Am I the only one who doesn't like the arbitrary "boss monster" tag?

[Tony Vargas]

Boss monsters, in 4E, have a special mechanic (extra actions) which is a rather unique mechanic. In particular, that mechanic does not follow from the regular rules. I can see having a problem with boss monsters using the unique mechanic as a game design problem, while not having a problem with the idea that some opponents can be called bosses simply because they are exceptionally hard to fight.

Solos and Elites get extra actions from Action Points, which are part of the regular rules (all PCs also get and use action points). But, that was from early 4e on, and Solos didn't work so well in early 4e. Now they get action-preservation abilities, as well, which has helped.

4e combat was balanced enough that the 'action economy' became very meaningful, and 2 Action points just didn't stack up to the 5:1 action-economy disadvantage Solos faced.

 

[Hussar]

Most solos though now act multiple times throughout the round, do they not? Quite often a solo will act on its own initiative roll and then, maybe, always on 10 count and 5 count. Things like that. That's not an unusual feature for solos. Although, at a quick glance, it's also not specific to solos, since many solos don't have it.

For example, Tembo's from Dark Sun gain the following:

Double Actions

At the start of combat, the tembo makes two initiative checks. The tembo takes a turn on both initiative counts.

But, apparently, this is a feature of that creature, not solos in general.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Most solos though now act multiple times throughout the round, do they not? Quite often a solo will act on its own initiative roll and then, maybe, always on 10 count and 5 count. Things like that.

More often they simply have single-action multi-attacks, or a non-action power or trait (rather than an actual action) that happens out of turn. But, that's not a feature of solos, like the 2 Action points are. Rather, it's the anything-goes wonder that is exception-based design.

Double Actions

At the start of combat, the tembo makes two initiative checks. The tembo takes a turn on both initiative counts.

But, apparently, this is a feature of that creature, not solos in general.

Nod. Ettins get that, too, and they're 'only' Elites.

 

[Magil]

More often they simply have single-action multi-attacks, or a non-action power or trait (rather than an actual action) that happens out of turn. But, that's not a feature of solos, like the 2 Action points are. Rather, it's the anything-goes wonder that is exception-based design.

There is not a single, unifying, "they get more actions" mechanic to solos. Instead, it's more of a design philosophy. It seems most prevalent in the Monster Vault and its sequel, where the dragons get instinctive actions, the hydra has Snapping Jaws, and the beholder has Random Eye Ray. So they often get multiattacks AND extra actions on top of action preservation.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The only RPG I'm aware of that tries to put NPCs, monsters and PCs all on the same build mechanics is 3E D&D (maybe points-buy systems, looked at in a certain way, also fit this description - but almost certainly the points totals and other constraints on points expenditure will be different). I therefore simply don't think it's true that most players and GMs expect this in an RPG.

Champions builds PCs and NPCs in exactly the same way, at least up until 4th edition (the last one with which I'm familiar). In 4th ed both superhero PCs and normal supervillains are built on 250 points. Though it's true that other NPCs such as ordinary humans, agents and 'boss' villains are built on different point totals. Champions has no distinct 'boss' mechanics, it leaves everything up to the GM, which can make it a hard system to run.

I played in a oneoff session of 4th edition Champions about a year ago, and afterwards the GM was talking about how much of his prep time he'd spent detailing supervillain abilities and attributes that never came up in play.

This idea, of building everyone more or less the same way, is, I think, pretty common in point buy systems, as you say. I'd be surprised if GURPS doesn't do things this way. It's the case with Tri-Stat (the system behind the Anime rpg Big Eyes, Small Mouth). Mutants & Masterminds 2nd edition, another point buy system, carefully builds and costs all its example supervillains, though they are mostly built on more points than the typical PC.

Contrast with this section from Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition -

Consider this Game Master's Rule #1 when it comes to NPCs: Don't "design" them!

Don't create your NPCs with the character creation rules. Just give them what you think they ought to have in their various skills and attributes and move on. Remember this game is supposed to be easy for you to set up, run, and play. Don't sit around adding up skill points for NPCs when you could be designing fiendish traps and thinking up nasty special abilities for your monsters!​

My Champions GM should really have read this! It seems to me that Savage Worlds is reacting to the d20 or point buy sort of games that predominated in the 90s and noughties, taking the same approach as 4e D&D.

One could argue that 3e D&D doesn't go quite as far in PC/NPC 'same-iness' as the more explicit point buy systems, as it has NPC classes and distinct monster build rules, though it's true an important feature of 3e is that PC classes, NPC classes and monsters can all be combined in one entity, and any monster can be used as a PC using the Level Adjustment mechanic.

 

[pemerton]

That pretty much sums it up; I don't disagree with much of that. The difference, I assume, is that you want the rules to reflect the metagame assumptions that you play with, whereas as I don't want the rules to address those assumptions at all.

The rules will always address metagame assumptions. I want them to address the right ones for me, or (at least) not to address the wrong ones.

