The New Design Philosophy?

Mark CMG · Jul 24, 2006

The logic of this new philosophy is lost on me. Since some creatures, like the ogre mage, were essentially gutted by the revision of certain spells during the switch to 3.x and as they are now ineffectual because their CR is too high for them to be combat threats, the plan is to individually revise each creature based on what can transpire during a five or six round combat? I would have thought it better to address the perpetually enigmatic CR system. Or to bulk up the abilities that are used in and out of combat to keep the creature special and not turn it into a large fighting creature with class levels. I like the idea of leveling spells so that they do more than simply increase in range/duration/etc. when cast by more powerful casters. If I wanted to just throw an enlarged Fighter/Sorcerer toe-to-toe with an adventuring group can't I already do that using an enlarged Fighter/Sorcerer (and wouldn't it be a better challenge anyway)?

Well, I've voiced my protests a number of times on what seems to be the new design philosophy. I've gamed since 1974 and moved along with each new edition of the game, always seeing each one as a step forward in the game of D&D (OD&D, AD&D, AD&D 2E, D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5). I've played in plenty of other systems on the side, to keep abreast of what options for RPGing existed but always felt D&D was the best fit for me. I'm seeing some things this time that have me seriously concerned with the direction of the game.

Shade · Jul 24, 2006

I'm with ya, Mark. I feel that the new direction the game is taking is to make it simple and speedy, but IMO, at the expense of flavor, history, and fun.

I like my monsters complex, not one-trick ponies. I like my monster books filled with monsters, not monsters with classes, sample encounters, and sample treasures. I like to be given the tools, not the Tools for Dummies guide to using them. (Note, I'm not implying that anyone is a "dummy" for liking this material...it just reminds me of the guides with that name).

Perhaps I'm in the minority now, and I'm simply a relic of past editions like many of the monsters that are being retconned now. WotC has better market research at their disposal than I do, so maybe I should just accept it and move on. But dammit, I love this game, and want to keep enjoying it, so I'll keep voicing my protests as well. I may be "old school" in some regards, but I still spend enough money on this hobby to be considered.

Rodrigo Istalindir · Jul 24, 2006

I don't understand the belief that the CR system can be or should be anything other than approximate guideline to help inexperienced DMs judge the difficulty of generic encounters. This forcing of CRs into discrete electron-like conformity is misguided and doomed to disappointment.

And I also find disagreeable the philisophy of making a couple rounds of combat the sole arbiter of a critters utlity.

If 'DMs confused by too many special abilities' is the problem they are trying to fix, they already had a good approach in the 3.5MM. Sketch out general encounter strategies for the less straightforward beasts, and add some RP notes for those abilities that are more subtle/less combat oriented.

Rules are for players. Stuff that falls outside the rules for players should always be in the DMs toolkit. It prevents metagaming and complacency. Saying 'just add class levels' is not a useful solution in many cases.

BlueBlackRed · Jul 24, 2006

I like the CR/EL system, but it should only be used as a guideline for your game.

However I do not like changing the core of a game to try to lure console-gamers to the table. I'm sure it works, but the more they do it, the more it costs them their older gamers.

Rewriting monsters to align with the 20%-resources rule is not something I appreciate.

And don't get me started on the MM IV...

Scribble · Jul 24, 2006

Hrmm..
You mentioned spells being changed which nerf the original OM. Spells, aren't a OM specific feature, however, so you can't really expect the spell to be redesigned for the sake of the monster. That just wouldn't be practical. So unfortunately, with the rework of the spells, the poor OM's abilities didn't function properly in the way they used to. So now he's a bad monster... But it's Dungeons and Dragons not Dungeons and Ogre Mages... Eggs and Omlets man. (and other such cliches...)

I'm personally not upset about the design choices. I think the OM redux was a good monster. Maybe it took out some of the flair of the original, but it wasn't a bad monster. Maybe it will inspire some flair and fluff of its own somewhere down the line.

I think it's a good thing they streamline the monsters. That way, if I just need a monster to fight the party for some reason they're there quick and easy. I don't know about you, but with a job, family, girlfriend, and other intrests I don't have hours and hours worth of D&D time. So easy monsters with sample treasures and lairs are really usefull. I can spend more time modifying whats there as opposed to making everything up from scratch...

If I want to then turn one into a mastermind, I can always add abilities as I see fit.

