Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367022I mean, I'd rather talk about how to run an assassination as a skill challenge, personally (or something like that..).

Then why don't you?

As long as it isn't so specific to 4E that the information cannot be used with any other game system, I'd like to read it.

Quote from: LordVreeg;367028Experience/credit towards next level/

You get full experience for successful completion of an encounter no matter how you do it (This same standard was in 3rd edition, for the record). Half experience if you have to run away/fail a skill challenge, but you can come back and try again to get the other half back.

That's a cool encounter table... But I think a better method (yes, it's not that old school) is the method in the DMG- the encounter deck. 4E encounters are usually not homogenous with a single monster type:

So instead of 1d6 Tieflings or whatever, you might roll several times to create a combined encounter. Or make a deck and draw the monster cards at random to build into an XP budget.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;3670574E encounters are usually not homogenous with a single monster type:

I guess this is where I just don't get it. To me, it simply makes no sense to decide something like whether groups of monsters are just one type or a mix of types at the game rules level. This is something where the decision needs to be made at the campaign universe level.

For example, monsters in my Hidden Valley campaign world, generally do not mix much because the leaders of the evil groups in the Hidden Valley strong discourage it for campaign-based reasons. In my Arn universe, the opposite is true. But this isn't something a set of rules gets to decide for my universes. RPG rules exist to help me implement my campaign ideas, not to tell me what my campaign ideas need to be.

Quote from: RandallS;367059I guess this is where I just don't get it. To me, it simply makes no sense to decide something like whether groups of monsters are just one type or a mix of types at the game rules level. This is something where the decision needs to be made at the campaign universe level.

For example, monsters in my Hidden Valley campaign world, generally do not mix much because the leaders of the evil groups in the Hidden Valley strong discourage it for campaign-based reasons. In my Arn universe, the opposite is true. But this isn't something a set of rules gets to decide for my universes. RPG rules exist to help me implement my campaign ideas, not to tell me what my campaign ideas need to be.

Right.  My ogrillite tribes are what they are, and they are almost all mixed, but that mix is dependent on the tribe, not any encounter rules.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366992For what it's worth, I don't see anyone's dislike of any system (D&D4 or anything else) as being a big deal. I generally can't stand games with dice pools or that only use 6-siders, or that involve tick marks for experience on percentile skills.  Personal preference is exactly what it is, and nobody needs to feel like they need an excuse not to like something.

It doesn't mean those are bad systems, but I can't stand to play them (and thus..don't). I also manage somehow to not talk about them.

You might, if they put dice pools into DnD. I have never disputed that DnD is still the biggest and most widely played RPG. Therefore, just from the POV of finding groups to play RPGs with, it has seriously impacted my ability to game period. I'm lucky in that I have other hobbies to occupy my time, but still, finding a group that doesn't play 4e DnD up until now has been considerably more difficult than with past versions.

Quote from: RandallS;367059I guess this is where I just don't get it. To me, it simply makes no sense to decide something like whether groups of monsters are just one type or a mix of types at the game rules level. This is something where the decision needs to be made at the campaign universe level.

For example, monsters in my Hidden Valley campaign world, generally do not mix much because the leaders of the evil groups in the Hidden Valley strong discourage it for campaign-based reasons. In my Arn universe, the opposite is true. But this isn't something a set of rules gets to decide for my universes. RPG rules exist to help me implement my campaign ideas, not to tell me what my campaign ideas need to be.

I suspect there's a misunderstanding here. If I say "a mix of types" in 4e, I'm not saying you have to mix orcs and hobgoblins. I'm saying I'll probably have some big brutish orc warriors and maybe a couple of orc archers and perhaps an orcish shaman.

Or whatever the encounter seems to call for. If it's just brutes, it's just brutes.

Quote from: Thanlis;367085I suspect there's a misunderstanding here. If I say "a mix of types" in 4e, I'm not saying you have to mix orcs and hobgoblins. I'm saying I'll probably have some big brutish orc warriors and maybe a couple of orc archers and perhaps an orcish shaman.

Or whatever the encounter seems to call for. If it's just brutes, it's just brutes.

I'd match orc warrriors with an orc scout and maybe a pet giant boar. I'd match drow assassins with a drow cleric and a pair of spiders.

Diversity makes for interesting encounters!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367057That's a cool encounter table... But I think a better method (yes, it's not that old school) is the method in the DMG- the encounter deck.