A simple example is timing rules. Rules that make me track time in detail (eg spell durations of 1 min/level or 10 min/lvl) get in the way of tight scene framing. They're not neutral, and I don't want them.

But some are less neutral than others.

In my experience this claim is typically made in favour of simulationist priorities, and to be honest I don't see any difference here. Certainly the rules for monster and NPC building that you are putting forward as neutral in this thread are not remotely neutral.

I think your assumption on this topic applies mostly to fantasy rpgs; other systems might not assume 'heroes' in the first place.

My notion was "protagonist", not hero. And it is the default assumption for almost all RPGs that I'm familiar with, both traditional and indie. (I know there are some conch-passing outliers in the indie scene, though I'm not familiar with the actual details of those games.)

The character is advancing in "mythic levels

<snip>

Mythic levels don't add hit dice, but add various other benefits that increase a character's power without increasing their base attack/saves/etc.

<snip>

It means that a mythic level is meaningful in the existing context that we understand character building. I know what adding a level does. I have no idea what adding a boss descriptor does.

If there were such a thing as a "boss descriptor" in a game, presumably you could learn what (if any) mechanical difference it made. As you describe them, "mythic levels" seem to me to be nothing but a mechanical device for rationing out build elements. It doesn't strike me as any particular breakthrough in design.

I think it is a striking feature of 4e that it seems to have been the first mainstream action-economy driven RPG to notice this issue for "boss" monsters and tackle it in a systematic way (though [MENTION=21169]Doug McCrae[/MENTION] has posted an example from the superhero genre dating back to 1985!). Burning Wheel discusses the issue in its Adventure Burner (which cites 4e as an influence in its bibliography). And now PF is responding too!

The point is not that 4e doesn't have monster roles, the point is that the mythic concept accomplishes the same goal (make extra powerful monsters without simply giving them more hit dice) in a better way.

Better how? What is better about tacking on "mythic levels" compared to saying "This monster is pretty quick: it can use a tail slap as an immediate reaction against anyone who tries to flank it"? I don't even know what "mythic levels" are meant to represent - what is mythic about having 1HD?, which seems feasible as you describe it - whereas I know exactly what is going on when a quick monster uses its tail to slap away enemies trying to surround it.

The OP asserted (and I agree with) the notion that the boss label in and of itself does not mean anything in the game world.

Sure doesn't sound that way based on the rest of this thread; I don't have a 4e MM handy.

This isn't meant to be rude, but I don't think you have a very good grasp of the range of 4e monsters or the build rules that govern them. There is no "boss label" in 4e that makes a difference to the monster's build. There are monster builds, and some of them are labelled "elite" or "solo" because they have a suite of abilities (as well as hit points to match) that makes them well suited to that role.

Most solos though now act multiple times throughout the round, do they not? Quite often a solo will act on its own initiative roll and then, maybe, always on 10 count and 5 count. Things like that. That's not an unusual feature for solos. Although, at a quick glance, it's also not specific to solos, since many solos don't have it.

<snio>

But, apparently, this is a feature of that creature, not solos in general.

There are a wide range of mechanical abilities to support elites and solos in the action economy. Some elites do double strikes (like a PC ranger). Some have immediate actions (like a PC fighter). Some use AoEs (like many PCs).

Some solos do AoEs (eg dragons) or double-claw attacks (dragons again) or multiple heads (hydras) or multiple eyes (beholders). Some have changed in design a lot between the MM and MV (eg dragons, even moreso purple worms). Others have changed not at all, except to bring their damage up to date (eg beholder eye tyrants - an illusion of change is created by reformatting the MM aura as a triggered action, but the mechanical details are identical).

There is certainly nothing like a "boss label" that just gets slapped on a monster to change things about it. Even the issue of action points is a bit more complex than [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] describes upthread. Vecna gets 4 APs, for example, not 2, and gets to spend and earn them in special ways outside the normal action point mechanics. I borrowed a version of this for statting up a powerful wizard and Vecna worshipper as a 13th level solo:

[section] [/section]

And for the curious, I didn't narrate his hit points as meat. I narrated them as magical defences and skill with his staff.

I narrated his minor actions and action points as magical prowess which dwarfed that of any individual PC.

Also, for the utlra-curious, the PCs used their ring of wishing (one wish) to wish that everyone in the banquet hall where they were fighting him be immune from blindness for the next 10 minutes (or so - maybe next hour?). Without that, they probably wouldn't have won the fight.

 

[pemerton]

Champions builds PCs and NPCs in exactly the same way, at least up until 4th edition (the last one with which I'm familiar). In 4th ed both superhero PCs and normal supervillains are built on 250 points. Though it's true that other NPCs such as ordinary humans, agents and 'boss' villains are built on different point totals. Champions has no distinct 'boss' mechanics, it leaves everything up to the GM, which can make it a hard system to run.

<snip>

This idea, of building everyone more or less the same way, is, I think, pretty common in point buy systems, as you say.