Which I think is a big part of 3.x design philosophy. Give you monsters that are usable right out of the box, and customizable if you want...

The OM seems like it was built for a specific purpose. Which means unless you were running a game that had mysterious Ogre intrigue, it was kind of pointless.

But that's only my opinion...

ThirdWizard · Jul 24, 2006

XP should be based on how hard something is to kill in combat, IMO.

XP for dealing with his political machinations should be ad hoced by the DM as roleplay XP.

So a political mastermind Ogre Mage should be the same CR as a 4 round combat Ogre Mage.

The question isn't one of CRs, the question is what do you want the purpose of the Ogre Mage to be?

pogre · Jul 24, 2006

I think the design philosophy reflects a broader general demand for the game. You can poo-poo the thing as just trying to get video gamers, but that's akin to saying they are just trying to appeal to highschoolers, and well, yeah - they are. And should.

The designers should be relativewly unconcerned with the needs of a sophisticated DM - we're all different and we can adjust. They need to be most concerned with two groups - folks getting into the game and having fun right away and those with limited time who want maximum fun in the time they have. Consideration for hardcores like us has to be secondary at best.

The number one complaint from folks about 3E is it is too complicated. The entry level to the game is just too high.

The task then for D&D designers is two-fold:

1. Simplify.
2. Greater ease of use.

Complications are easy - simplifications are where the true geniuses of design shine.

To bring it full circle - the CR table should reflect the basic D&D encounter - a fight with monsters. Let the sophisticated DM who uses his monsters in a myriad of interesting ways also figure out the appropriate XP award.

Knight Otu · Jul 24, 2006

Mark CMG said:
The logic of this new philosophy is lost on me. Since some creatures, like the ogre mage, were essentially gutted by the revision of certain spells during the switch to 3.x and as they are now ineffectual because their CR is too high for them to be combat threats, the plan is to individually revise each creature based on what can transpire during a five or six round combat?

Sure. Wizards is going to dedicate many resources to provide us something that won't bring a single penny and that, at the current pace, will take one or two years to be completed. I can see that.

Of course monsters will get their CR assigned on how well they hold up in a fight. Anything else would be, sorry, foolish. You don't assign a CR to a trap based on how hard it is to fast-talk it. You don't assign a CR to a skill-based obstacle based on how often you need to whack it with a sword. But that doesn't mean you can't try to reason with an intelligent trap, or gut that annoying valet blocking your path. And it definitely doesn't mean that monsters cannot manipulate others.

You are proposing to change a subsystem that is far more tied to aspects of the game than a single monster. If you somehow change the CR system, officially, the ripples are far larger than changing a single monster (may I insert the infamous phrase blast radius here?). The core assumption of 3rd Edition, for better or worse, has always been that heroes fight villains, physically. That's not something new. The articles build on that assumption. If you are aware of that core assumption, it is easy to deviate from it.

One of the criticisms of the new ogre mage is that, to paraphrase, it has been dumbed down. Constrasting, one of the criticisms of the new rust monster was, it, has been made harder to use. Apparently, there are two ways in which the game is going, then? I don't think so. Monsters with odd abilities, with social competence, and with many abilities, have always been part of the game, and will continue to be. But there is also a place for monsters with straightforward abilities, perhaps even a bigger one. Not all DMs are experienced rat bastards capable of weaving plots and encounters from their fingertips. That takes experience. Monsters that gradually become more complex provide nice learning opportunities for those fledgling DMs.

Rodrigo Istalindir · Jul 24, 2006

Genericizing (? - I work in IT, I'm allowed to make up words :lol:

) monsters and saying 'If you want an ogre to cast spells, give it X levels of sorceror' makes things harder and more time-consuming DM than creating a niche creature with a paragraph of suggested combat strategies.

Mark CMG · Jul 24, 2006

The CR System (not just the table) isn't as simple as some in this thread are making it out to be. The reason some have a problem with the CR of certain creatures is because the CR System suggests adding to the base CR of a creature for various features, whether or not those features are meant to be for direct combat. The new design philosophy seems to suggest that the features be stripped rather than the CR System have a mechanism for adjusting to creatures having features that aren't meant for direct combat.

Simplifying something doesn't require removing all of the bells and whistles that don't directly inform combat capability. The game can be made more simple to use and to play without removing all of its complexity. *That's* where true geniuses of design shine, IMO.