D&D 5E Wandering Monsters 01/29/2014:Level Advancement...

JW claims that 1e doesn't have any clear guidelines for appropriate encounters, when 1e has the clearest guidelines of all: a series of lists of encounters by level. Want a level 2 encounter? Go to the list of level 2 encounters. It literally could not be any clearer than that. What 3e brought to the table was a formula for assigning a level to custom encounters. The 1e method is more user-friendly (if it were better organized and more clearly explained).

It gives you explicit examples for encounters appropriate for a dungeon level. There's a tremendous difference between a list of examples and guidelines for creating elements yourself.

I don't have my books handy, but what is the range of XP for the encounters of any given level? If I recall correctly, these encounters included formulas for the number of monsters, further diffusing it.

Given my background I'd rather read a discussion or design notes from which I can hammer out my own set of parameters/rules than a list of examples without any explanation.

But once again: whatever floats anyones boat.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The former is perfectly acceptable game design, although it does tend to homogenize encounter difficulty. The latter is, in my experience, a patent falsehood -- I've never been involved in a D&D4 combat that took less than an hour and a half to resolve, and most took much longer -- but even so, it still falls within the (potentially misguided) bounds of game design.

Again, the rules can talk about levels and XP and encounters all they want. As soon as they start talking about session length or session frequency, the developers have gone for the butt-tongs and begun pulling.

I'm beginning to find it entertaining that everyone keeps trying to refute my point by making legitimate claims I've already made myself.

You seem to be under the impression that the goal of this is accuracy, and so it fails if it is not accurate.

That's not the case.

If you find your X lasts longer or shorter than the game's initial assumptions, that's not a sign of the uselessness of that assumption. The goal isn't accuracy, it's measurement, and that measurement need not be precise to be useful.
 

XPs buying you skills and feats...Levels decoupled from XP
[MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] this isn't D&D although if this did happen it would not be the first time they leaned more towards a White Wolf system.

True enough, but a system linking progression with plot points is, if not D&D, at least Pathfinder. (See Mythic Adventures).
 

The thing about approximations is that they're wrong by definition. But pithy one-liners aside, I genuinely don't see the value in this exercise. You're right -- that is the fundamental disconnect here.
It is pithy, and even kind of clever. And yet, it's sort of like complaining that you missed by a foot or two with a hand grenade. Complete accuracy isn't important.

To change the topic just a bit--since this is about both wandering monsters and leveling both: here's some thoughts I had a few years ago and posted on my blog about the notion of wandering monsters. And the notion of monsters as portrayed and utilized typically in D&D overall:

A problem that I often see in roleplaying games, and frankly, in D&D in particular, is that monsters completely fail to be scary. Rather, they are viewed as tactical gamepieces and challenges. Arguably, this is what Gygax and Arneson wanted all along, but it is not something that I want, and I think the idea of reducing monsters to a statline that has tactical implications is to make them not monstrous at all.

Granted, it doesn't have to be like this. I've managed to engender some of the same kind of dramatic tension in D&D games (occasionally) as you get while reading a scary book or watching a scary movie... but frankly, not very often. Part of it is the paradigm and attitude that the players bring to the table; if they're playing D&D, then there's an assumption that they'll be facing challenges that they should be able to overcome if they're smart and tactically sound. It's just the tone and nature of the game, or at least it's often expected to be so.

I like monsters to be scary. I like players to really question whether or not they want to fight these monsters. But I admit that my success, what of it there has been anyway, in accomplishing this is something that I've done more intuitively rather than rationally, and I'm not 100% certain that I fully understand how to pull this off. So for this post, I'm going to noodle around some ideas and see where they go.

