This weekend I finished an adventure I was designing for my upcoming Dark Sun campaign. Aside from my usual difficulties with generating compelling adventure hooks, I struggled with dungeon design and encounter building. Last night, after a full 12 hour day of writing, re-writing and a 6-pack of beer, I completed the basics. This is not the first time I’ve struggled with 4E encounter building. As such, I decided that I was going to discuss my problems with the 4E encounter building process. To my surprise, The Chatty DM has already discussed this and quoted Robert Schwalb’s blog in the process. Truly the stars must be in alignment today. Perhaps The Chatty DM and Mr. Schwalb have stumbled upon a higher order concerning the aesthetics of DMing? I think so.
So, what is the problem? As others have pointed out, it is the carbon copy template of encounter building that is the problem. The template looks something like this: You have an 8 x 8 room with a warband that is going to fight another warband, the PCs. This suggests (in fact encourages) a “fight-loot-fight-rest” structure to an adventure. The PCs enter the dungeon and move from one room to the next, killing, expending resources, resting and then move on to the next room. I describe this as the World of Warcraft design. Now, to be fair this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. For the new player who is familiar with World of Warcraft, it is an easy transition to D&D. And, subsequently, Wizards of the Coast’s income stream increases so we old-timers can continue playing with new content.
But the problem with the World of Warcraft designing philosophy is that it is so damned hard to write an adventure the way I used to write adventures back in the day. Role-playing gets downplayed, or as Mr. Schwalb as suggested “occurs between encounters”. Compounding this issue is that I am forced to make many alterations to the creatures I am using to make sure that all of the creatures in the encounter fit my adventure theme. Otherwise, if I pick any creature to fill out the missing “warband role”, the encounter seems like a hodgepodge of creatures generated by a random die roll. That’s no fun for the role-player because it makes no sense.
I have always designed my adventures and dungeons using the Gary Gygax dungeon ecology model. This model focuses on the ecology of the dungeon and how the different creature factions within the dungeon balance the power between themselves. This opens the door to a whole host of role-playing options within the dungeon for the players to choose. This approach facilitates story generation and advancement of the campaign. The Chatty DM does a wonderful job using the pre-existing 4E rules structure to compliment the ecological approach that The Chatty DM is calling “Neo-Gygaxian.” (I love this label, by the way.)
The Neo-Gygaxian model, to sum it up, is basically dividing the dungeon into a number of sections with a number of rooms. You then pool the experience points for each room/encounter in a section and divide that total in any way you wish. If the section of the dungeon is part of a quest, leave some of the pool left over for quest rewards. You then do it again for the next section. You should read these blogs yourself. They are fantastic guides to dungeon creation.
So…after hours and hours of trying to make a dungeon/adventure for my future gaming group, I ended up doing something very similar described by Mr. Schwalb and The Chatty DM. I am happy with the outcome. I can’t reveal any specifics because my players read this blog, but future adventures and dungeons should be easier (and quicker) to build with this Neo-Gygaxian model.
A friend of mine (who has a penchant for rogue-ish campaigns) lamented that the 4E rogue skill list doesn’t allow you to make rogue characters that have specialties within the “career” of a rogue. The main problem, as he saw it, is that when a rogue trains in Thievery, he has a +5 bonus to every subset of skills that fall under the “thievery” category. Ergo, in a thief campaign, everyone can do everything. I can’t help but agree.
However, before I inadvertantly indict 4E (yet again) for an issue with mechanics, I think it wise to reflect on why skills operate the way they operate in 4E. Skills are purposefully broad so as to allow a player great latitude in determining their character’s next course of action in a given situation. Its simplicity actually facilitates role-playing and allows the players to participate in the story-telling. The writers at Dungeon-Master.com have been doing some great work with exploring the concept of the skill challenge and other ways of looking at a character’s skill set.
With that said, if an enterprising DM desires to write a campaign with a specific campaign theme, such as a “Thief’s Campaign”, these generalized skill categories aren’t going to help engender the atmosphere and flavor of such a theme. Considering that I have an idea to run a Forgotten Realms Harper’s Campaign (limiting PCs to Bards, Rogues and Rangers) sometime in the future, I thought it would be a good idea to come up with an alternative system.
