Rule of 3: 10/31/2011

[Pentius]

I understand what "burden" means and see that in this article there is a bias to prioritize story below mechanics which is antithetical to roleplaying games, IMO.

I think you're looking for a conflict in an article that wasn't meant to present one, but was rather meant to explain past actions, how the writer feels about them and what he's learned from them.

Is there another article you mean to reference? I am only discussing what Rich Baker has written in this particular article -

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Rule-of-Three: 10/31/2011)

No, I'm just kind of a moron and thought Mearls was writing the Rule of Three articles. I'm pretty sure he used to, anyway.

Mike Mearls might be doing things differently these days, which would be good, but we'll have to see how that shapes the next incarnation of the game. Hopefully, he will move/has moved past his early position of having creatures/monsters include no more than what they can bring to a single combat encounter.

Why would you say that "hopefully" he will move past a position he is no longer working from? They tried it one way, decided they weren't satisfied with the results, and are trying to do it differently.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think you're looking for a conflict in an article that wasn't meant to present one, but was rather meant to explain past actions, how the writer feels about them and what he's learned from them.

Nope. There is a difference between looking for something and seeing what is there. What I see is a term being used that speaks to a mindset regarding story elements in roleplaying games. It's obviously charged with negative connotations. I think a roleplaying game writer needs to learn more if a term like "story burden" is part of the vernacular going forward into the development of the next rendition of the RPG they are trying to improve. I'm also curious if this pejorative term has become widespread in RPG design beyond this particular writer and outside of WotC. I've done a quick search engine lookaround and do not find it in use elsewhere.

Why would you say that "hopefully" he will move past a position he is no longer working from? They tried it one way, decided they weren't satisfied with the results, and are trying to do it differently.

I say "hopefully" because I am discussing what they are doing going forward with the next edition which I am convinced is under development. When we begin to see more concrete details of their work on 5E, I'll be interested in noting whether they relegate story elements to a lower echelon than mechanics or if those elements take the lead in the design process.

 

[Wiseblood]

The author states a belief, fluff might interfere with a DM's adventure design. They trimmed it down. I do not see it threatening adventure design as much as it might threaten encounter design but.... I would dispute the author if he used that too, because encounter design detailed in the dmg cast monsters based on role and level instead of fluff.

If he had said, "it's a symptom of 30 levels worth of gameplay to fill.", I would agree.

.",???

 

[I'm A Banana]

There's a bit of a perfect storm of problems.

I entirely believe the stated reasons Rich gives. "Bottleneck" giving them an imperative to fit as much as possible in the books, combined with a mistaken idea that putting story information in there would somehow "prohibit" DMs from invalidating it.

I also think there are additional reasons indicated by the choices made that Rich does not call out, but that are pretty clearly seen.

The bottleneck is understandable, though high-quality IMO generally beats out high-output.

The idea of "negative fluff" is goofy. The first thing most DMs learn is that it is their game and they get to say what goes, so having a "terrain" line in the monster entry isn't going to limit the DM at all. Just because the Blood War is out there doesn't mean a DM can't make an exception in their games. DMs are the masters of their own stories, so it makes little sense to avoid giving them story information that they can easily ignore. If you're designing a game to be played by many DMs in a variety of ways, you ASSUME that most DMs are going to change around information to suit themselves anyway, but you PROVIDE for those DMs who do not. It is not like giving a dragon fire breath is going to give "negative crunch" that a DM is going to feel pressured to include. I can't imagine any DMs feeling very constrained in a game where Rule 0 is the most important and defining rule of the...entire medium of TTRPGs.

There's additional reasons hidden there that Rich doesn't go into, but seem pretty obvious, too.