1) Monsters should be set pieces. The idea of going through a "dungeon" and fighting monster after monster has really diluted the concept. In any good story of supernatural horror, the monsters are never routine. Be careful about showing off too many monsters. Granted, D&D has truckloads of monsters. But don't assume that all of them are hanging around waiting to be discovered. Think of how the ancient Greeks did it. There were not "medusas"; there was one Medusa. There were not hydras, there was one Lyrnean hydra, etc. While you don't need to go to this extreme, keep in mind that monsters are much more monstrous if they are extraordinary. No matter how monstrous the description or the statline makes them appear, they never will be if they're routine. If you're not fighting monsters all the time, what are you having the PCs spend their time doing otherwise? Bad guys! Thugs, cultists, criminals, spies, and the like. Don't underestimate the value of contrasting monsters to larger hordes of plain old bad guys. Besides, bad guys are fun to fight for the most part on their own too. And also don't underestimate the challenge of dangerous animals. In this era of high powered hunting rifles, enclosed off-road vehicles, and completely tamed terrain, we forget exactly how dangerous it would be to come across a herd of wild elephants who feel that their calves are threatened out in the middle of nowhere with nothing to defend yourself with except a few sharp pieces of metal that you need to hold close to yourself to use. Or how dangerous a pack of wolves could be to a lonely traveler, or a pride of hungry lions.

2) Closely related to that, monsters should be unknown. There's few things more prosaic than the GM of a game casually announcing what his monsters are, when their properties, strengths and weaknesses are well known to all the players. Does this mean that you should only use unfamiliar and unusual monsters that you make up yourself or find in obscure third party sources? Of course not, but you should take steps to, again, keep your monsters from feeling routine. Think about possibly making them difficult to identify for a time. The PCs don't actually see them well until they're well into the thick of it, but they see the effects of their attacks on NPCs or something like that. Mix up your descriptions so that the PCs can't easily match them to a monster that they know. Statistics and descriptions can be decoupled and rearranged. One of my most memorable encounters was with a handful of hellhounds that I simply described very differently--I used some artwork from Paizo of Lovecraftian hounds of Tindalos to represent them, gave them a chittering Predator-like growl, and had their fiery breath transform into a vomit of tiny, toothy little demons that crawled all over their victims. Consider giving some of your monsters surprise abilities. A zombie that has a poisonous bite, or something. It doesn't have to be a big deal, just enough to keep the PCs guessing and unsure of what exactly it is that they're up against.

3) And closely related to that, make your monsters horrific. Granted, another of my most memorable scary monster encounters was with a little blighter that due to some relatively weak stats and some extraordinary good rolls by the PCs, ended up going down like a chump in the first or second round of combat, but that was the exception not the rule. He was creepy because of all the other stuff I had him do, but by and large a monster that the PCs aren't sure they can beat is one that's more likely to scare them than one that's only going to "reduce their resources by XY%" or something inane like that. In fact, ignoring the advice of the Challenge Ratings system completely (which is a good idea for a lot of reasons, only one of which I'll get into here and now), you can pit the PCs against foes which they literally can't defeat in straight-up combat. Monsters shouldn't often be creatures that cause heroic PCs to shout, "Huzzah!" and charge at to engage in melee; they should be monstrous. There should be a lot of doubt about how to deal with them, if they're up to the challenge, and what exactly can be done to get around the many strengths that monsters might have. Rather, you can have the PCs need to research specific dirty tricks or weaknesses that allow them to have a chance against the monster; without which they'd be committing certain suicide. A demon that can be banished back to its home dimension only via a desperately hurried ritual is scarier than one that can be banished back to its home dimension after the PCs just jump in and attack it.

4) And that gets a bit into my last tip; foreshadow your monsters. There's nothing worse than having a monster just pop out of nowhere, get defeated and then promptly forgotten. The chump monster that I mentioned above? He was mostly memorable because of the excellent (and extraordinary; I haven't quite had this level of success any other time, sadly) foreshadowing. While the PCs were attempting to sleep at a crowded and sleazy dockside inn, they were woken up when a young woman in the room next to them screamed. Barging into her room, they found that her eyes had been scooped out of her head. There was no sign of any attacker, just the sobbing victim's almost nonsensical cry that the last thing she saw was a hideous face over her shoulder in the mirror. A few more clues, a bit more foreshadowing... and then a half-glimpsed movement in their own mirror, and the players were keyed up, tense, and on edge. When it turned out that their invisible assailant was actually killed rather easily, it didn't diminish the feeling of dread and creepiness that the encounter had managed to elicit. And this foreshadowing harkens back to my point #1; if monsters are set pieces, then you can craft an entire "adventure" around finding and defeating one, which means that you should have plenty of opportunities to foreshadow, to drop in unsettling or horrific clues or feelings, and generally ratchet up the tension on your way towards the final confrontation.
 