What I did first was to break down each of the 4E skills into their sub-skills. If a 4E character class had the option to train in the category of skill, they could elect to train in the sub-skill. For example, Thievery encompasses Disable Trap, Open Lock, Pick Pocket, and Sleight of Hand. Therefore, a rogue character can opt to train in any of those sub-skills. He could not opt to train in any of the sub-skills that are encompassed by the Arcana skill (Detect magic, Monster Knowledge, Arcane Knowledge). Some of these skill categories do not have clearly defined sub-skills. These skills, such as diplomacy and intimidate, I have left as is. These categories are indeed broad and cannot be narrowed down to a manageable number of sub-skills.
Next, I totaled the number of skill bonuses available to a character class when they train in a standard campaign. This is, essentially, five times the number of skills available for training. Therefore, a rogue has an initial 30 points worth of bonuses, i.e. the rogue trains in a total of 6 skill-categories. The player then adds the modifier of the character class’ primary attribute. So, a 1st level rogue with a dexterity score of 18 would have a total of 34 points.
The player then selects the number of skill-categories to train in according to the character class description. For a rogue, that means they must train in Stealth and Thievery, plus any four. After that, the player then distributes the bonus points to any of sub-skills located in the skill-categories selected to a maximum bonus of five. After doing this, the player then adds all attribute modifiers associated with the sub-skill’s category, along with any racial or feat bonuses.
For example, if I wanted to make a halfling rogue that is a smart-alecky and nimble pick-pocket, I would pick the following skills to train: Stealth, Thievery, Acrobatics, Bluff, Streetwise and Perception. A 1st level halfling rogue with the following attributes could have a skill spread such as this:
Attributes (using the standard array found in the player’s handbook): Str: 10 (+0) Dex: 18 (+4) Con: 13 (+1) Int: 11 (+0) Wis: 12 (+1) Cha: 16 (+3)
Acrobatic stunt: +1 (skill bonus)+4(Dex bonus)+2(halfling bonus) = +7 (total); Balance: +1 (skill bonus)+4(Dex bonus)+2(halfling bonus) = +7 (total); Escape Grab: +2(skill bonus)+4(Dex bonus)+2(halfling bonus) =+8 (total); Escape Restraints: +2(skill bonus)+4(Dex bonus)+2(halfling bonus) = +8(total); Reduce falling: +1(skill bonus)+4(Dex bonus)+2(halfling bonus) =+7 (total).
Con-artist: +3 (Skill bonus) +3 (Charisma bonus) = +6 (total); Disguise: +0 (Skill bonus) +3 (Charisma bonus) = +3(total); Forgery: +0(Skill bonus) +3 (Charisma bonus) =+3 (total); Gamble: +1 (Skill bonus) +3 (Charisma bonus) = +4(total); Gain combat advantage: +1(Skill bonus) +3 (Charisma bonus) = +4(total); Create a diversion: +3(Skill bonus) +3 (Charisma bonus) = +6(total).
Listen: +2 (skill bonus) +1 (Wisdom bonus) = +3 (total); Spot/search: +2 (skill bonus) +1 (Wisdom bonus) = +3(total); Tracking: +0 (skill bonus) +1 (Wisdom bonus) =+1(total)
Move Silently/Hide in Shadows: +5 (Skill Bonus) +4 (Dex bonus) =+9 (total)
Word on the street: +3 (Skill Bonus) +3 (Charisma bonus) = +6 (total)
Disable Trap: +0 (Skill bonus) +4(Dex bonus) +2 (halfling bonus) = +6 (total); Open Locks: +0(Skill bonus) +4(Dex bonus) +2 (halfling bonus) = +6(total); Sleight of Hand: +3 (Skill bonus) +4(Dex bonus) +2 (halfling bonus) = +9(total); Pick Pocket: +4 (Skill bonus) +4(Dex bonus) +2 (halfling bonus) = +10(total).
As you can see my halfling rogue’s focus is on escaping grabs, picking pockets, and being a con-artist. He will not be the locksmith of the group.
The pros of this alternative approach are (1) it will allow players playing in a campaign that narrows their choices in character generation to differentiate themselves from the other characters with the same character class and (2) the skill point spread isn’t that far removed from what a standard array would look like. Therefore, this alternative skill selection will not make skill checks that much more difficult to hit the DCs the Dungeon Master will present during in-game challenges.
However, the negatives are (1) there will be things a character trained in a skill-category can’t do well, such as disable traps in the example above; (2) the players may be constrained in using their skills in more creative ways as they have compartmentalized their training in sub-skills; and (3) this will not work as well in a standard adventuring party, i.e. if there is one thief in the group and he can’t open locks, the party is going to be hamstrung when dealing with a trap-based encounter.
I hope this helps to add some flavor to your home-brew alternative campaigns.
