The New Design Philosophy?

[Mark CMG]

I suppose a clearer understanding of the flaws might account for part of it, but I suspect the fundamental problem is one of different playstyles.

In some ways, I think you are right but there are other elements that lead me to believe that it is only a part of a much larger equation. I know some players who love D&D for heavy RPing but will play hours and hours of heavy tactical combat games (miniatures combat games of all types). Try to introduce heavy tactical scenarios in their D&D game and they pull away. Clearly it is not because they do not like that style of play, but simply because it is not something they want in their D&D experience. Or, at least, not in their D&D experience with the rules as they are now.

If the rust monster changes had been made when 3e was just released, for example, I'm sure it would have created a similar furore.

I suspect you are right.

What I wonder is why it is not possible to have a single system that caters to a variety of playstyles, perhaps along the lines of painandgreed's idea of a basic game plus supplements that are built around the idea of different gaming philosophies.

I like the idea of a more flexible system that doesn't try to be so incognito. I think it is time for a system that is frank about it's ability and interest in pleasing both the tactical combat enthusiasts and the storytelling aficionados. Create a ruleset that highlights that flexibility and shows how to flex it (as a feature) and I think the game will be much improved for both camps. This would have the added benefit of allowing the system to shift between the playstyles based on scenario circumstances, e.g. handling a bloodless palace coup in one game session and sessions with battling armies afterward as a civil war ensues as fallout. Certainly, such a system would lend itself to supplements that focus primarily on either extreme of the tactical/storytelling axis or, indeed, on supplements that find themself somewhere in between. The upfront nature of that flexible system would make marketing and purchasing supplements based on playstyle preference a much easier experience. Those who find themself at either extreme would have no trouble tailoring their game based on such a model and no one would be lost as a customer while pursuing an expanded market share. I would hope that those fashioning the new edition are up to such a challenge.

 

[Banshee16]

That's the goal no matter which side of this debate you are on.





Many believe the evidence you site points to failure, not success.





This might be getting closer to the heart of the matter as many find simply "beating up things and taking their stuff" as an unsatisfying way to spend their time.

I agree....finding a way to cram more "beating up things and taking their stuff" into a game isn't my idea of fun.

Nor is WoW. I've been playing...and oddly enough, despite the fact that it's an MMORPG, I spend most of my time alone, because players don't roleplay, and are too intent on levelling that often 80% of my time is spent looking for a group......then I get to play for a tiny bit, and get to log off as I run out of time.

At least with tabletop gaming, you're getting together with friends, people you have a personal tie to, as you often live in the same city etc. You can joke around, play, share some snacks, gossip, whatever. Much better than sitting hunkered down in the basement staring at a computer monitor....no matter how good the graphics are.

Banshee

 

[Scribble]

hey, haven't been in the thread in a while, but I stopped in to apologize for something I got wrong!

I did in fact misread the original MM Ogre Mage entry.

I thought it said a general and some normal ogres, but it really said a general OM +2 HD and 1-8 regular Ogre mages, not regular ogres.

It DID, however, say that the OM was a japanese cousin of the normal ogre, so I was right about that part.

This was from the MM that had like the cartoonish picture of all the different monsters on the front, with a centaur on it, and like a cross section of the ground... (if that makes sense.)

 

[Mark CMG]

I stopped in to apologize

No problem. Message boards can get a little overwhelming when they're covering so much material in so many threads. You are probably looking for the Ogre Mage discussion thread rather than this more general design philosophy thread.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=169179

 

[Scribble]

No problem. Message boards can get a little overwhelming when they're covering so much material in so many threads. You are probably looking for the Ogre Mage discussion thread rather than this more general design philosophy thread.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=169179

nah, this thread a few pages back crossed into the OM for a short period of time (to illustrate a point.)

 

[Lanefan]

This was from the MM that had like the cartoonish picture of all the different monsters on the front, with a centaur on it, and like a cross section of the ground... (if that makes sense.)

That's the 1e MM.