... which requires that you roll up the Encounter Template (middle table page 193 in 4E DMG). So I get 'Battlefield Control' which means 1 controller and 5-6 skirmishers. I next draw from my stash of (preconstructed?) cards showing 1 monster per card* and reshuffle cards back into the pile which aren't controllers or skirmishers. Finally, the resulting monster cards that end up on the table need some final adjudication as to whether they make up a coherent monster 'team' from an in-game point of view. E.g., in theory I could end up having eladrin and drow fighting against my PCs alongside each other - either one of these monster types has to go, or I'm pressed to think up a good story why they fight together. The latter is of course a good source of inspiration (I just thought to myself: what if the eladrin here are actually prisoners of the drow, to be led into the world below... just when the PCs encounter them?), but

1. It requires a DM who's good to come up with such story-rationalizations at the brink of the moment. I prefer my method which doesn't, as I rely on the monster groups created in the MMs, most of which don't throw 'incoherent' team-ups at me.
2. It requires building a stash of card where I prefer a random table (like the one I did). You could always build a random table using the individual monsters from MM1 and MM2, but that would be massive work...what with 800+ monsters in both books? Again, I prefer the simplification of randomizing the monster groups, not individual monsters purely for saving me time at prepping and running the game.
3. Finally, the method in the 4E DMG where you draw individual monster cards from a pile of cards randomly stems (as you know) from the 3.5 Miniatures Handbook. As such the method is premised on the 3.x design paradigm that you mostly throw individual monsters at parties, or at the very least only very small monster groups (2-3 monsters). This doesn't fit 4E... at all. I really think the 4E DMG here contains an out-of-sync entry on random encounters, which doesn't take into consideration this paradigm shift. Taking it into consideration while sticking to the 4E DMG method of randomizing encounters otoh sounds like quite some work to me. I prefer it to be as speedy and easy as possible.

*Although creating such a pile of cards yourself is the suggested method in the 4E DMG, this sounds very labour- and cost-intensive to me - esp. if you include monsters from MM2 as well as as MM1, as I'd like to.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;3670574E encounters are usually not homogenous with a single monster type

Exactly. Drow with spiders (or ettercaps) and orcs with a dire bear... I think these are even the example 'monster teams' in the MM1 ...which show up on my random tables. Sometimes you really can't beat the designers to a good idea of a 'cool team-up', and as long as I'm not overusing the same teams again and again I have no problem with relying on someone else's work here.

Quote from: Windjammer;367125... I think these are even the example 'monster teams' in the MM1 ...

Quite a few actually.

My 1e dungeons and wildernesses were filled with monsters and non-humans working together, regularly or opportunistically. My inspiration was Wormy.

Quote from: The Shaman;367126Quite a few actually.

Indeed, they are all over the place (and not to everyone's taste, if I recall the 'how could we improve the MMs?'-thread on Enworld). My point was rather that the examples AM picked were right from the MM.

As an aside, rereading the 'Improvising Encounter' thread I just found this post by Shazbot79 who essentially uses the same method as I - run random encounters off MMs, make use of printed encounter groups. I understand people liking the DDI and customizing+print-out monsters from there. But me I'm the sort of guy who gets a hard-on from these shiny MMs and craves to implement the books for table use and not just prepping stuff.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367057You get full experience for successful completion of an encounter no matter how you do it (This same standard was in 3rd edition, for the record). Half experience if you have to run away/fail a skill challenge, but you can come back and try again to get the other half back.

I'm familiar with the second sentence, as it appears in every LFR module (not the 4E DMG though!!!). But the first sentence I've never seen printed in 4E... I know it says so in the 3.5 DMG, but 4E? Not being disingenious here... to the contrary, I would be grateful if you could give me the page reference. Thanks.

Quote from: Windjammer;367128I'm familiar with the second sentence, as it appears in every LFR module (not the 4E DMG though!!!). But the first sentence I've never seen printed in 4E... I know it says so in the 3.5 DMG, but 4E? Not being disingenious here... to the contrary, I would be grateful if you could give me the page reference. Thanks.

Page 121. Extended quote incoming:

QuoteOvercoming an Encounter: What counts as overcoming an encounter? Killing, routing, or capturing the opponents in a combat encounter certainly counts. Meeting the success conditions of a skill challenge is overcoming it. Remember that an encounter, by definition, has a risk of failure. If that risk isn't present, it's not an encounter, and the characters don't earn XP. If the characters accidentally trigger a trap as they make their way down a hallway, they don't get XP because it wasn't an encounter. If the trap constitutes an encounter or is part of an encounter, though, they do earn XP if they manage to disarm or destroy it.

Say the characters avoid a hydra to get into the treasure vault it guards. Do they get XP for overcoming the challenge of the hydra? No. If the treasure was the object of a quest, they get the reward for completing the quest (see Quest Rewards on page 122), which should include XP as well as treasure. But because they didn't have an encounter with the hydra, they didn't overcome the challenge. (If they sneak past, trick, or defeat the hydra in an encounter, they do earn XP.)

Quote from: Thanlis;367144Page 121. Extended quote incoming:

Thanks, that's really helpful!! See, I was reading the combat chapter in the 4E DMG last night looking for that piece of info and couldn't find it. I mean, there's a freaking SIDEBAR starting at me at page 41, entitled "WHEN IS AN ENCOUNTER OVER?" in friendly capitals. It says,

QuoteAn encounter ends when the monsters are dead or have fled and the characters take a short rest to regain hit points and encounter powers.