I agree that XP is way to allow for evolution over time.

As do I.

I tend to agree it's also clunky, though for no obviously good reason I'm still using it in my 4e game.

Because, in the game we call D&D, XP is what/how you measure advancement. It's the framework on which the game is built. Now, is it possible to throw it out and just level when "makes sense"? Sure it is. And as has been stated over and over, many people choose to do so. That's all well and good as that's the joy of table-to-table preference. It's also possible to level up "whenever the DM says so" or [completely foreign to my sensibilities] "when the players say so/want to." That's what folks want to do in their games, that's their [completely valid] choice. That does not translate to "it's what the game should default to do."

I don't think I agree that it's an "extra reward" to the playing of the game which is its own reward, because I think that evolution over time is part of what playing the game is about. (I especially like the way 4e is designed to reflect this, in both mechanical and story terms, from the ground up).

Despite that modest difference of perspective, I thought your two posts were excellent (which I can't XP, sorry). Especially you comments about non-wargaming, fantasy-oriented players. I find that sometimes discussion on the boards can become locked within very narrow presuppositions about what D&D and RPGing more generally are about.

They do indeed. :) Though I do try to keep things in the D&D perspective, as what D&D does/is going to do is the topic of this forum, thread and discussion. What other RPGs do, how other RPGs work, what other RPGs people prefer is all well and good...but, again, that is not some kind of translation to "ergo D&D should be doing X this way."

Heaven forbid that players should think that, as part of playing the game, they're entitled to have their PCs (and the surrounding story) undergo any sort of evolution!

These are two different things. I have no questions or qualms with players expecting their characters to advance. That is, after all the whole POINT of the game. D&D has never been designed to play level 1 or level 7 or level 15 PCs through an entire campaign.

I also have no questions or qualms about the players wanting/feeling/expecting that their PCs will be the driving force of the story. That through their choices and actions, the game-story progresses. This, again, in every incarnation fo the game I am familiar with, is the point of the game...other than those consciously choosing to undergo a direct railroad, obviously, [original Dragonlance mod's, I'm lookin' at you]. Which certainly can be fun, but is definitely not how the game is default-structured to use.

My issue is the idea that players want/feel/expect to be entitled to dictate WHEN their PCs should get more cookies and medals. Player expectation and player entitlement are not the same thing. I completely want the players to have the former. Working toward a goal(s), whether a personal character goal or achieving various plot.story arcs and objectives, moving the game-story and, hopefully, having fun all along the way. I very much want the latter to be removed from the game.

...and just to add, I firmly believe this [entitlement] is a cultural computer-age (which yes, includes video games/MMOs) attitude that has arisen to the status of "cultural norm" in the past couple of decades. In that view, it is not a D&D or RPG thing, but runs far deeper and simply exhibits itself in RPGs as a result.

In 4e, they tell me that a certain number of encounters, built to certain guidelines, will lead to the party gaining a level.

Thankfully, this is moot, as 5e is not (by definition) going to be 4e. But I fail to see/understand how this is so much more desirable or "user-friendly" than an XP chart to look at and say "Do you have Y many XP yet? No? Guess you need to adventure some more."

They also tell me that they expect each of those encounters to take somewhere around an hour or a bit more to resolve.

Something else that I do not see/understand...why the game should be dictating this kind of thing. If the game is constructed that it takes that long...then that's how long it takes. But maybe another group can settle the encounter in half the time...or needs twice the time! Maybe a different edition doesn't need that long using every RAW and added optional system. One preference, and that's all it is, is not "right" or "better" than the other mode of play and the new game, 5e, should certainly not be telling us, in the books, you need X time to settle an encounter...and Y time means you level the PCs up. The implication being, if you don't take that much time, you are somehow doing something "wrong."

