The New Design Philosophy?

[Melan]

If we followed this argument to its logical conclusions, we wouldn't need more than a half dozen monsters - Hitter Monster, Caster Monster, Sneaky Monster, Support Monster, Resistant Monster and Mastermind Monster. Of course, this is absurd. But there is a point to designing individual monsters instead of deriving them from basic types, since the available tools can't do everything. Templates, class levels, feats and skills only go so far; they can give you a variation of a standard monster and they prevent, for example, the proliferation of goblinoids which had happened in AD&D, but they can't recreate beholders or rust monsters. They could probably recreate ogre mages (or whatever), but after a while, the extent of changes is so much that the ogre mage is better served by being a separate monster. It is more effective that way.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

If we followed the reasoning put forth by some in this thread to its "logical" conclusion, we would seed the MM with lots of purposefully poorly designed monsters with randomly high or low DCs and bizarre effects plus lots of impenetribly interesting flavor text laced with minor magical effects that do the monsters no good, just so newbie DM can learn the "right" way to play D&D by making painful mistakes the first hundred times they sit at the table with friends. That will teach them to love D&D.

With respect to the Core books, giving the new DM as much a helping hand as possible to gauge the kind of challenge a monster will be to the PCs has an enormous upside and a little downside. Frankly, we could toss out half the MM, keeping only the most boring choices, and that would still be a dizzying array of options to a brand new DM.

 

[Gold Roger]

Well, I have just overflown this thread, but it doesn't look like people are even discussing one certain thing anymore, but it's just one big playstyle/edition war/preferences/game balance/gaming fundamentals (and fundamentalists) argument. You know, the kind of stuff that leads nowhere but agreeing to disagree, just to bring it up the next best time anyway? That one.

Anyway, on the original post:

The logic of this new philosophy is lost on me. Since some creatures, like the ogre mage, were essentially gutted by the revision of certain spells during the switch to 3.x and as they are now ineffectual because their CR is too high for them to be combat threats, the plan is to individually revise each creature based on what can transpire during a five or six round combat? I would have thought it better to address the perpetually enigmatic CR system. Or to bulk up the abilities that are used in and out of combat to keep the creature special and not turn it into a large fighting creature with class levels. I like the idea of leveling spells so that they do more than simply increase in range/duration/etc. when cast by more powerful casters. If I wanted to just throw an enlarged Fighter/Sorcerer toe-to-toe with an adventuring group can't I already do that using an enlarged Fighter/Sorcerer (and wouldn't it be a better challenge anyway)?

(I've only quoted only the first paragraph since it's the only one with actual argumentation)

I'm not exactly sure that what you talk about is "the new design philosophy". I actually see it as "the personal oppinion of one developer on monster design relating to modern gaming needs, certain points of actual wotc design philosophy and target audience of wotc D&D products". With that target audience part as the most important point. Yeah, I felt a bit hurt at the reduction of the rust monster or the removal of charm on the Ogre Mage. But there was one thing Mearls said that gave me confidence:

Homebrew Design V. WotC Design

Development's understanding of the game tells us that a monster who destroys your gear isn't fun. Simply put, it makes the next encounter prohibitively more difficult. The rust monster requires a lot more DM skill and a deeper understanding of the game than other creatures in its CR range.

However, that doesn't mean it cannot have a place in your game. A DM who understands how a rust monster works, or who builds his story to account for it, can have a lot of fun with the critter as written. If the PCs lose their weapons and armor, they might go into debt to a shady merchant to get replacements. That merchant can then play an important, interesting role in the campaign.

Development's responsibility is to create monsters that work in a way that’s easy to handle. The rust monster is CR 3, but it has a much bigger impact on the game than, say, a CR 3 ogre. We can't realistically put both those creatures on a random CR 3 monster table. Even worse, we don't want to send the message that monsters capable of destroying a party's gear are common opponents.

Instead, it's likely best for the game to let individual DMs create and use such effects as they need them in their campaigns. We don't want to encourage such effects, but there's no reason why a DM who knows what he's doing can't use them. In many ways, development assumes that an individual DM is like a computer who heartlessly applies the rules. This approach allows neophytes to trust the rules and experienced DMs to bend, fold, and mutilate them from the foundation of a workable, stable system.

