Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7572756" data-attributes="member: 42582">Here's some stuff about monsters and monster stats, from the Burning Wheel Monster Burner (pp 63-64), under the heading "Peer Review":The final and most important step to monster burning is showing your peers you work. This is the rule: A monster cannot be brought to the table for play unless he has been reviewd and agreed upon by the current GM and the current players. This rule is in place so that monsters are acceptable to the standards of individual groups. . . . For peer review we look at three ways a monster might be used in game . . . Each has its own peer review process. GM's Monsters The GM is not obligated to reveal his secrets to the players. What fun would that be? However, he must, upon request, tell his players in public the totals of his latest creation's stat, trait and skill points. Players can then complain by comparing those totals vs their own character's. Burning Wheel believes in the ability of a GM to fairly test his players and respects his right to inject monstrous elements as he sees fit. I know that Gms will be fair and judicious, nd take the protests of their players into account when fielding the latest creations from the pit. A particularly good GM, however, will submit his creatures to the review for Player Designed Monsters described below. . . . Player-Designed Monsters If a player designs a monster to be used in game as a characger, there is a two-step review process. 1. Players Get First Look The players as a grou may approve the monster and pass it to the GM. If they find it too powerful, they may do one of the following: [details of minor mechanical tweaks follow]. 2. GM Gets Second Look The GM may [make various more significant mechanical tweaks]. Lastly, the GM may mae strong suggestions regarding the monster's Beliefs and Instincts. Use these suggestions to better integrate the monster into play. No on may alter the monster concept, but all should offer suggestions on how to better incorporate the monster into the game. . . . If all the other players and the GM deem a creature to be unsuitable for their game, then they may veto the creature in its entirety. . . If your creature is vetoed, I advise you to discuss and negotiate with the group . . . Figure out what is best for the other players in your game. . . . Character Stock Monsters These monsters [ie written up with full Lifepath details for use in the full character generation system] undergo the same review process as for player-designed monsters. However, be sure to review the beast twic in this case. Once before [writing up the Lifepaths], and once after. It keeps players honest. When designing monsters to be used as character stoc, the GM is just another player - he gets no special privileges. Another player should be nominted to act as GM for the purposes of Peer Review. Responsibility Peer Review is in place to ensure that monsters which are brought to your table are acceptable to the standards of your group. The responsibiity for ensuring this rests firmly on the shoulders of the players involved in the REview. Do not hestitate to make changes or raise objections if you think a monster is going to be disruptive to play. In the end, we all want an enjoyable experience.I have no idea how frequently BW tables follow the precise details of this review process. What I think is interesting is the general ethos and approach to establishing gameworld content that it exemplifies. It's very different from the GM just deciding to use a Death Knight that happens to be immune to fear.</blockquote>

Verification