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

[underfoot007ct]

Not at all. The terminology almost certainly predates whatever edition you are referring to. It also describes a perfectly valid style of play, and incidentally one that is very well supported by the kind of monster creation rules I advocate. And, as I said, the "gamist" term doesn't quite hit the mark for me, but I can see what the people who've used it were getting at.

The term gamist is going to have varied mean to different people using it.

Well that's out of left field. Again, I have no stake in things that happened before I was born. I do, however, dislike rules that unbalance D&D's delicate balance between competitive and noncompetitive playstyles and effectively exclude people from the game because they do not fit the mold. Monster roles are an example of this kind of mechanic.

Consider that a metaphor, for just because a concept is from 4e, doesn't make it bad. Maybe that is not what you are saying, but sadly many people think that way.

No, it doesn't. I could label many of my battles as boss fights, based on the stats I gave the monsters, the context in which the battle occurred, and how the battle played out.

Fine.

Again, I just don't want it in a monster manual entry. It's fine for a session review. Big difference.

Don't ban books in my library (another metaphor), if you don't like a monster type don't use it. Don't ban my monsters from the MM, then expect me to bow down and be happy. Don't take away what I want. I am not telling anyone they MUST use any monster, so respect what I want, like I respect what you want.

No. Does designing a creature solely to be balanced as a solo encounter and then calling it a goblin chief change the way we play? Yes.[/QUOTE]

Totally disagree. The way we design a monster in a GAME, doesn't matter If we finish with the exact same monster. That is semantics. That is just being stubborn.

 

[Obryn]

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

Nope. Because D&D ties hit points (and actions, for that matter) too closely to everything else.

The "elite" or "solo" or "boss" label just represents a decoupling of a creature's hit points from everything else about them. Nothing more, nothing less.

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

Consider that a metaphor, for just because a concept is from 4e, doesn't make it bad. Maybe that is not what you are saying, but sadly many people think that way.

Not at all. Like I said, the basic issue here was present in some of the late 3e books, where monsters were designed to serve a specific encounter-based purpose, and Dungeonscape had some monster role terms (and the book is credited to PF guru Jason Buhlman IIRC). It's in 4e, and it's bad, but it's not bad because it's in 4e.

Don't ban books in my library (another metaphor), if you don't like a monster type don't use it. Don't ban my monsters from the MM, then expect me to bow down and be happy. Don't take away what I want. I am not telling anyone they MUST use any monster, so respect what I want, like I respect what you want.

Who's banning stuff? Take your goblin shamans and your red dragons and every other monster you want. We're talking about how stat blocks are rendered and how monsters are designed, not what you can do with the stat blocks or what monsters are designed.

Totally disagree. The way we design a monster in a GAME, doesn't matter If we finish with the exact same monster.

See, that's the thing. We don't necessarily finish with the exact same monster stat block.

Nope. Because D&D ties hit points (and actions, for that matter) too closely to everything else.

The "elite" or "solo" or "boss" label just represents a decoupling of a creature's hit points from everything else about them. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sounds like what you're saying is that it's a patch for some systemic issues regarding number scaling. Given that, why not fix the underlying problem you're getting at?

 

[Hussar]

Predictability on the DM's side of the screen and adventure absolutely go hand in hand for many of us

How many? A half dozen ENWorlders? The current (diminishing) 4e DM base?

Umm, hrm. Now I'm really, really confused. You have no interest in what pre-3e D&D did, and now you're saying that 3e D&D innovations don't count either. Or did you forget that CR is a baseline in 3e?

A tool that allows you some predictive ability in encounter design is pretty much the cornerstone upon which 3e is built. EVERYTHING in 3e is based on the baseline of four 25 point buy value PC's, one of each base class - fighter, cleric, wizard, thief. The ENTIRE freaking game is based around that. How the monsters are designed, damage, AC, scaling, EVERYTHING.

So, yeah, considering how popular 3e is and Pathfinder is, and, 4e as well since it's based on the same model, I'd say that it's pretty darn important.

Why do you think Paizo gets lauded for it's great modules? Simply because they're nice a fluffy? Or could it possibly be that they're a hell of a lot of fun in play too. Why are they a hell of a lot of fun in play? Because the dev's have the tools, baked right into the ruleset, to be able to judge how these modules will function at the table.

Do you have to follow the guidelines? Of course not. But, why remove them for those of us who do want them? There's absolutely nothing stopping you from ignoring them. Nothing in the game says that every Orc Chief must use the same stat-block. That would be ludicrous.

So, at the end of the day, what's your point?

 

[Ahnehnois]

So, at the end of the day, what's your point?

