Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
4e Monster List - Dwarven Nosepicker & Elven Butt Scratcher
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 4108453" data-attributes="member: 16586"><p>It might not be easier for you to run, but I feel it will be easier for people like me to run. I don't want or need a game system to provide answers for every situation that I might come across. What I want is material that functions for its given purpose most of the time and a suite of tools to use when I need to go beyond the rules of the game. This is a fundamental difference we seem to have.</p><p></p><p>I contend that it is impossible for a game system to completely remove GM judgment from the equation. After all elements like encounter design, creature design, adversary ability use, and situations that require stepping outside the bounds of the rules will always require the exercise of judgment. When you attempt to remove the GM from the equation in this manner and tell GMs to just trust the system without explaining why things are set up in the manner they are you basically tie the GM's hands to the system. I've seen many 3e GMs who feel like their hands are pretty much tied when they can't find an answer in the rules or get frustrated because they put too much trust in the encounter design guidelines that 3e provides (usually due to unrevealed assumptions inherit in 3e's encounter design guidelines). They never improve in their ability to exercise judgment because they don't make judgment calls often enough.</p><p></p><p>Why have rules then you ask ? Because this isn't a binary issue. You can provide support to make judgment calls easier to make without overloading a GM's plate with a multitude of general rules that can serve to intimidate GMs. You can also ease GMs by starting them off with smaller less important judgment calls. You can also cover typical situations so that new GMs don't have to constantly make judgment calls. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The major differences here are that monster abilities are now clearly defined in each monster's statblock and that martial training can actually result in a monster performing stunts that might not be described in the general body of rules. Monster abilities being defined in each monster's statblock eliminates the need for cross referencing and makes applying exceptions to the general far easier since you no longer have to parse out 'like x but not in y specific ways' passages. You can see this in the differing implementations of Pack Tactics in the Gnoll entry. The martial abilities of various monsters are (like a fighter or ranger's class powers the result of dedicated training. With this training they can learn to do some pretty nifty stuff. I realize that D&D has a long hallowed tradition of not letting martially oriented characters do cool stuff so I can see how cognitive dissonance might settle in. The key element of this exception based approach is that you don't need to limit your design space to martial effects already predefined in the rules. You can come up with new stuff that only applies if certain monsters or class powers come into play. If you don't want to deal with a certain class of exceptions in play you don't have to. Just don't use the relevent class powers and monsters. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It is entirely reasonable for a character to learn how to do these things (by investing resources i.e. powers towards that goal) or to attempt things outside of their predefined abilities. However, that is not the point of a Monster Manual. That is the point of player supplements and GM initiative. This is what I was talking about above when I talked about smaller scale judgments calls. Situations like this can serve as a means to teach new GMs how to make judgment calls. We shouldn't expect all such calls to be perfect of course, and GMs may have to reverse course on previous rulings. That's okay. We shouldn't expect perfection, but if we provide GMs with the proper tools and give them some guidance on how to handle these situations without necessarily providing them with an answer (the right answer might depend on the game in question) they should learn to flex their creative muscles and get better over time. It is important that we place trust in GMs without leaving them in the dark. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I've addressed this somewhat above, but I think your failing to consider that PCs also are capable of doing a number of things that monsters cannot without additional training. Players will have plenty of oppurtunities to get their special on. Exception based design applies just as much to character classes as it does to monsters. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why are supernatural abilities so different ? Should a wizard not be able to attempt to perform supernatural feats he has seen without learning a new ability by tapping into his resoirvoir of mystical power and experimenting ? Isn't that how new spells are discovered ? Why should supernatural ability be the only way to perform something extraordinary? Why is exception based design fine for some classes of ability, but not others?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Campbell, post: 4108453, member: 16586"] It might not be easier for you to run, but I feel it will be easier for people like me to run. I don't want or need a game system to provide answers for every situation that I might come across. What I want is material that functions for its given purpose most of the time and a suite of tools to use when I need to go beyond the rules of the game. This is a fundamental difference we seem to have. I contend that it is impossible for a game system to completely remove GM judgment from the equation. After all elements like encounter design, creature design, adversary ability use, and situations that require stepping outside the bounds of the rules will always require the exercise of judgment. When you attempt to remove the GM from the equation in this manner and tell GMs to just trust the system without explaining why things are set up in the manner they are you basically tie the GM's hands to the system. I've seen many 3e GMs who feel like their hands are pretty much tied when they can't find an answer in the rules or get frustrated because they put too much trust in the encounter design guidelines that 3e provides (usually due to unrevealed assumptions inherit in 3e's encounter design guidelines). They never improve in their ability to exercise judgment because they don't make judgment calls often enough. Why have rules then you ask ? Because this isn't a binary issue. You can provide support to make judgment calls easier to make without overloading a GM's plate with a multitude of general rules that can serve to intimidate GMs. You can also ease GMs by starting them off with smaller less important judgment calls. You can also cover typical situations so that new GMs don't have to constantly make judgment calls. The major differences here are that monster abilities are now clearly defined in each monster's statblock and that martial training can actually result in a monster performing stunts that might not be described in the general body of rules. Monster abilities being defined in each monster's statblock eliminates the need for cross referencing and makes applying exceptions to the general far easier since you no longer have to parse out 'like x but not in y specific ways' passages. You can see this in the differing implementations of Pack Tactics in the Gnoll entry. The martial abilities of various monsters are (like a fighter or ranger's class powers the result of dedicated training. With this training they can learn to do some pretty nifty stuff. I realize that D&D has a long hallowed tradition of not letting martially oriented characters do cool stuff so I can see how cognitive dissonance might settle in. The key element of this exception based approach is that you don't need to limit your design space to martial effects already predefined in the rules. You can come up with new stuff that only applies if certain monsters or class powers come into play. If you don't want to deal with a certain class of exceptions in play you don't have to. Just don't use the relevent class powers and monsters. It is entirely reasonable for a character to learn how to do these things (by investing resources i.e. powers towards that goal) or to attempt things outside of their predefined abilities. However, that is not the point of a Monster Manual. That is the point of player supplements and GM initiative. This is what I was talking about above when I talked about smaller scale judgments calls. Situations like this can serve as a means to teach new GMs how to make judgment calls. We shouldn't expect all such calls to be perfect of course, and GMs may have to reverse course on previous rulings. That's okay. We shouldn't expect perfection, but if we provide GMs with the proper tools and give them some guidance on how to handle these situations without necessarily providing them with an answer (the right answer might depend on the game in question) they should learn to flex their creative muscles and get better over time. It is important that we place trust in GMs without leaving them in the dark. I've addressed this somewhat above, but I think your failing to consider that PCs also are capable of doing a number of things that monsters cannot without additional training. Players will have plenty of oppurtunities to get their special on. Exception based design applies just as much to character classes as it does to monsters. Why are supernatural abilities so different ? Should a wizard not be able to attempt to perform supernatural feats he has seen without learning a new ability by tapping into his resoirvoir of mystical power and experimenting ? Isn't that how new spells are discovered ? Why should supernatural ability be the only way to perform something extraordinary? Why is exception based design fine for some classes of ability, but not others? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
4e Monster List - Dwarven Nosepicker & Elven Butt Scratcher
Top