1. "Monsters Exist To Be Fought In Combat": This philosophy prioritizes minis skirmish stat blocks as the most important thing about a monster. It's a philosophy clearly written across 4e. It is a philosophy that is new to the edition, as previous editions included things in "monster manuals" that were not there to be fought in combat, but that were there to be interesting encounters: angels you could ally with, monsters that were more trap than fight, hazards that you could meet along the way, pernicious fey that were mercurial and possessed of dangerous powers...they were books of encounter ideas, not just things to be fought in combat.
2. "Combat is the Core Encounter Type in the Game": This philosophy is dismissive of social, exploration, and discovery encounters, and so monsters that exist primarily as these types of challenges are demoted. Even monsters that should highlight theses challenges (succubi should be intense social and discovery encounters) are required to be primarily, and often exclusively, combat challenges. The other encounter types are left up to DM adjudication and skill challenges (which are entirely open to DM adjudication).
3. "Screw the Story Material of The Other Editions": This philosophy can be seen clearly in the "elementals - no Archons - no maybe elementals?" elements, or in the "Dryads are now shrubbery monsters" elements. In an attempt to make every creature a combat challenge, and in an attempt to keep "cool words" without having to keep the attached concepts (which don't work in a combat-heavy game according to the theories above), concepts from earlier editions were deemed incompatible with the current edition in one way or another. This leaves WotC free to try to redefine the game as they see fit. Given the above two philosophies, the way they saw fit was largely as a combat generator.

Why don't they have more story info? Like James Wyatt said:

...the detractors have some good points, in my estimation---cute pixies and leprechauns aren't fun opponents, and good-aligned creatures are hard to use in combat-heavy adventures. Yes, people recognize pixies from fairy tales. But D&D is emphatically not the game of fairy-tale fantasy. D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people.

The philosophies embodied in that approach to game design don't care about much aside from fighting. The Monster Manual showcases this. The class design (attacks and combat utilities are 100% of your powers) showcases this. The fact that Rituals are pointless and that Skill Challenges boil down to "whatever the DM wants to allow" showcases this.

I humbly submit that James Wyatt got it wrong. I think, after 3 years, the current helmsfolk of D&D might be inclined to agree with me: minis combat isn't all the game has to offer.

I hope that Rich notes that while a bottleneck and a shortsighted desire to ignore "negative fluff" might have been part of it, it's not the entirety of it.

 

[pemerton]

In the 4e MM I learn that Lolth was formerly a god of fate. I learn that goblins and bugbears may have been bred by hobgoblins in the distant past, when the hobgoblins ruled an empire. I learn the history of the Abyss.

I don't think any of the above is related to monsters being only opponents to be fought in combat. I do think that it relates to the idea that story elements for monsters should feed into the broader mythic history of the game that frames the conflicts that drive the game. At least in my view, this is not a design mistake but a design virtue.

 

[MrMyth]

This idea that the Monster Manual had no story elements is just not true. I'm pesonally a bit disappointed that WotC has once again bowed to pressure from those who, as far as I can tell, do not primarily play the game it is publishing. It makes it more likely that future monster books will be unnecessarily padded with bad fiction.

I don't think that's a reasonable accusation to make. There was a pretty solid clamor for more story elements in the 4E books from many people playing the game. There were also plenty of folks who were perfectly happy with the more minimalist approach seen previously.

For myself, I don't think they need to go overboard and return to extensive and often superfluous detailed ecologies, but having enough info to give a proper basis for the monster, and some solid background elements to give the DM some ideas or story hooks, is about where I'd like things to be. I do think that the MM presented a lot more info than many folks give it credit for, absolutely. I also felt that MM3 and the Monster Vaults did an even better job of finding the right balance, at least in my opinion.

Those who play D&D - of any edition - have a vast array of preferences and opinions. Many people will draw the line at different places - I'm not going to argue that my opinion is the most common, or even that it should be.

But any time you insist that your view is the only one that matters, and that anyone who feels differently "isn't a real D&D player" - or, in this case, "must not actually play 4E" - I think you are only hurting the discussion and undercutting any useful points you might actually make.

