Working in the Game Mine

Kannik · Jul 9, 2012

delericho said:
Do. Both.

Yes, please, do both. And please explain why both are in there. Avoid the false dichotomy that says one must/will overpower or be more important than the other. Write (or hire to have written) nice introductory paragraphs that explain how story and game statistics/terms/mechanics inform each other, and how each can be used together to craft a game that suits the DM and the players. Just as knowing my fighter has 40 Hit Points doesn't mean I would be likely to willingly jump off a building with her because "hey, it's just 1d10 damage!", a DM knowing X is an appropriate challenge is not limiting for for how they can or cannot craft a story.

Once the idea is set that both are in there and serve each other, keep the info consistently complete and let it continue to inform all sides of the playing experience.

peace,

Kannik

Crazy Jerome · Jul 9, 2012

I've got a different take. Appeasement never works. That's just feeding someone else to the crocodile hoping that it eats you last. The more extensive the MM entries get, the more ticked off someone will be.

How about instead, make the main entries rather short but cover the basics of all the ground that needs covering? Have a picture. Have the main stats. Have some typical motivations/goals. Have a few lines or stat information related to ecology. Point to some basic tactics/capabilities. You can write out most of this in text where it makes sense. This might end up a lot like the 1E MM.

Then have separate sections elaborating on all of the above. So don't give me two paragraphs of ecology/society on goblins, the same on hobgoblins, the same on bugbears, etc. and stop. Start there, and then have a more indepth "article" on "goblinoid ecology and society" which compares and contrasts goblins, hobgoblins, etc. The same thing applies to the more technical abilities, roles, etc. Have a section on "controllers" and another on "lurkers". Then also have separate sections on "sneakers"--which is a lot like lurkers in some ways, but coming at it from a different angle.

That way, you won't have the problem that delericho mentioned. When you introduce another goblinoid monster later, you can simply include the stuff that makes that creature stand out from the other goblins, and reference the same article. When you want to write an "alternate goblin ecology and society" article for Dragon or some campaign setting or merely for the heck of it, it ties in with the monster manuels as written--just replace the old article with the new one, if you like it better.

Oh, and index the blasted thing six ways to Sunday.

You can't move stuff out to a ghetto and satisfy the crocodile. It is offended that the moved stuff even exists.

Alnag · Jul 9, 2012

I fail to understand why people who prefers an information on monster role has to search for it in some table or something. Does the people who prefer the "story" feel insulted by this information present in the monster stats? And why? Please explain it to me. I do not understand.

GMforPowergamers · Jul 9, 2012

Alnag said:
I fail to understand why people who prefers an information on monster role has to search for it in some table or something. Does the people who prefer the "story" feel insulted by this information present in the monster stats? And why? Please explain it to me. I do not understand.

I would love to know the difference (if everything else was equal) between

Oger-ogers are large size and have the giant sub type
Oger (large, giant)
Oger (larger, giant) lv 7 Brute*
Oger lv 7 Elite Brute (Large, giant)

Where the star explains he is worth more xp then most 7th level Becuse he is slightly more powerful

Blackwarder · 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, I'm concerned about players saying, "oh, don't mind that guy he is only a minion".

I don't want the first thing to define a monster be its role.

Warder

KidSnide · Jul 9, 2012

I think WotC can finesse this issue by changing the presentation.

Instead of a large "Level 3 Controller" label at the top of the monster, just place that information in an appropriate location in the stat block. Level information (to the extent it is necessary or meaningful) can go with the xp.

For role information, just put it at the beginning of a "Preferred Tactics" line. Why is the term "artillery" useful?* It's so (1) new DMs realize that the monster is an archer that should try fighting from behind allies/cover and (2) more experienced DMs can search for artillery monsters to build an encounter (with or without reskinning). It's really a description of the monster's preferred tactics, and it can fulfill its gamist encounter-building purpose while contributing to the in-game fiction at the same time.

-KS

(*) Of course, there's a good argument that the term "artillery" should be taken out back, shot and replaced with something more genre-appropriate. There's nothing wrong with "soldiers", "brutes" or "skirmishers", but "artillery" sounds decidedly post-medieval and "controller" sounds like its out of a supers game.

Libramarian · Jul 9, 2012

I basically disagree that rigorous encounter balancing procedures are a tool that the DM is free to use or not use.

If you provide them, then the culture of the game will gravitate towards its use, because part of the job of the DM is to ensure that everyone has a good time, so they're going to take control over as much of the experience as you enable them to. They're not going to abdicate control unless it's explicitly discouraged.

Randomness is a recessive trait. If you present it alongside options for greater control, then it will be squeezed out.

The culture of this game is going to be basically the same as 4e. DMs will only ignore the encounter balancing guidelines, or balance them to areas of the world instead of the PCs, if someone on the internet convinces them to try it -- and then they'll have to explain this to the players and get their buy-in before proceeding. Tight encounter balance will be the assumption.

TerraDave · Jul 9, 2012

The article seemed pretty obvious--DMs want both monster crunch and monster fluff, and want them to make sense together--to the point were it reminded me of the less informative L&L columns of the not so recent past.

The ability of posters here to still find something to argue about, and as far as I can tell it is about whether or not one word should included in a stat block, is...impressive.

n00bdragon · Jul 9, 2012

I love the article's implication that you either build encounters to be challenging OR tell a story.

Way to insult a lot of players there. Really A+ job there.

FireLance · Jul 9, 2012

Libramarian said:
I basically disagree that rigorous encounter balancing procedures are a tool that the DM is free to use or not use.

If you provide them, then the culture of the game will gravitate towards its use, because part of the job of the DM is to ensure that everyone has a good time, so they're going to take control over as much of the experience as you enable them to. They're not going to abdicate control unless it's explicitly discouraged.

Randomness is a recessive trait. If you present it alongside options for greater control, then it will be squeezed out.

The culture of this game is going to be basically the same as 4e. DMs will only ignore the encounter balancing guidelines, or balance them to areas of the world instead of the PCs, if someone on the internet convinces them to try it -- and then they'll have to explain this to the players and get their buy-in before proceeding. Tight encounter balance will be the assumption.

I fail to see why this is a problem. Presumably, that makes me, and gamers who share my opinion, part of the problem.