours, 59 minutes, 59 seconds, then bam - you're good to go? Oh what a difference 1 second makes! lol!
And the 5 minutes feels artificial - like you get nothing back at all for 4 minutes 59 seconds, then bam - you're good to go? Oh what a difference 1 second makes! lol
Really? A little petty don't you think? The time is an abstraction, if its that much of a problem then change it. It could be anywhere from 30 seconds to an hour, whatever floats your boat. And as far as goblin tactics go, I suppose that sucks that they didn't include them. My only question is if you've been playing for 3 decades, why would it be so hard to give them some tactics yourself?
I'm not exactly sure how you mean petty - but the whole point of my blog and this post, if you would take a moment to read it, was to open a dialogue regarding how combats flow together in 4e differently than they did in previous versions.
Certainly, I could have given the goblins different tactics, and my instincts were to do so, from all my previous experience with the game. The fact that it was not written that way, and the way the encounter system and healing system appear to tend to favor seperate, compartmentalized combats, was the reason I was looking at creating House Rules, and sharing my ideas in this particular thread.
I'm not exactly sure how you mean petty -
I believe he means you are nit-picking and being a little to literal. Any time constraints in the game are generally abstractions. You need approximately 5 minutes for a short rest, approximately 6 hours for an extended rest, etc. This is the same as the old 8 hours for a spellbook spell thing (which is really more odd isn't it?).
I've been running a dungeon (technically a fortress) lately that I think fulfills your definition of dynamic:
There are 6 areas to the fortress, plus the areas between in which the party travels:
Armory: Lots of equipment and weaponry. Take the armory first, and the enemy has less in the way of special equipment like alchemist's fire, etc.
Command Center: Organizational point, lots of leaders. Take it first, and the enemy has a harder time locating you when you move between locations (i.e. fewer wandering monsters)
Steam Golem Depot: Repair shop for the steam golems which are this army's heavy troops. Take it first, and some never come online.
Watchtowers (x3): Sniper posts. Take one down, and there are fewer snipers aiming at you when you move through the fortress.
Mage Tower: Houses arcanists and gunmages. Take it within 30 minutes, and the reinforcements that are elsewhere on deployment never get brought back through the magic circle.
Redoubt: Houses the leader and a heavy steam golem, plus some other troops and a smaller backup armory. Take it, and the remaining troops have a "morale" penalty. Also, you need to hold the Redoubt before you can try to convince the remaining troops to surrender.
Now, the party infiltrated the fortress by enlisting (with the exception of the wizard, who didn't have the dice luck that all four other members did), and proceeded to investigate and plan. The ranger managed to find some papers in an office that detailed a group of soldiers that had been grumbling about mutiny, and they managed to recruit them. When it came down to starting the fight, these troops took the armory while the party handled the steam golems, and then used the gunpowder in the armory to blow up all three watchtowers.
So, is that what you mean by dynamic, with everything that they do affecting what they have to do next?
I'm not exactly sure how you mean petty -
I believe he means you are nit-picking and being a little to literal. Any time constraints in the game are generally abstractions. You need approximately 5 minutes for a short rest, approximately 6 hours for an extended rest, etc. This is the same as the old 8 hours for a spellbook spell thing (which is really more odd isn't it?).
I understand what you mean about abstract time, but the rules are quite specific about being interrupted during the 5 minute and 6 hour breaks - ie. you have to start them over. Literally it say "about 5 minutes" but you can't say that 1 minute is the same as "about 5 minutes" - and you may only have 1 minute until the next wave of enemies arrive once the alarm has been sounded.
The old 8 hours for refreshing your spellbook was a rule which DMs have made up House Rules for since their inception - my own house rule was that you needed 8 hours of rest, and an interruption meant you had to extend your rest time 1 hour total - ie. You rest for 5 hours out of 8 and you are interrupted - when you finish killing that wandering monster, you have to rest for 4 more hours (3 +1=4) before you can refresh your spells. I'm sure other DMs had similar or even more radical rules.
But that's what this forum is about - looking at game issues and discussing House Rules, and name calling (ie. petty and nitpicking) aren't really constructive ways to add to a discussion.
I understand what you mean about abstract time, but the rules are quite specific about being interrupted during the 5 minute and 6 hour breaks - ie. you have to start them over. Literally it say "about 5 minutes" but you can't say that 1 minute is the same as "about 5 minutes" - and you may only have 1 minute until the next wave of enemies arrive once the alarm has been sounded.
I guess I don't understand what your issue is then, can you clarify?.
But that's what this forum is about - looking at game issues and discussing House Rules, and name calling (ie. petty and nitpicking) aren't really constructive ways to add to a discussion.
I didn't intend to offend, I was tring to clarify the other posters comment (since you asked what was petty). Which is something that shouldn't be done in general - sorry about that and sorry that it did come off as name calling. That is not what I intended.
The 'about 5 minutes' thing is fine, it serves two purposes. It gives an aproximate time, for reference or for 'feel,' you know a short rest is short, but not compared to a combat round. Mechanically, it gives you a point of reference for how long a short rest takes relative to other non-combat activities, like rituals. A typical ritual takes 10 minutes, or two short rests, for instance.
As a DM, you decide if the party has time for a short rest or not, you don't need to calculate exactly how many seconds it takes for something to happen to see if the magical 4:59 threshold is passed - you just decide whether they have time or not, if the answer is 'no,' it's because you arbitrarily decided to deny them a short rest, not because the rules arbitrarily set a short rest at 5 minutes.