Working in the Game Mine

Frostmarrow · Jul 9, 2012

I've had this idea on what a monster is worth for years but the (will to use) technology hasn't been up to speed.

Every monster is assigned stats and abilities. These are set into stone. Each monster is also assigned an XP-value which represents how dangerous it is. Now, the XP-value is listed online and D&D players can vote to increase or decrease that number.
This will balance the XP with the actual danger level of the monster regardless of if the attacks sounds more effective than they actually are.
Some people will try to trick the system but in the end truth will win. It's a matter of how it's set up and the actual obscurity of D&D monster's XP-value. The designers' default XP-estimate will also be available.
When a monsters XP-value is off it will create an outcry at sites such as this and gamers will rush to set the record straight. As new tactics are developed fans will adjust the XP to accomodate for these advances.

Minigiant · Jul 9, 2012

This article and thread highlights the 3 DM approaches to encounter building.

The first type of DM is concerned with what happened BEFORE the encounter. This is the more narrative+simulationist view. The DM puts in the encounter what the nonplayer characters would have independent of the player characters. The rich Duke has many minions because he is rich and can afford them. The orcs have axes and bows as they are primitive and lack standing forges. The noble has Heraldic lore because he has to know coats of arms to deal with other nobility. The subject of balance is less of a matter as the encounter has what is organically sensible instead of worry what will happen when the PC show up.

The second type of DM thinks about what happens DURING the encounter. Throw is the more narrative+gamist approach. They worry about how much damage the enemies deal compared to the health and healing of the PCs. This DMs are more likely to add allies to the foes to cover weaknesses or extend the encounter. The duke gets a mage henchman or magical helm to dispel any attempt to use Charm Person on him. He also gets an ogre to suck up the damage an still live if the heroes have an Area of Effect blasting wizard. This is where Role info and spell list is needed as balance is a concern.

The last DM type is more concerned on what happens AFTER encounters. It is more gamist+narrative as it is more railroady if done a lot. If the DM want the first 3 encounters to be cakewalk, he'll only use 3-5 orcs in the first few areas of the dungeon. If he wants the heroes to consider running back to town for help after the first battle, then there are 20 orcs at the door. If he wants the noble to be hard to defeat but have a glaring weakness, then he'll add more orc bodyguard but have the orcs keep goblin captive that might turn on them. Here encounter information is important as the DM like to know what is more likely to happen.

Fifth Element · Jul 9, 2012

Blackwarder said:
Interesting, as long as they keep the role/level off the top of the creature description I'm happy, I don't want the first thing in a creature description to be its roll, I find that in game terms it's arbitrary and immersion breaking.

Wait, you're concerned about breaking the DM's immersion? Isn't that already broken by the fact that he knows absolutely everything there is to know about the monster?

Nebulous · Jul 9, 2012

LightPhoenix said:
The obvious question being asked is this: what is the main focus of a monster's entry in the MM? Is it their individual mechanics (ie, stat-block)? Is it their broad mechanics (ie role)? Is it their literary description (ie, lore)? Or should all three hold equal weight? A more subtle question is: what is the purpose of the MM? Is it a collection of literary nuggets? Is it a collection of purely mechanical stats? Is it a method by which to build encounters and adventures?

For my part, I feel the answer is that the MM has to be all three in roughly equal balance. To that end, a monster's stat-block has to include mechanics, lore, and "meta-mechanics." Does the latter need to be as overt (and frankly, rigid) as 4E? No. However, I think having a "Role" entry in the stat-block is appropriate in aiding how a monster can be incorporated into an encounter, in the same manner as having lore or stats is appropriate. The entry should contain everything needed to run the monster, and that includes its mechanical interactions on a broader scale.

Agreed. All three are important, and as DMs have different tastes (and encounter design techniques) the monster entry should cater to those various styles. So, in the end, FUN to read and also crunchy tidbits of mechanical data.

dd.stevenson · Jul 9, 2012

Fifth Element said:
Wait, you're concerned about breaking the DM's immersion? Isn't that already broken by the fact that he knows absolutely everything there is to know about the monster?

No. Shouldn't be. Why would a DM's immersion be broken by knowing all about the monster s/he's role playing? Is a player's immersion broken by knowing all about the PC?

I hope this question doesn't sound snarky--I honestly don't understand your point of view here.

Fifth Element · Jul 9, 2012

dd.stevenson said:
No. Shouldn't be. Why would a DM's immersion be broken by knowing all about the monster s/he's role playing? Is a player's immersion broken by knowing all about the PC?

I hope this question doesn't sound snarky--I honestly don't understand your point of view here.

I don't really get it either. How is a DM knowing a monster's role any different than a player knowing his character's class? If the first breaks immersion than surely the second does as well.

dd.stevenson · Jul 9, 2012

Fifth Element said:
I don't really get it either. How is a DM knowing a monster's role any different than a player knowing his character's class? If the first breaks immersion than surely the second does as well.

Ah--context. I imagine I know his answer, but I'll butt out and let him speak for himself.

Harlock · Jul 9, 2012

Uh-oh. Mr. Mearls used the C-word. For those players who felt pigeon-holed by descriptors like Defender, Controller, Striker, etc. this is going to raise a few eyebrows concerning D&D Next.

DEFCON 1 · Jul 9, 2012

If they really wanted to be jerky but make a lot more money off of it... they'd print the "story-based" monster design info in the hardcover books, and the "technical" monster design in the DDI Monster Builder. That way, the Monster Manuals can be read like storybooks and mined for ideas (like so many people have said they always enjoyed about the older manuals), while the Monster Builder info can be printed in convenient statblocks for easy encounter building (and where story info isn't necessary).

What better way to get many DMs to purchase/subscribe to both?

Truename · Jul 9, 2012

This is a tough one. I think it gets at the heart of the 3e/4e divide. One of the main criticisms of 4e seems to be that it uses a lot of immersion-breaking jargon, including roles. This could be a false objection, but I think it's a criticism that the D&D.next team is trying hard to address. I remember Mearls saying early on that he wanted to eliminate jargon entirely.

On the other hand, one of the things that makes 4e work is its narrowly-defined jargon. It's a big part of what makes fights so easy to build--I don't have to read a lot of text; I just use Power2ool to search the Compendium for the keywords I want, reskin, and away I go.

My concern is that this is a shibboleth for both groups--that 4e haters will reject any use of roles in monster stat blocks as being "gamist," [which, in fairness, it is*] and that 4e lovers will reject putting roles in an appendix as clunky and marginalizing their desires [which, in fairness, it is].

Bottom line: I think designing a game that meets the needs of 3e and 4e is possible. Presenting that game in a way that overcomes the deep-seated prejudices of an argumentative and cantankerous community? Bloody hard.

*Depending on how you define "gamist." I'm not going there!