This isn't a "guideline for advancement", but it's a helpful description of the assumptions and reasoning that have informed their design. It helps me anticipate the rough shape I can expect my unfolding campaign to take. This is particularly helpful for someone like me who sees XP as a (perhaps clunky) pacing device rather than a reward device.

I'm not entirely sure how to parse this...what does it mean? How is "helpful description of the assumptions...help[ing you] anticipate the rough shape [you] can expect..." not a "guideline for advancement"?

No doubt both WotC's decription of their baseline, and my projections from what they say onto my own game, are approximations. So is my knowledge that it takes me around 50 minutes to get to work. Approximate information is still helpful for planning. I know that if I have a meeting scheduled for 10.30 leaving home at 10 won't cut it.

Again, how is "Approximate information [that] is still helpful for planning" not, similarly, a "guideline"?

This all sounds like the typical edition-transition never-ending circular arguments. People that don't want hard and fast XP charts say "the game shouldn't have XP charts or tell me to use XP this way" whereas the people who do use and want XP charts say they need them. The former will insist "it's easier to add than subtract" which, whether or not a relevant argument for mathematics, is not the same thing when talking about game elements. People that want to use XP however they want will/can do so, regardless of what the game suggests or offers as options and guidelines. People that want to use XP as a tracking/leveling mechanism can not do the same without making up the levels/assumptions themselves...which can then lead to huge divergences in balance and become problematic in regards to campaign time, game pacing and, ultimately, all of which effects player satisfaction and expectations.

I'm not sure if all of that makes sense...it does, and flows together quite naturally, in my head...But not sure if I'm being clear for you all. Hope so. :)

Happy Friday all.
--SD
 

I'm not sure if all of that makes sense...it does, and flows together quite naturally, in my head...But not sure if I'm being clear for you all. Hope so. :)
What I got out of it, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that what people do in their own games is not necessarily something that should be imported into D&D just because it works in some guy's home game. This is true.

However, it seems to be missing the obvious correllary to that--so, why is what D&D does so much better? Just because it's always been that way, and folks are unwilling to change sacred cows, in general? I don't think that's a very compelling reason.
 

What I got out of it, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that what people do in their own games is not necessarily something that should be imported into D&D just because it works in some guy's home game. This is true.

However, it seems to be missing the obvious correllary to that--so, why is what D&D does so much better?

Well, objectively speaking, it's not. There is no "better." There's only what you or I or anyone else likes better.

Just because it's always been that way, and folks are unwilling to change sacred cows, in general? I don't think that's a very compelling reason.

It may not be. But "change because some other RPG [or CRPG] does it this way" is not more compelling...and "Change for the sake of change" i.e. "It's a new edition, so we need to make it different so it'll be different", is not at all compelling for me nor should be viewed as "evolution" or cloaked in the buzz-word of the decade, "innovation." It's just change. It's something different.

The counter to that, I suppose, is that when you change something enough, it ceases to be what it once was. That's all well and good, and if that is what WotC is doing/wants to do, then that's what they should do...but it didn't work out so well the last time and if they are going to change basic assumptions of framework of D&D, like XP, then recognize it as different (since that's what they want) and call it something other than D&D.

If I take chicken, vegetables, some stock (prolly some herbs and seasoning, since I'm fancy like that) and throw it in a pot, I have a chicken soup. If I add some noodles or rice to it...It's still soup. It's just chicken noodle (of chicken & rice) soup. If I use a rue or add cream to it...still a soup? Sure. I have cream of chicken soup or [reduced enough] maybe something that could be called a stew instead of "soup." If I take that mixture, and instead of a pot, put it in a casserole dish, thicken it up a bit more and slap a crust/pastry over the top. That's a chicken pot pie...not a soup at all anymore.

The sacred cows are sacred for a reason. Remove them, if you want. Sure ok. But don't bring me a cheeseburger, chili-con-carne, or even a beautifully prepared beef wellington, point at the plate and say, "Look, a cow!"