Also, for the 3.5 Command business: "you may choose from the following

• " also means you may *not* choose anything else...I mean, goddess forbid that players be allowed to come up with new command ideas. That said, I'd missed that 3.5 removed the one-word clause; that alone opens up worlds of potential grief that didn't need opening.
  
  Lanefan

 

[Plane Sailing]

nah, this thread a few pages back crossed into the OM for a short period of time (to illustrate a point.)

Scribble, please limit your ogre mage discussion to the other thread.

This thread did have ogre mage discussion in it for a while, but it was split off into another thread for a reason.

Thanks.

 

[Hussar]

When you think about it for a second, it's very interesting.

If a player makes a one trick pony character, we typically consider that a bad thing. Most DM's will chuck in stuff to show why being a one trick pony PC is not good. At worst, we tend to lump such players together with epithets like "powergamer" and "twink" or even "munchkin".

Why should monsters be any different? Why should we have a single monster for every niche instead of several monsters that can fill several niche's?

As a comparison, take rust monsters vs babau. Both are capable of destroying equipment. Yet, a babau is capable of many, many more things, from being an assassin type villain, leader of a cult, sneaky bastard, straight up thug, etc etc. So, if I need a "remove PC wealth" monster, I have the choice of using a rust monster or using a babau.

From an adventure design point of view, which encounter is going to be more interesting? My vote is for the babau simply because it's a heck of a lot cooler than a big bug that eats your sword. It's a demon after all. Demons are cool. Whacking demons is what D&D is usually all about. And, at CR 8 (IIRC), I can use a babau in a very wide range of encounters.

The new design approach seems to be centered on the idea of pushing creatures out of their niches and giving them a much broader utility. The MMIV seems to be geared in this way as well. Instead of a book full of niche monsters which may or may not ever see play, it works as a template book for how to use creatures in a broader sense. Sure, there are still niche creatures, after all, if you don't use dragons very much, you aren't going to use spawn.

OTOH, now that you have spawn, you can use dragons a little more easily. Instead of the dragon sitting in his lair on a pile of gold, now he has a ready made army of thralls to send out and do his bidding.

Personally, I run Scarred Lands, so MMIV has very little use to me (no dragons), but that doesn't mean its a bad book. I think the new approach has some serious merits.

 

[Melan]

I don't get it. Why do all monsters have to have general appeal? It has always seemed to me that it is more healthy to have an array of staple monsters (orcs, zombies, dragons and big snakes, for example), supplemented by a range of monsters with niche appeal (ogre mages, various oozes and slimes) and a few odball things that should come up rarely in any given campaign - if at all (beholders). It seems more exciting to me when some monsters are common and others are special and highly specialised. It breaks the monotony of yet another critter with X hit points and Y resistances. The standardisation philosophy removes the individual touch of the D&D menagerie and robs it of its coolness.

Beholders, rust monsters and ogre mages are fun because they are not the same old, same old. They are oddballs, requiring oddball strategies to fight as a player and to run as a DM.

I don't see how that is bad. Really, Hussar, I don't get it. This is not rhetorical. I can't wrap my mind around the idea that someone would like to get them out of the game or change them to conform to a standardised design philosophy. It is a game of wild imagination and improbable strangeness, right? In short, fantastic and unpredictable. Or is that considered bad game design in today's environment?

 

[FireLance]

It is a game of wild imagination and improbable strangeness, right? In short, fantastic and unpredictable. Or is that considered bad game design in today's environment?

I think the problem is unpredictability when you don't want unpredictability, or if you don't fully understand the implications of the unpredicability (if you are an inexperienced DM, for example). I have nothing against highly specialized, oddball and unpredictable monsters. I'm a sufficiently experienced DM that I can probably guess at what the effect of such a monster would have on whatever party I'm DMing for, so I would be able to make an informed decision whether to use it or not. However, for the sake of those who are not, I think these monsters ought to come with warning labels.

And, there are players and DMs who don't want things to be too wild or strange - those seeking to emulate specific fictional universes, or the "real" world, perhaps with a slightly mythical feel, for example. Certain monsters may be considered inappropriate for those settings.