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

[Neonchameleon]

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.
...
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.
...
I'd be surprised if GURPS doesn't do things this way.

For the record there was a note in the GURPS 3e rulebook (and I think in the 4e one - I'm just certain about 3e) telling you not to bother doing this for most adversaries and just jump straight to the number. Of course it never told you how to jump straight to those numbers and suggested an ordinary guard had a shortsword skill of 17.

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.

This.

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.

And this confuses me. Mostly because the reason it is a level 19 controller is because that's what reflects its abilities.

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)?

I wish I knew. And wish I knew why people weren't making plate armour out of that. The veneer of simulationism in 3.X has always been a veneer.

They are happy with the action economy and turn-by-turn initiative - which measure what ingame quantities?

The OODA loop? But then that's just my justification.

Listening to Paizo talk about their upcoming mythic supplement, I was struck by how they mentioned mythic creatures and characters getting advantages in hit points and the action economy without changing their base number too much.

So Paizo have just reinvented Solo monsters. Good for them.

Wow, that is so vulgar, offensive, edition warring, and most of all, wrong.

Really? Read Tomb of Horrors (an adventure originally written for Gygax's own table) and tell me it's not adversarial. Read the history of Earseekers (a monster specifically designed to prevent PCs listening at doors) and tell me that isn't adversarial. Read the advice on listening at doors on p60 of the the 1e DMG (it has after all been reprinted recently) and tell me that isn't adversarial. And now go back and re-read your 1e DMG again.

Then talk to me about wrong. And as it's right, come back and talk to me about offensive. The job of the Gygaxian DM is to present a tough challenge to the players and let them work out how to overcome something that on paper they shouldn't have much chance against. And you do that according to the advice by being almost as adversarial as a Descent DM. Not as adversarial - for one thing your power is unlimited. But the indicated method in 1e is pretty adversarial.

 

[Doug McCrae]

And this confuses me. Mostly because the reason it is a level 19 controller is because that's what reflects its abilities.

I guess we don't know exactly how the creative process worked but I would imagine that the author first considered the rakshasa in previous editions. It's quite powerful - 7 hit dice with very good defences, CR 10 in 3e, level VI in the 1e DMG encounter tables - which led to it being given a high level in 4e. The rakshasa is mostly a caster, the 3e version is a level 7 sorcerer with an emphasis on spells from the illusion and enchantment/charm schools. The 1e text says they are 'masters of illusion'. So, for 4e, a controller with illusion and charm-based abilities seems most appropriate.

Up until that point, I think it's the game world (or the rules of previous editions) driving the rules. After that, I believe the monster's precise stats and abilities, such as armor class, hit points, how much damage its attacks deliver and the like, derive from its level and role.

 

[Cybit]

As an aside, the "boss" monster question was asked at PAX Prime, and the answer was "we're just using it right now as an easy way to delineate between monsters of a certain level that are more powerful than others." The "boss" monster tag will most likely be removed prior to actual launch, but it's being used currently as a handy dandy way in the playtest to give DMs an idea of the relative power of a given creature outside of just level. They said not to read too much into it, it's just a playtest term to help the playtest specifically.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The "boss" monster tag will most likely be removed prior to actual launch, but it's being used currently as a handy dandy way in the playtest to give DMs an idea of the relative power of a given creature outside of just level.

Because, plainly, hiding information from the DM is the best way to proceed.

 

[billd91]

Because, plainly, hiding information from the DM is the best way to proceed.

And since "boss" monster is the only way to express that the monster is tougher than your average specimen, you assume that they intend to hide that info from the DM.

Of course, you know what happens when you ASSume.

 

[slobster]

Because, plainly, hiding information from the DM is the best way to proceed.

Yeah, am I the only one who noticed that 4E and its vaunted encounter design tools led to a lot of entitled GMs?

 

[Cybit]

Because, plainly, hiding information from the DM is the best way to proceed.

Heh. Based on the conversations I had, it sounds like the XP value will be the kicker (IE, the XP value of that monster will be higher than the "average" creature of that level).

This also allows you to have the concept that a dragon of a certain level is more powerful than an orc of a certain level.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And since "boss" monster is the only way to express that the monster is tougher than your average specimen, you assume that they intend to hide that info from the DM.

Of course, you know what happens when you ASSume.

I would love to see a more indepth system. Right now in 4e we have minons worth 1/4 elite worth 2 monsters and solo worth 5. i would love to see something more varrable.


Some monsters are like 2 equal level ones, others 3 and stillothers 4.

 

[pemerton]

Heh. Based on the conversations I had, it sounds like the XP value will be the kicker (IE, the XP value of that monster will be higher than the "average" creature of that level).

This also allows you to have the concept that a dragon of a certain level is more powerful than an orc of a certain level.

Maybe I'm missing something - but this sounds like it's seen as OK to have the 4e system of different monsters of a given level differing in their toughness, and hence in their XP value, as long as you don't overtly draw attention to it via a tag like "elite" or "solo".

If I've got that right, then it's just bizarre, to me at least.

 

[slobo777]

Maybe I'm missing something - but this sounds like it's seen as OK to have the 4e system of different monsters of a given level differing in their toughness, and hence in their XP value, as long as you don't overtly draw attention to it via a tag like "elite" or "solo".

If I've got that right, then it's just bizarre, to me at least.

That's how I'm reading it too:

1) There will be two measures of a monster's power relative to the PCs: Level and XP Value.

2) Published monsters will not explain how the values are arrived at.

. . . however I did read that how-to-build-monsters was going to be part of published material, and presumably those guidelines or rules will cover precisely this.

It's also possible that fluff descriptions of the monsters and their preferred tactics will cover for missing quick tags.

Although I'll miss 4E's combat roles (including tags like solo, leader), because they are so quick to assess and use. Seems backwards to remove them, when they cost so little to add at design time and can be ignored by any DM or player if they wish.

I wonder how XP will be assessed? Anyone remember the Monster Mark (I think first published in White Dwarf)?