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

[Ruin Explorer]

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.
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?

I think the problem is that many DMs don't think that they're being jackasses when they are, with this. As an example a poster here was extremely pleased with himself where a monster he made nearly wiped the part with it's bloodied auto-ae, and then did kill much of the party with another auto-ae when it died.

To me, that's clear-cut jackassery unless he'd specifically warned the players that this would happen and had a good idea of how it could be prevented from wrecking them (even if they didn't work it out). Double jackass points if the DM is using really unpleasant bloodied/death abilities but not allowing the players to know the monster is about to hit 50% or die.

In the end, a lot of this is in the details. If the monster is well-described and it's clearly possible to anticipate the crap it's going to pull, or if a reasonable DC knowledge check about the monster will reveal said crap, then it's fine and actually fun. Equally, if it pulls crap out of nowhere but it's not high lethality stuff, just surprising, then that's fine too and usually fun.

I do think the specific example, though, threatening reach, should be made clear, either explicitly or descriptively, UNLESS the GM is intentionally playing the mobs dumb too, like Nifft suggests (and that's something I sometimes do too). I know some DMs who always play the mobs like they've just read a dossier of detailed intel on the PCs, and frankly, I think that's very cheesy, unless you're seriously letting the players read the monster descriptions in detail. These are the same ones who like to use really nasty gotcha abilities in my experience.

Tervin - I don't think we do have cursed treasure anymore in 4E, though, which is what the quote is regarding, and in 4E, the traps are a part of combat and usually somewhat predictable and non-fatal. In random old 1-2E, though, I agree, there's not much difference.

 

[Cadfan]

Yes, if the DM isn't being a jerk. If the ability is something my character should have seen coming and been able to prepare for, then I as the player need to see it coming so that I can prepare. The example he gives is perfect- you should typically know when you're provoking an attack of opportunity, because you can see the attack coming, or at least see the potential for getting attacked.

If the ability were... say, a gaze attack, then trial and error might be better. But for physical abilities, monster description should clue me in somewhat.

 

[Particle_Man]

Not only do I like it, it is the reason I haven't bought the MM. I want to be surprised this time around.

Mind you, the ability to retreat, lick one's wounds, and then use one's new-found knowledge to advantage would be part of the deal. If one just TPKs all the time, that would not be as fun.

 

[Wombat]

I find many of the monster powers rather weird and annoying. I prefer most powers to be straightforward, at least through folklore (i.e. if your character does a bit of research, he can learn of it).

 

[Nightson]

If the DM intends for the PCs to find out abilities through trial and error then they need to realize that increases the difficulty of the encounter by a fair amount.

 

[Kesh]

Some of the most fun I've had was when first playing 4e Keep on the Shadowfell. Finding out kobolds were shifty, the fire/sticky "bombs", and not knowing what that magic-using kobold could do was fun.

We've got a good DM though. He's not out to get us, he's here to have fun with everyone else.

 

[mlund]

I don't think you should feel ashamed of any "gotcha" moments that resolve on the monster's own turn. Cries of "How was I supposed to know it had a breath weapon?" and "What do you mean it gets to re-roll the attack!?" can be positively magical. It takes away some of the "been there, done that" attitude of veteran gamers, so enjoy it while it lasts.

"Gotcha," Immediate Interrupts and Opportunity Actions are the kinds of things you've got to look out for. A monster with previously undisclosed Reach, Threatening Reach, and Combat Superiority stopping a PCs character from moving right out of the blue could really raise a stink. A monster with Lead From the Rear forcing his ally to chump-block a Warlock Daily power, on the other hand, is high comedy. The distinction, to me, comes from the fact that some negative "surprises" come in the form of otherwise avoidable damage (trick only works the first time, ever) or an old-fashioned "no" whereas positive "surprise" abilities come in the form of the mighty "yes, but ..."

I like twists and surprises rather than deus ex machina and shut-downs.

- Marty Lund

 

[Scribble]

I can understand this advice...

These abilities tend to be able to start a lot of fights around the table, and a feeling of "well whatever we do it's gonna have somethign to get us with anyway..." Why not nip it in the bud and give them something to work with?

Charles, you disagreed with his example, but I can completely see an argument aroudn the table starting with:

"What??? Dude, I could totally see if something had claws long enough to attack from five feet away!"

All of the above can almost at times foster the feeling of DM vrs Players.

 

[Terwox]

Not telling people stuff like Reach and Combat Superiority is bad DM'ing if you're doing it on purpose. I don't think anyone is saying they do that on purpose though.

Threatening Reach, you should probably tell someone as they close in. A smart monster may be able to hide it once by playing down their reach if they aren't fighting (not extending claws all the way, etc,) but yeah.

I've done the "Gotcha!" of bloodied breath... evoked some groans for sure, but I think it was mainly because it swung the battle so far for the monster and the players were invested in the fight.

 

[Nifft]

IAll of the above can almost at times foster the feeling of DM vrs Players.

Agree.

There are traits that a monster can have which the PCs must "discover":
- Defenses
- Fire resistance
- Half damage from ranged melee attacks

There are attacks which the PCs will "discover" when they're subject to them:
- Breath weapon
- Ongoing damage
- Status effects

But attacks and defenses aren't "unfair". Critters are expected to have some of both, and that's cool.

"Unfair" abilities are those for which a disproportionate value is derived from information asymmetry.

Take the Earseeker example: if the players knew such things existed, they'd always take an appropriate counter-measure when listening at a door. The monster is worthless unless the players don't know to expect it, because there's never a situation where they need to make an informed decision which could be affected by the monster's abilities: it's either deadly, or worthless.

Threatening Reach is a bit different. It has tactical value even if you know it's there. Not disclosing the existence of the ability is against the grain of 4e, but it's not an inherently "unfair" ability. As a player, I do feel it'd be dirty pool to not disclose that ability until it's too late for one PC, but the ability itself is just fine.

IMHO a similar ability which should get some early disclosure would be a damaging aura -- say, if you attack a given critter or start your turn next to him, you take automatic damage. That's something IMHO the players should learn beforehand, but isn't inherently unfair.

Cheers, -- N