Is Discovering the Abilities of New Monsters Part of the “FUN?”

[Samuel Leming]

Is Discovering the Abilities of New Monsters Part of the “FUN?”

I’ve just read the latest
Design & Development article for issue 364 of Dragon. In chapter 2 Mr. Wyatt warns a DM against using monsters with surprising ‘gotcha’ abilities. Anyway, since he says it better himself, a short quote.

The clearest example in combat has to do with monsters that have so-called "gotcha!" abilities. For example, a boneclaw has threatening reach, an exception to the general rule that characters and monsters can only make opportunity attacks against adjacent enemies. When a character who's not adjacent to the boneclaw takes an opportunity attack for moving or using a ranged attack, it's all too easy for the player to feel unduly punished. It's part of the DM's job to communicate the danger so that players can make informed decisions about what they do. Some DMs will choose to be totally explicit: "Oh, this guy has threatening reach. Are you sure you want to do that?" Others will be more narrative about it: "This creature's claws are in constant motion, and it seems very aware of you. Your instinct tells you you're not safe from those claws, even at this distance." Either way, players have the information they need.

In my experience, discovering a creature’s abilities the hard way can be fun. At least as long as the DM isn’t being a jackass. Sometimes knowledge comes with a price. Describe the critter as having long arms. Does it really have reach? Take the risk and find out! The risk is part of the fun. At least it is in the way I played D&D.

Anyway, this is a poll. What do you think?

Sam

 

[Fenes]

Discovering such stuff should not just be done by trial and error, but also be possible by using character skills. Bards, rangers, veteran monster hunters, scholars etc. should have a chance to know about such abilities.

Also, or alternatively, characters should get a spot check or similar check to discover such dangers that can be seen - if a monster has a long and muscular prehensile tail, then I'd say trip attacks by it could be forseen by some characters.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, I think there should be a "fair" way to notice the unusual monster abilities.

But otherwise, it is fun, entering a combat and not knowing how the opponents will screw with you - and how you can outmaneuver and out-trick their abilities.

From a DM point of view, I enjoy seeing how the players figure out the monsters trick and how to neutralize it...

 

[CharlesRyan]

I gotta agree with the OP (and respectfully disagree with my good friend James). I don't want to be told what a monster's capabilities are, either directly or couched in pretty descriptive euphemisms. Knowing that a monster might surprise me adds dramatic tension to the game and makes it more fun.

I can imagine a situation in which a "gotcha" power might seem unfair, or be used unfairly, but James's example isn't it. And frankly, the DM has a million ways to be unfair if he or she so chooses, so laying all the power cards on the table doesn't seem to really address that.

 

[jdrakeh]

In my experience, discovering a creature’s abilities the hard way can be fun. At least as long as the DM isn’t being a jackass.

Agreed 100% -- so long as the DM hasn't specifically chosen a creature that is outright unbeatable ("Suprise TPK, losers!"), I think that learning about a creature's special abilities up close and personal is part of the game's 'exploration' aspect and can be a lot of fun.

 

[Nifft]

• "Yes, if not jerk".

I also expect monsters to react naively until they have fought the PCs for a round or two. Both sides are learning.

Now, if the PCs have fought a particular critter before, the players get a free pass on remembering what it can do.

- - -

For this particular case, though, it seems like the critter's special ability shapes the tactical battlefield. The 4e philosophy is to always make actors aware of the consequences of their tactical actions. So I see this as more of a special exception.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Shadeydm]

I gotta agree with the OP (and respectfully disagree with my good friend James). I don't want to be told what a monster's capabilities are, either directly or couched in pretty descriptive euphemisms. Knowing that a monster might surprise me adds dramatic tension to the game and makes it more fun.

I can imagine a situation in which a "gotcha" power might seem unfair, or be used unfairly, but James's example isn't it. And frankly, the DM has a million ways to be unfair if he or she so chooses, so laying all the power cards on the table doesn't seem to really address that.

I agree 100%

 

[Doug McCrae]

As the article says the issue here is monsters that punish players for following what appear to be good tactics. If the DM does his job of communication, whichever of the two methods he uses (I think the latter is more interesting), then there won't be a gotcha moment because the players will know they need to change tactics.

That said, even if the DM doesn't communicate the monster's abilities, perhaps because there is no way for the PCs to detect them until they are used, that can work too, provided the ability doesn't instantly kill a PC, which is very unlikely in 4e.

Imo the unacceptable face of 'gotcha-ism' is Gygaxian nonsense such as nilbogs and earseekers.

 

[el-remmen]

Meta description? No.

Narrative description? Yes. But with the inclusion of the word "may" - to give the PCs pause and consider the risk.

 

[Tervin]

I often enjoy the gotcha moments, both as a player and as a DM. As a DM I just try to make sure that those kind of tricks from me don't kill PCs or take away their most beloved possessions. As a player I enjoy the feeling after first making up a plan, then finding out what a huge mistake it was - and then still making it because of clever improvisation.

I think those kinds of secrets that cause "gotcha" moments are a small but important part of what D&D is. I mean, why else do we have weird traps and cursed treasure?