I agree with you on a great many topics, typically, but in this case I really feel you are taking the wrong approach - both in insisting that those who called for this couldn't have been 4E players, as well as the implication that those with a desire for more information are themselves to blame for not being 'smart enough' to figure things out from the info they already have. I don't care for that sort of elitist attitude in rules debate, and I don't care for it here, either.

 

[Aeolius]

There was a pretty solid clamor for more story elements in the 4E books from many people playing the game. There were also plenty of folks who were perfectly happy with the more minimalist approach seen previously.

I have often speculated about the "perfect" Monster Manual. In my musings I called it "My Monster Manual"

You begin with an online database of thousands of monster entries. Next, simply choose which monsters you wish to have in your book. Illustrations, monster ecologies, world-specific information, and player character racial traits may be included or omitted as desired. Then, simply select “Order” and your Monster Manual is either printed and shipped to your door, or compiled automatically in ePub format for downloading.

5e on an iPad, anyone?

 

[Balesir]

I find this discussion very interesting. I am beginning to see a fascinating divide, I think. On the subject of the "story fluff" (essentially world defining features that lay out the history and 'humanities' of the game world), we seem to have two groups:

1) Those, like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] (who I still can't xp) and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], who feel constrained or simply impeded by "bad fiction" given as descriptions, flavour information and setting exposition in the sourcebooks for a game, and

2) those, like [MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION] and [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION], who feel that a game is only "half-presented" if there is no fleshing out of the setting, if a vivid and living model of the game world is not interwoven with the game mechanics.

I find myself, for D&D, in the former group; I want the "story" to be something that emerges from play, not something dictated to me in the game rules and, while I agree that stories are an element of roleplaying games, I see no necessity for them to be elements of roleplaying rules.

In other threads on previous WotC articles, however, I see a parallel dispute concerning the rigidity and precision of game rules. Here the split is between:

A) those who find that players cannot exercise "creativity" and come up with novel approaches to in-game problems unless the game rules are loosely worded, permissive of GM fiat and regarded as "suggestions" rather than rules, since rigid rules naturally limit the possibilities that are open, and

B) those who find that rigid, precise rules give the players a clear model of what their character can achieve and, far from constraining creativity, elicit a kind of cleaner, more disciplined creativity that operates within the defined bounds rather than simply trying to break or stretch them.

I may be wrong, but I phant'sy that I see those in group (1) as falling mainly in group (B) while those in group (2) fall mainly in group (A). If so, that may be a very interesting observation.

 

[Mark CMG]

2) those, like [MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION] (. . .) who feel that a game is only "half-presented" if there is no fleshing out of the setting, if a vivid and living model of the game world is not interwoven with the game mechanics.

I find myself, for D&D, in the former group; I want the "story" to be something that emerges from play, not something dictated to me in the game rules and, while I agree that stories are an element of roleplaying games, I see no necessity for them to be elements of roleplaying rules.

That's a mischaracterization of my position. I was discussing creature flavor text. "Story" itself does need to come through gameplay. Story is conflict, action, and events which includes consequences derived from choices made. However, discreet elements that have setting context need description to be more than just a pile of numbers and should not be whittled down to their scaffolding.


While we are on the subject, though, [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] (or anyone), how do you feel about the categorization of PCs and creatures based on their role in combat (striker, defender, minion, brute, etal)? Do you find that helps facilitate "Story?"

(. . .) rigid, precise rules (. . .) cleaner, more disciplined creativity that operates within the defined bounds rather than simply trying to break or stretch them.

I'm not sure I have ever heard restriction so creatively put.

phant'sy

heh heh

 

[Aeolius]

While we are on the subject, though, [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] (or anyone), how do you feel about the categorization of PCs and creatures based on their role in combat (striker, defender, minion, brute, etal)?

Personally, I count that among the many things that drove me from adopting the 4e ruleset. But then again I typically downplay combat. The rapid-fire reliance on so many numbers disrupts my "willing suspension of disbelief".