DM’s Discretion has always been my favorite rule. It was the source of all power in the multiverse and it was taken from the Dungeon Master in the 3rd Edition, but after many battles with the rules lawyers, 4th Edition has returned control back to the Dungeon Master, albeit in a somewhat reversed, behind the scenes sort of way. When DM’s discretion was exercised prior to 4E, it was exercised to settle in-game disputes. Now, the discretion occurs prior to the game. In effect, the Dungeon Master becomes a rules legislator. A general survey as to how the rules of the game have changed can explain what I mean.
During the good old days of 2nd Edition the simplified rule set was focused primarily on combat. The Dungeon Master’s task was to use what was available to make determinations for player actions not covered by the rules. How many remember this tired old phrase from their Dungeon Master: “Hmm…ok, make a Dex check.” This, of course, could infuriate the rules lawyers in the group who, being the good lawyers that they were (and I am serious about that) would point out the inconsistencies between the call for “dexterity checks” and advocate for a strength check or for some kind of bonus to an ordinary attack roll. And we all remember how those discussions went: the Dungeon Master would have to assert his authority or the rules lawyer would take control of the game.
Now, that is not to say that such use of discretion was a bad thing, but clearly, gamers wanted something more concrete and less arbitrary. They wanted a rule that they can rely upon when thinking about how to kill the ogre charging down the corridor, or unlocking the trapped chest full of goodies. Enter Dungeons and Dragons 3.0 and 3.5.
These games fully democratized the game and turned the Dungeon Master into just another player, or a merely a referee of a game. The d20 system simplified the general formula for determining success and failures with the game (which was genius), and with that, there was no room for the Dungeon Master’s discretion without sounding completely arbitrary. With the multi-class and feat system a player could design his or her character in any way that he or she saw fit. Aside from some general campaign prohibitions, the Dungeon Master was powerless to stop the PCs from doing just about anything. If the Dungeon Master attempted to alter a rule, a competent and well-read rules lawyer could make a very compelling argument as to why the rule should remain the same. Any work a Dungeon Master wanted to put into an adventure or villain had to be supported by a concrete rule to justify the action. Not that this was necessarily a bad thing, but it does create a lot of work for the Dungeon Master. I once spent 8 hours researching the Dungeon Master’s Guide, The Player’s Handbook, both Forgotten Realms books and the Book of Vile Darkness to create a red wizard of Thay that could, in the very first round of combat, cast a twin-quickened-maximized fireball (free action) followed by a maximized meteor swarm (Standard action). Another villain I made could kill a PC instantly with a critical hit if the PC failed a fortitude saving throw vs. 38. He had a critical range of 15+ and with his chaotic evil vicious two-handed sword he could inflict 10d6 + 25 damage on a critical hit against my lawful good player characters (and there were a lot of them in the party). Both villains were totally legit. Unfortunately, I never saw these villains in action…but I was ready for any complaints!
Of course, the 3rd Edition of the game brought a whole host of rules. Some players, Dungeon Masters included, found this to be too unwieldy and the game became more about rules and less about story-telling, a valid criticism to be sure.
Fourth Edition of course has provided a streamlined version of the game. (I am not exactly sure if you can say it is all THAT streamlined…) But, the game has certainly changed: it has simplified combat (sort of) and simplified the role that skills play in the game (sort of). This is, of course, from the player’s perspective (read: “Rules Lawyer’s perspective”), makes it easy for rule adjudication, character design and developing combat strategies. From the Dungeon Master’s perspective, the Dungeon Master has been given chapter after chapter of rules that are really just “the rules about the rules”. These “rules about the rules” provide the Dungeon Master with limitless possibilities to mold and shape anything and everything in the game. From skill challenges to monsters, the Dungeon Master can do just about anything and it is entirely legit. The Dungeon Master, when countered by a rules lawyer hell-bent on challenging something (usually anything) the Dungeon Master has in mind, can point to chapter 10 of the 4th Edition Dungeon Master’s Guide and explain why the goblin that just killed the PC is a 6th level ranger with fire powers.
This is what I like most about 4th Edition. The rules provided in the Dungeon Master’s Guide are the nuts and bolts to the very game itself. The rules provided in the DMGs are at the heart of the gaming reality to be molded by the Dungeon Master. Dungeon Master’s Guide One and Two are truly tomes of magic and wisdom that equip the Dungeon Master with the necessary tools to legislate effectively and, as Gary Gygax once stated, “to give shape and meaning to the cosmos.” The game designers at Wizards have produced a set of rules that places the Dungeon Master back where they belong, at the head of the gaming table.