 

[Hussar]

If we followed this argument to its logical conclusions, we wouldn't need more than a half dozen monsters - Hitter Monster, Caster Monster, Sneaky Monster, Support Monster, Resistant Monster and Mastermind Monster. Of course, this is absurd. But there is a point to designing individual monsters instead of deriving them from basic types, since the available tools can't do everything. Templates, class levels, feats and skills only go so far; they can give you a variation of a standard monster and they prevent, for example, the proliferation of goblinoids which had happened in AD&D, but they can't recreate beholders or rust monsters. They could probably recreate ogre mages (or whatever), but after a while, the extent of changes is so much that the ogre mage is better served by being a separate monster. It is more effective that way.

Yes, I agree with that for the most part. I disagree that an ogre mage in particular needed to be a completely separate monster. But, I'm thinking that's more of a matter of taste.

Of course, there will always need to be more monsters. As you say, templates and the like can only go so far. I'm pretty sure I couldn't template a monster into a beholder, as you say.

But, going way back to the original point is the idea that the new design philosophy is based around turning sacred cows into hamburger, I'm thinking that, well, I like burgers as much as the next guy.

WOTC takes tons of flak for not innovating. I've heard it time and time again that WOTC doesn't lead, it only follows. Yet, here we have a pretty solid example of breaking away from the tried and true and reworking ideas using the tools at hand. The Ogre Mage, for many reasons, doesn't really work as written in 3e. So, why not use the tools that we have and make a monster which does work?

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.
*snip*
I would hope that those fashioning the new edition are up to such a challenge.

Personally, I would rather the powers that be actually take the time to use the mechanics that we have and show how flexible it really is.

Something I find rather amusing is that people lauded Denizens of Avidnu for doing precisely the thing that WOTC is getting blasted about with MMIV. Granted, WOTC took it a few steps further, but, isn't it interesting that what is great for one publisher is crap for another?

 

[Mark CMG]

But there was one thing Mearls said that gave me confidence:

In many ways, development assumes that an individual DM is like a computer who heartlessly applies the rules.

I see a red flag.

 

[Mark CMG]

WOTC takes tons of flak for not innovating. I've heard it time and time again that WOTC doesn't lead, it only follows.

(. . .)

Something I find rather amusing is that people lauded Denizens of Avidnu for doing precisely the thing that WOTC is getting blasted about with MMIV. Granted, WOTC took it a few steps further, but, isn't it interesting that what is great for one publisher is crap for another?

I've not heard these arguments. I wouldn't agree with them, anyway. In the past, WotC has shown it can be both a leader and innovative. Let's not get off track.

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.
*snip*
I would hope that those fashioning the new edition are up to such a challenge.

Personally, I would rather the powers that be actually take the time to use the mechanics that we have and show how flexible it really is.

I'm not suggesting they need to start from scratch. However, essentially we are in agreement as to the presentation.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

Development's understanding of the game tells us that a monster who destroys your gear isn't fun. Simply put, it makes the next encounter prohibitively more difficult. The rust monster requires a lot more DM skill and a deeper understanding of the game than other creatures in its CR range.

Again, maybe the CR system needs to revamped, then?
And it isn't "fun" to have your gear destroyed? Well, duh!
Doesn't mean it won't (and shouldn't) happen! Adventuring is a risky business; why do you think so many ex-advetnruers are now tavern owners?

Characters are more than a just a pile of numbers and equipment. Your sword rusted? Well, you may have to use another weapon until you can replace it then, and take the non-profiency penalty that goes with it! Maybe it's the grognard in me talking, but we used to take the good with the bad when we played.

Development's responsibility is to create monsters that work in a way that’s easy to handle. The rust monster is CR 3, but it has a much bigger impact on the game than, say, a CR 3 ogre. We can't realistically put both those creatures on a random CR 3 monster table. Even worse, we don't want to send the message that monsters capable of destroying a party's gear are common opponents.

I don't think "easier to handle" applies to ANYTHING in 3.x, let alone the CR system.
And doesn't the above statment in itself point out a MAJOR flaw in the CR system, then? They're both CR3, but one's more unbalancing than the other.

If suc is the case, why are they both CR3? (I'm not going to touch on the "Redesign" issues; I'll save that for the other thread.

We don't want to encourage such effects, but there's no reason why a DM who knows what he's doing can't use them. In many ways, development assumes that an individual DM is like a computer who heartlessly applies the rules. This approach allows neophytes to trust the rules and experienced DMs to bend, fold, and mutilate them from the foundation of a workable, stable system.

Bolding is mine; and I think that's the single most horrifying admission I've heard in regards to this edition of D+D. I've been getting a "Power to the players" vibe (which is admittedly what they were trying for since the 3E premiered), but, IMO, more and more I'm getting a "The DM is essentialy a CPU for the players" vibe from WotC. ("Just follow the rules like a good little boy or girl, and you, too can have a thriving D+D campaign.") :\

 

[Gold Roger]

I see a red flag.