This sentence isn't hedged by anything, but I've so scribbled "SEE PAGE 120!" next to it in my own copy. Speaking about your quote from that page... reminds me how goddamn awful the writing in that book is. Pundit once called it 'utterly bipolar', as in, giving advice that's going in two directions at once. Frank Trollman once called this 'multiple author syndrome' (the thing WotC tried to avoid with the 4E DMG by making James Wyatt write it all by himself). Let's look at your quote:

QuoteSay the characters avoid a hydra to get into the treasure vault it guards. Do they get XP for overcoming the challenge of the hydra? No.

What does 'avoid' here mean? It's a real question because the paragraph ends thus:

QuoteIf the treasure was the object of a quest, they get the reward for completing the quest (see Quest Rewards on page 122), which should include XP as well as treasure. But because they didn’t have an encounter with the hydra, they didn’t overcome the challenge. (If they sneak past, trick, or defeat the hydra in an encounter, they do earn XP.)

So 'avoiding' an encounter = 0 XP, but 'sneaking past a monster in an encounter' = full XP?! Someone please parse this for me. I mean, I get the idea that if the DM makes the sneaking-past thing into skill challenge, the players get awards for that codified non-combat encounter. But this is beyond the players' control, so they won't know what to do to sneak past the monster or otherwise avoid it while still getting XP for being smart.

And that's the catch here. Being smart precisely involves the characters avoiding personal risk. Say the players were smart enough to scout ahead. My players love to do this using their animal companions (my wizard player says 'I send the raven overhead' mimicking the body language of a guy handling his remote controls for a toy plane) or the aforementioned scrying rituals. All of which are all about avoiding personal risk to their (characters') own lifes. By that reasoning, the 4E DMG would withhold XP awards for their behaviour: 1., they are avoiding an encounter (even a non-combat one!), and 2. they are avoiding personal risk. So this:

QuoteRemember that an encounter, by definition, has a risk of failure. If that risk isn’t present, it’s not an encounter

means the 4E DMG wouldn't give them XP.

In conclusion: I'm glad the 4E DMG says that avoiding combats ought to by awarded by giving out full XP, but I think the rationale and the writing could be vastly improved on the side of clarity - I hope the 'Essentials' line does this.

Quote from: Windjammer;367156In conclusion: I'm glad the 4E DMG says that avoiding combats ought to by awarded by giving out full XP, but I think the rationale and the writing could be vastly improved on the side of clarity - I hope the 'Essentials' line does this.

I go back and forth. The more clarity you stick in, the more you're getting away from the principle of DM discretion. On the other hand, I think there's room for improved presentation, to say the least. I noticed the same thing about the hydra example. I think what I would have done is to just add a sentence to the effect of "what's the difference between avoid and sneak past? DM's judgement!"

Quote from: Thanlis;367157I go back and forth. The more clarity you stick in, the more you're getting away from the principle of DM discretion. On the other hand, I think there's room for improved presentation, to say the least. I noticed the same thing about the hydra example. I think what I would have done is to just add a sentence to the effect of "what's the difference between avoid and sneak past? DM's judgement!"

If you ask me, it's not lacking in clarity by being too short. If anything, the whole text on when to award XP outside fights is too long. 1E DMG could do it in one paragraph because it simply said: "If PCs parley or flee successfully from a fight, award XP thus and so." 4E DMG complicates this by foisting the non-encounter/encounter dichotomy on the question (avoid an encounter = 0 XP, avoid a monster inside a non-combat encounter prepared by the DM = full XP). It's typical of 4E's design goal to force a lot of stuff that was previously happening outside encounters inside the encounter fold - skill challenges would be a good instance of this. Personally, I prefer the issue of whether something is an encounter or not to be a lot more free-form, transitioning in and out of 'it's an encounter' whenever suits, and not worrying about impacts on XP awards etc. It's how Mearls runs skill challenges - in 'stealth mode'. He doesn't even announce to the players they are in a skill challenge, and simply awards them XP later on. So basically, if the players are smart to avoid the hydra in the manner I detail above,

either (a) run a 'skill challenge' in stealth mode by tracking successes and failures on skill checks behind the screen. Grant automatic successes for good ideas and clever use of rituals and animal companions.

or (b) don't run a skill challenge at all. As I say, don't worry whether the players are in a non-combat encounter or not... they cleverly by-passed the monster, so award them XP!

PS. Wish this stuff (from Dungeon Mastering for Dummies, 4E version, Wiley Publishing) had been published in the 4E DMG:

Quote from: ThanlisI go back and forth. The more clarity you stick in, the more you're getting away from the principle of DM discretion.

But I would draw a line between something intentionally left vague so as to allow a variety of interpretations and something just poorly written and even more poorly edited.

Quote from: WindjammerI think the rationale and the writing could be vastly improved on the side of clarity - I hope the 'Essentials' line does this.

A vast improvement in clarity would be if they named that line the 'Essential Shit You Thought You Already Paid For', 'The Essential Supplementary Shit Needed To Keep This Edition Afloat Until the Next One', or 'The Essential Shit for Stupid Babies that Gotta Have It All Broken Down For Them'.