Am I the only one who doesn't like the arbitrary "boss monster" tag?

[Ahnehnois]

Some of us DMs like to have convenient levels (and in the absense of flatter math, caste labels) to make combat more predictable from behind the DM screen.
...
Most players I know like continuity, and frankly I like adventure and story more than chargen.

Well, there's a non-sequitur. I also like adventure and story. That's why I don't need encounter-based balance, because encounters balanced around a mechanical standard are neither adventurous nor a particularly interesting story. The story comes out of a diverse set of possible outcomes, not "the creature fights for 2-6 rounds before being killed". "Predictable" and "adventure" are words that don't go together well. And if anything, I think most players appreciate the continuity of knowing that monsters are subject to the same rules they are (and I don't know of any "boss" PCs).

 

[underfoot007ct]

As for the boss tag, I oppose nearly every gamist rule so it is no surprise that I do not like that one at all. Bosses should be defined by the story and should be as strong as they would be in the world given the circumstances. If that is "too strong" for the PCs then they have to get creative.
Also, a boss tag again reinforces the perception of D&D as a MMO inspired skirmish game where everything is geared towards combat, an image D&D imo desperately needs to loose.

D&D is a GAME not a simulation, games have rules. If you want to call a rule gamist , well fine. You realize hit points & saving throws don't exist it the real world, right?

I have only nrarely played MMOs, but I amazed that so many people HATE everything about them. Most say they have 'NEVER played a MMO', yet to have an absolute all knowing knowledge of all thing about MMO. How do you know there is ONLY combat in a MMO, please list all the MMOs you have played.

If something, works well, is FUN, fair, then who cares where it is from LOTR or a MMO. I don't.

 

[The Choice]

Call me a reactionary grognard, but I'm not interested in playing a D&D that is part Harry Potter, part Twilight, and part My Little Pony.

Yes, we must keep our blessed hobby, based largely around the stories of loincloth-clad barbarians, frolicking elves, singing bozos in yellow boots, badly dubbed kung-fu movies and games where small lead figurines were moved on a table to "simulate" battles, all of those pure, unadultered works of culture and wit, clean of all outside influence. The Creators of this Great Game intended it for 40 year-olds with a medieval fetish, and not for kids. What's more, letting such filth sully our sacred PHBs might attract girls, and we all know what that means.

... but seriously, D&D has always been a product of its time. The sooner people realize this, the sooner D&D can move out of its self-imposed ghettoization, and, perhaps, regain some form of cultural relevance.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Its fine if you replace "slap a description on" with "provide a solid and flavorful description".

If we said a goblin gets 1 attack and a shaman gets 3 "just because" then the mechanics fall flat. If the shaman gets 3 attacks because it has summoned 2 dead spirits to its side....then that makes sense.

If a goblin gets a + 3 rather than a + 1. it is not arbitrary nor gamist .

Goblins only exist in fantasy, and in fantasy RPGs. The 'G' is for game, games have rules. You may agree with those rules or NOT, but that doesn't make those rules better or gamist.

Making sense is goblin can't fly due to not having wings or magic to do so. If Kobolds get a +1 to attack, goblins get a +2, Orcs get a +3, Hobgoblins get +4; then that is a game mechanic, nothing more nothing less.

 

[underfoot007ct]

I want every creature to have it's normal everyday statblock along with it's history, culture, and any other relevant information.

Then I want to be able to make that creature into what ever I want just by adding a class, background, feat etc...

I don't want a certain creature to be built and presented in the MM as just a "boss" creature.

Why ban bosses? Why deny myself who does? Why not have BOTH.

You can just choose to ignore boss monsters, why do we need omit parts of the game because you dislike them. This is a form of censorship, remove all the books from the library, which I don't like. We need freedom of choice.

 

[Ahnehnois]

D&D is a GAME not a simulation, games have rules. If you want to call a rule gamist , well fine. You realize hit points & saving throws don't exist it the real world, right?

A confusing piece of terminology. "Gamist" does not mean "the extent to which something is a game". It refers to a tactical style of play with a competitive tone directed towards goal outcomes, characterized by system mastery and adversarial relationships between the people at the table.

D&D is always a game in the broad sense of the word: it's an activity you do for fun. Playing house is a game. The gamist terminology describes (and people are objecting to) the attempt to make D&D into a competitive game (which D&D has some elements of, but which certain rules can push the game towards or away).

The boss label is gamist because it suggests that the PCs are "supposed" to fight that monster by itself, and defeat it after a relatively difficult battle. It ignores all other outcomes that could happen (i.e. retreat, negotiation, anything other than a straight up battle), emphasizing the main competitive segment of the game (combat). Some call that "gamist"; I think "reductionist" describes it better.

 

[slobster]

The boss label is gamist because it suggests that the PCs are "supposed" to fight that monster by itself, and defeat it after a relatively difficult battle. It ignores all other outcomes that could happen (i.e. retreat, negotiation, anything other than a straight up battle), emphasizing the main competitive segment of the game (combat).

Wait, what about calling something a solo makes negotiation or avoidance impossible? A solo tag denotes its characteristics in battle certainly, but does not preclude a monster so tagged from engaging in other sorts of activities. Just like calling a character class a fighter doesn't mean that fighting is the only thing he's ever allowed to do.

 

[Hussar]

Wait, what about calling something a solo makes negotiation or avoidance impossible? A solo tag denotes it's characteristics in battle certainly, but does not preclude a monster so tagged from engaging in other sorts of activities. Just like calling a character class a fighter doesn't mean that fighting is the only thing he's ever allowed to do.

No, you misunderstand. Anything that is written in the books must be taken as gospel, interpreted in as narrow a way as possible and must be slavishly followed without any introspection. Anything else is not really playing the game.

How the hell people played earlier editions I will never know.

 

[Obryn]

The boss label is gamist because it suggests that the PCs are "supposed" to fight that monster by itself, and defeat it after a relatively difficult battle. It ignores all other outcomes that could happen (i.e. retreat, negotiation, anything other than a straight up battle), emphasizing the main competitive segment of the game (combat). Some call that "gamist"; I think "reductionist" describes it better.

No?

Should a battle happen, it should be capable of taking on a party by itself. Should a battle not happen, it will be irrelevant. Should the party confront the "solo" monster while it has a bunch of its buddies around, too, then the party just made a pretty big blunder, I'd say.

It's saying, "I may just be one monster, but you'd better outnumber me to have any hope of taking me down."

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

Wait, what about calling something a solo makes negotiation or avoidance impossible?

Nothing. The concept is completely separate from those possibilities. That's kind of the problem. Even combat mechanics like hit points are meaningful in some noncombat situation.

If "fighter" really did refer to a character who only fought, it would be a problem. But it doesn't, so it's not a problem. If "big badass fighter" and "wimpy support fighter" were possible character class/theme combos, it would be a problem. They aren't, so it isn't. And finally, if "big badass ogre" and "wimpy support ogre" were possibilities that would be a problem. And is, according to this thread.

It's saying, "I may just be one monster, but you'd better outnumber me to have any hope of taking me down."

Aren't its level, ability scores, and other perks also saying that clearly enough?