Well, you did take that a bit out of context. I think it's certainly understandable that wotc, if it wants to reach a large audience, has to asume the worst case and for those that don't act like that "red flag quote" it's a simple case of, we have to make sure the system works and is understood before we can step out of the system.

Edit:

In many ways, development assumes that an individual DM is like a computer who heartlessly applies the rules. This approach allows neophytes to trust the rules and experienced DMs to bend, fold, and mutilate them from the foundation of a workable, stable system.

It seems these two sentences have to be re quoted together so some people start to understand what they mean in context with each other.

 

[Mark CMG]

In many ways, development assumes that an individual DM is like a computer who heartlessly applies the rules.

I see a red flag.

Well, you did take that a bit out of context.

The meaning doesn't change when removed from the passage, it is merely highlighted.

I think it's certainly understandable that wotc, if it wants to reach a large audience, has to asume the worst case and for those that don't act like that "red flag quote" it's a simple case of, we have to make sure the system works and is understood before we can step out of the system.

Reaching the audience isn't really a problem, nor what I find disagreeable. It's what they intend to present to that audience upon reaching them that concerns me. Again, I agree making the game easier to play but I do not think that requires removing its complexity. Stripping every creature down to the lowest common denominators, leaving them with just enough to get it through a brief combat scenario, won't ultimately satisfy anyone, at least not for long.

In many ways, development assumes that an individual DM is like a computer who heartlessly applies the rules. This approach allows neophytes to trust the rules and experienced DMs to bend, fold, and mutilate them from the foundation of a workable, stable system.

It seems these two sentences have to be re quoted together so some people start to understand what they mean in context with each other.

Untrue. Again, the meaning doesn't change when removed from the passage, it is merely highlighted. The second sentence is an addendum, not a clarification.


The major difference between the design philosophy that appears to be on the horizon for WotC and the one I personally champion is fairly simple . . .

One approach seemingly presupposes that if the complexity of the game is removed it will appeal to a much larger audience and those who want complexity can add to it after the fact. It apparently purports that the game as it is would be too difficult to explain to a wider audience than those currently enjoying it.

Another approach keeps the complexity and finds a way to present it to a wider audience that makes the game more accessible without oversimplifying it. It finds way to ease play without genericizing the very elements that, IMO, help keep the game and the brand strong.

Anyway, that is what I am seeing. Now, it may be that the actual WotC design philosophy is akin to my own and all of the hubbub is superfluous, but the peeks we are being given behind the scenes seem to suggest otherwise.

 

[Gold Roger]

The meaning doesn't change when removed from the passage, it is merely highlighted.

Untrue. Again, the meaning doesn't change when removed from the passage, it is merely highlighted. The second sentence is an addendum, not a clarification.

Actually the second sentence states the intend and purpose behind the first, thus giving insight into the actual design phillosophy while the first sentence taken alone is a superficial statement.

Reaching the audience isn't really a problem, nor what I find disagreeable. It's what they intend to present to that audience upon reaching them that concerns me. Again, I agree making the game easier to play but I do not think that requires removing its complexity. Stripping every creature down to the lowest common denominators, leaving them with just enough to get it through a brief combat scenario, won't ultimately satisfy anyone, at least not for long.

Well, we've seen nobody state this as actual intend, right? The Ogre Mage wasn't only stripped of things, there where also additions.

The major difference between the design philosophy that appears to be on the horizon for WotC and the one I personally champion is fairly simple . . .

One approach seemingly presupposes that if the complexity of the game is removed it will appeal to a much larger audience and those who want complexity can add to it after the fact. It apparently purports that the game as it is would be too difficult to explain to a wider audience than those currently enjoying it.

Another approach keeps the complexity and finds a way to present it to a wider audience that makes the game more accessible without oversimplifying it. It finds way to ease play without genericizing the very elements that, IMO, help keep the game and the brand strong.

Anyway, that is what I am seeing. Now, it may be that the actual WotC design philosophy is akin to my own and all of the hubbub is superfluous, but the peeks we are being given behind the scenes seem to suggest otherwise.

What you are seeing may not exactly be what happens. After all Mearls just stated in a thread I know you've read that the monster makeovers are experiments more than statements of direction. If they are indications for a fourth edition, they are testings of the water, not previews.

People are complaining about wotc going over their heads and wishes when in fact they are giving us a way of influencing the way D&D is taking. Of course the whole action was harmed by mearls at times less than eloguent way of (written) presentation.