Now, if you'll excuse me a mo'...I think I really need to have some lunch. ;)

[EDIT] Apologies. "...a roux..." not a "rue". I want to thicken the soup, not add a street. :) [/EDIT]
 
Last edited:

It does seem to me that it would be much easier for DMs who don't want to worry about XP to take it out then for gamers who want it to build their own system.
 

Well, objectively speaking, it's not. There is no "better." There's only what you or I or anyone else likes better.
That's sometimes true. But there are mechanics that can be measured objectively. And certainly the mechanics' performance relative to its goal can be evaluated somewhat objectively.
It may not be. But "change because some other RPG [or CRPG] does it this way" is not more compelling...and "Change for the sake of change" i.e. "It's a new edition, so we need to make it different so it'll be different", is not at all compelling for me nor should be viewed as "evolution" or cloaked in the buzz-word of the decade, "innovation." It's just change. It's something different.
Of course not. Mechanics should be designed to meet specific goals. If they don't meet those specific goals well, they should be changed. If they do, then leave 'em be.
steeldragons said:
The counter to that, I suppose, is that when you change something enough, it ceases to be what it once was. That's all well and good, and if that is what WotC is doing/wants to do, then that's what they should do...but it didn't work out so well the last time and if they are going to change basic assumptions of framework of D&D, like XP, then recognize it as different (since that's what they want) and call it something other than D&D.

If I take chicken, vegetables, some stock (prolly some herbs and seasoning, since I'm fancy like that) and throw it in a pot, I have a chicken soup. If I add some noodles or rice to it...It's still soup. It's just chicken noodle (of chicken & rice) soup. If I use a rue or add cream to it...still a soup? Sure. I have cream of chicken soup or [reduced enough] maybe something that could be called a stew instead of "soup." If I take that mixture, and instead of a pot, put it in a casserole dish, thicken it up a bit more and slap a crust/pastry over the top. That's a chicken pot pie...not a soup at all anymore.

The sacred cows are sacred for a reason. Remove them, if you want. Sure ok. But don't bring me a cheeseburger, chili-con-carne, or even a beautifully prepared beef wellington, point at the plate and say, "Look, a cow!"

Now, if you'll excuse me a mo'...I think I really need to have some lunch. ;)

[EDIT] Apologies. "...a roux..." not a "rue". I want to thicken the soup, not add a street. :) [/EDIT]
I think I get your point. Let me restate it to see if I've got it right.

This is a car.

Ford%20100%20yr%20Anthony's%20Model%20T%20Lunchoen%20005.jpg


This is clearly not a car. It's changed too much from the car above to still be able to call it the same thing. I mean, geez, it's not even black!

ferrari_enzo-wide.jpg
 

I think I get your point. Let me restate it to see if I've got it right.

This is a car.

Ford%20100%20yr%20Anthony's%20Model%20T%20Lunchoen%20005.jpg


This is clearly not a car. It's changed too much from the car above to still be able to call it the same thing. I mean, geez, it's not even black!

ferrari_enzo-wide.jpg

It seems, as I'm certain will come as a complete surprise to you ;P, that you do not have it right.

My point is more this...

This has a combustion engine, rides on wheels (four wheels even!), transports people places, has a steering apparatus, is composed of various metals and plastics. We'll call this...a car.

car.jpg

Now, I've taken a combustion engine, wheels, transports people places, has a steering apparatus and is composed of various metals and plastic. Now, I'm gonna change the engine, cuz we can tell people they'll use less gas! We're gonna change the wheel size cuz some people have voiced concerns over the previous design of the wheels. I'm going to use different metals and plastics in different proportions...cause, ya know, I'm an innovator like that. We've had some complaints about the fiddliness of shifting gears...so how about a brand new optional gears and "start/stop" systems! Then we're going to add a few some bells and whistles and remove other ones, since we all know everyone loves bells and whistles but they haven't seen THESE bells and whistles with a car before! EVOLUTION! INNOVATION! WHOO, I'M ON FIAH!

Here, check this out! IT'S A CAR!

tractor.JPG

And for those who like a simpler system, we're also putting out "Car: Essentials!"

tractor2.jpg
 

Remove ads

Top