<snip>

One could argue that 3e D&D doesn't go quite as far in PC/NPC 'same-iness' as the more explicit point buy systems, as it has NPC classes and distinct monster build rules, though it's true an important feature of 3e is that PC classes, NPC classes and monsters can all be combined in one entity, and any monster can be used as a PC using the Level Adjustment mechanic.

Thanks - for me, points buy games (other than Rolemaster, which is not points buy in the same way that HERO, GURPS etc are) are known by theory only!

Part of what I meant by my "looked at in a certain way" is that, in a points-buy game, I think it can be ambiguous whether points are some sort of ingame resource ("genesis points"?) or a metagame resource. Whereas D&D tries to make its build resources (race, class, level) have some degree of ingame meaning, and 3E then extends this to the monsters as well - so treants have taken "levels" in the "plant" class!

This is really weird, for me at least. The closest thing I can think of to it is the Animal Encounter generation table in Traveller, which creates animals as part of the world creation system. It is trying to elide the distinction between build and resolution mechanics. My assumption is that, in most points buy games, this ellision is not attempted - but maybe I'm wrong!

(Traveller does it for NPCs as well, via its Lifepath rules. Burning Wheel does it for NPCs, too - a potential weakness, I think, in an otherwise strong game, but part of the rationale from the designers is that the use of the Lifepaths in this way is crucial for defining the settting. But Burning Wheel doesn't extend the approach to animals and monsters, which are built to fit both fictional and metagame requirements, not according to any "creature genesis as action resolution" methodology.)

 

[Doug McCrae]

The behir from Monster Manual 2 also gets multiple actions - it gets three standard actions a round, on initiative counts 30, 20 and 10. The ability is callled Lightning Reflexes.

It does seem to me that, because each solo in 4e has a different way of getting multiple actions, that there's no problem for a simulationist here. The extra actions have their own separate justifications in the fiction.

I think the major problem with 4e's monsters for a simulationist is that their stats derive explicitly from how the monster is intended to be used as part of an encounter - its role, level, and 'status' (minion/normal/elite/boss). For example, a rakshasa noble has an armor class of 33 because it's a level 19 controller and not for any game-world reason. It's possible to create such reasons (illusionary armor?) but it would be obvious to the game participants that those are secondary.

For a simulationist, or at least one type of simulationist, I think the game world has to be primary. The game world is what a roleplaying game is about.

 

[pemerton]

I think the major problem with 4e's monsters for a simulationist is that their stats derive explicitly from how the monster is intended to be used as part of an encounter - its role, level, and 'status' (minion/normal/elite/boss). For example, a rakshasa noble has an armor class of 33 because it's a level 19 controller and not for any game-world reason. It's possible to create such reasons (illusionary armor?) but it would be obvious to the game participants that those are secondary.

For a simulationist, or at least one type of simulationist, I think the game world has to be primary. The game world is what a roleplaying game is about.

This is all true, but I don't see how 3E ACs satisfy that simulationist constraint, because "natural armour" is whatever the designers need it to be to make the maths work out!

Some monsters have natural armour in the 20s and 30s? What the hell does that mean in the fiction, given that the best possible magical full plate gives +13 (+8 armour, +5 enhancement)?

This is why I finid a lot of the "simulationist" gnashing of teeth at 4e a bit hard to understand. They are happy with hit points - which measure what ingame quality? (I know - starship-style force shields, on your theory of them!) They are happy with the action economy and turn-by-turn initiative - which measure what ingame quantities? They would be happy with martial powers powered by "fatigue" points, even though the expenditure of such points would bear no connection to actually being fatigued (eg even at 0 "fatigue" points a PC could still run and jump and fight in a non-flashy way).

D&D strikes me as so obviously non-(process-)simulatonist in its mechanics, and so metagame heavy, that I find this line of objection to 4e hard to fathom. The only rationale I can see is that, for some player, there is a difference between essentially passive metagame manoeuvres - hit points, reactive saving throws, the action economy, etc - and active ones, which require actually making choices about what metagame-constrained thing my PC will do.

But then 3E has features that elide this distinction too, such as immediate and swift actions.

So colour me confused.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Part of what I meant by my "looked at in a certain way" is that, in a points-buy game, I think it can be ambiguous whether points are some sort of ingame resource ("genesis points"?) or a metagame resource.

That's an interesting question, which I hadn't considered.

In 4th ed Champions, there is one boss villain, Mechanon, included in the sample characters section, built on a lot more points than the others. In addition to the points he gets from disadvantages, he has a 'villain bonus' of 442 points, which is explained thusly -

Mechanon's point totals are not balanced; he is a villain of an epic scale. The "villain bonus," found in character listings in many HERO Games products, represents the extra experience that a villain has attained, and the extra points that a villain needs to fight a large number of heroes (especially heroes with a lot of experience).​

It seems fairly clear that the quote is giving both an ingame and a metagame justification for Mechanon's villain bonus. Champions has been around a long time, and has a pretty big rulebook now, so I think it might be a bit better than most points buy games in explaining its reasoning. I'd be interested to know what GURPS take is on this.