Working in the Game Mine

Ratskinner · Jul 10, 2012

Well, um.... so I read the article, then read the responses here...

Re-read the article to find the things that people were freaking out about...and didn't find them....

AFAICT, this article says basically nothing of any import. The designers are aware that different DMs approach monster placement/encounter design differently, depending on their GNS stylistic preferences.....and they want to account for that in D&DN.

Whoopity-do. :yawn:

I'm glad they are at least thinking about it, but its not like this article laid out exactly how they are planning to satisfy all parties. It hinted at an idea that I kinda like, but I want to use before deciding absolutely. That idea being that the MM separate the mechanics and story a bit in presentation. So this bit is what defines and Ogre, but then you combine it with this bit to make a brute/controller/soldier/whatever. Kinda like a monster's species\race is its class and its 4e role is a theme-like thing that you can bolt on to tweak it. However, that was only hinted at...could be an unwarranted inference on my part. I'm not sure if I like it because that could mean a lot of extra work (or not, who can really say.)

Crazy Jerome · Jul 10, 2012

Balesir said:
Secondly, the roles for character classes are very useful for giving players a "bluffers' guide" style idea of what a class can be useful for, in combat. Given that it has value in this sense - it tells us something about what the designer had in mind when building the class mechanics - I would much rather see it included than not. Hiding stuff because it's "dangerous knowledge" that "you don't need to know" pretty much always strikes me as a dumb and frequently suspicious thing to do.

Not only that, "security by obscurity" never works--especially not in the internet age. That is, everyone is going to figure this stuff out sooner or later--probably sooner. So either the design depends on people not knowing this stuff or it doesn't. If it doesn't depend on the obscurity, then the question is not if to present it, but where. (There might be, for example, a good case made for including some of in guidelines, advice, design notes, etc. rather than in a particular listing.) So at that point it becomes a presentation issue, not a design one. OTOH, if the claim is that the design does depend on the obscurity, then that it is an implicit claim that the game is designed to degrade over time. Not a good thing.

The original Asheron's Call MMORPG had a magic balance design based on this idea that there were a lot of different spells, rarely available to a single character, and each one had to be "researched" separately, which was expensive in game (each attempt) and required some thought into the patterns of the various spells. There was literally no spell listing in the manual, and you only had a handful of starting spells to get you started. On top of all that, there were several mistakes in the spell component database that threw people for a loop. Finally, the more a spell was cast in a short time, the less effective it became for everyone, encouraging people to spread out.

I started playing two or three weeks after launch. I deliberately avoided information on the spells in order to have the fun of working out a lot of it myself. Within a couple of months after launch, they had dropped the "multiple casting lowers effectiveness" bit, and when I got bored trying to work around the inconsistencies, I found several sites that had worked out the whole thing--before the Beta had been two weeks old.

They had to redo the entire spell economy within two or three months of launch, because every limit they had built in was bogus. I like some of the maker's games, but they've long had a fair reputation as a group that is more strong on graphics and story than gameplay. They've got some huge blindspots on design that are not unlike some of the things we see advocated for table top.

GMforPowergamers · Jul 10, 2012

Steely_Dan said:
I have however never needed nor want that to build juicy encounters.

But would having it hurt you in anyway if someone else wants said info?

Libramarian · Jul 10, 2012

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

Yes.

erleni said:
I disagree. I'm a 4e master and often throw LVL+6 encounters at my PCs (a completely unbalanced encounter), but I know exactly every time what I'm throwing at them BEFORE starting the encounter. This helps me in keeping the pace of the adventure where I want it to be.

This is still tight encounter balance, because you know what's going to happen. You're thinking ahead of the encounter. I think 5e should explicitly discourage DMs from taking too much control over the pace of the adventure. I find it to be more satisfying when the players have the space to influence the pace of the adventure themselves.

Balesir · Jul 10, 2012

Libramarian said:
This is still tight encounter balance, because you know what's going to happen. You're thinking ahead of the encounter. I think 5e should explicitly discourage DMs from taking too much control over the pace of the adventure. I find it to be more satisfying when the players have the space to influence the pace of the adventure themselves.

I'm not sure I see what you're advocating, here. Are you suggesting thst the GM should deliberately act in ignorance, or more that you prefer sandbox-style setups where there are a range of "difficulty areas" around and the players can pick and choose which to tackle?

Libramarian · Jul 10, 2012

Balesir said:
I'm not sure I see what you're advocating, here. Are you suggesting thst the GM should deliberately act in ignorance, or more that you prefer sandbox-style setups where there are a range of "difficulty areas" around and the players can pick and choose which to tackle?

Both. I think the DM should be relatively ignorant about the difficulty of each encounter, as well as what order the players will choose to take on the encounters. I don't expect the DM to deliberately act in ignorance -- that's what I'm saying: the game should force, or at least encourage them to be ignorant, so that they don't have to refuse knowledge themselves. Presenting greater knowledge and control over the game experience alongside less knowledge and control over the game, as equal options, doesn't work. That's not a fair choice.

ForeverSlayer · Jul 10, 2012

I don't want roles in the Monster Manual.

I'm competent enough to decide what I want my monsters to do. If the designers want to add this as an option then go right ahead but I don't want the MM based around that. The 4th edition MM turned me off like a light switch.

Fifth Element · Jul 10, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
I don't want roles in the Monster Manual.

I'm competent enough to decide what I want my monsters to do.

New players be darned.

I want things in 5E for new players, even though they will be of no use to me. They're the only player group that has no voice in this, since they're not currently players.

Mark CMG · Jul 11, 2012

Mearls said:
In other words, a monster has a role when it's time for us to talk about that monster as a mechanical element in the game.

Naw. Combat roles are pigeonholes. I prefer creatures to be more well-rounded whenever possible and not to be shunted into a category nor to have some species divided up into several versions, each shunted into one so-called combat role or another. This gets back to what Mike Mearls was saying in the late 3.5 era about creatures being boiled down to just what they can do in a single combat encounter. It's flat, overly predictable for players, and encourages the kind of two-dimensional thinking that RPGs inherently should be trying to rise above. No thanks.

Fifth Element · Jul 11, 2012

Mark CMG said:
Naw. Combat roles are pigeonholes.

Naw, combat roles help make sure the monster is interesting in combat. You don't end up with useless monsters in a fight because their attributes and attacks or what have you interact poorly.