That 3e has succeeded in spite of CR/EL, wealth assumptions by level, standard party size and composition, and the associated encounter design, not because of these things. It works because it's a good enough system that you can violate all those assumptions and still get the play experience you want. A lot of 3e's problem's trace to the CR and XP system. I suspect the people that actually use those kinds of assumptions are largely the ones that dislike the system, which is why some of them now like a system that is built even more around assuming how you play. I also suspect the people who went old school saw the metagame aspect of design creeping into new areas of the rules, and I credit them for their foresight in that regard.

Why do you think Paizo gets lauded for it's great modules?

Not because they're balanced for a standard party, I'm guessing. Then again, that's a small subset of the (already small) rpg market.

Do you have to follow the guidelines? Of course not. But, why remove them for those of us who do want them?

Guidelines? Sure. My 3.5 MM has lots of guidelines. Metagame rules? Not so fast.

 

[Obryn]

Sounds like what you're saying is that it's a patch for some systemic issues regarding number scaling. Given that, why not fix the underlying problem you're getting at?

Because this is already a perfectly good fix to the problem. You disengage monster HPs from the rest of their abilities. The underlying problem is that they are connected inexorably in some editions.

Unless you have a slavish adherence to building monsters like PCs, why go further?

-O

 

[Hussar]

That 3e has succeeded in spite of CR/EL, wealth assumptions by level, standard party size and composition, and the associated encounter design, not because of these things. It works because it's a good enough system that you can violate all those assumptions and still get the play experience you want. A lot of 3e's problem's trace to the CR and XP system. I suspect the people that actually use those kinds of assumptions are largely the ones that dislike the system, which is why some of them now like a system that is built even more around assuming how you play. I also suspect the people who went old school saw the metagame aspect of design creeping into new areas of the rules, and I credit them for their foresight in that regard.

Not because they're balanced for a standard party, I'm guessing. Then again, that's a small subset of the (already small) rpg market.

Guidelines? Sure. My 3.5 MM has lots of guidelines. Metagame rules? Not so fast.

So, essentially you're saying that 3e succeeded because nearly every 3e fan was so enamoured to ... what... the flavour... that they chose to rip apart the entire baseline of the system in order to play a game that you're claiming doesn't work out of the box.

Really?

I think the success of 3e has a lot more to do with the fact that 3e works, out of the box, that balanced systems are a thousand times easier to play than unbalanced ones, and that the average gamer is savvy enough to know that a game that works is better than one that needs to be entirely rewritten.

As far as metagaming aspects of adventure design, I'm not completely out to see. There is absolutely ZERO non-metagaming aspect of adventure design. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Every facet of adventure design, from mapping out structure (whether it be a physical structure or simply a conceptual structure) to the type and number of challenges (either combat, non-combat or both) to every other aspect of adventure design is wholly a meta-game process.

The only way you could avoid that would be to somehow develop some sort of organic model and then advance the model in such a way that an adventure grew itself. Since that's impossible (or at least WAY too difficult to achieve with a pencil and paper), I'm going to stand by the fact that every single aspect of adventure design is purely meta-game.

Of course it is. The DM chooses what, when, where and why every single element exists in an adventure. Why are there ten orcs in room 1b and not nine? Why do they have longswords instead of axes? Why do they have 2d6 gp each instead of 2d10? Why don't they have over powered magic items?

On and on and on. Nothing a DM does during adventure design is not metagaming. The only difference between 3e and any other edition is that 3e gave us transparent baselines.

 

[renau1g]

Naw, they just bought 3.5x cuz it was DnD obviously. Not because they liked it, just like 4e is a wild success with every player of every previous edition buying books left and right..........

3e did a lot of things great and aligning all XP for classes into one progression table was one thing I really enjoyed coming out of 2e's multitude of tables (that's one system that loved tables, everywhere). 3e also worked well with some of teh CR/XP encounter design (again, as long as it wasn't a solo monster). As another poster stated, the 2-5 monster encounter was the sweet spot. More than that and they weren't a threat and a single foe was overwhelmed easily.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

That doesn't really do anything except make DMs have to spend more time devoted to mechanical drudge-work, rather than on developing their adventure. Monsters in Monster Manuals are carefully selected to be relevant to a wide audience of game groups. The idea is that by presenting monsters that are essentially "plug-and-play", you're taking some of the burden off the DM, thereby improving the quality of his game, and lowering the bar of transition from player to DM, which is vital to the hobby's growth.

I don't have a problem doing that and developing my adventures. I know I don't represent everyone else but I do know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

I will gladly, any day of the week, give up a little more time in order to have the ability to create monsters and encounters the way I want it.

If you like for DMing to be quick and easy then sample made NPC's are right up your alley. I for one do not really like already made NPCs and creatures and I want a system that will allow me to throw a class or background on to any creature I see fit.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

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.

Because it's easier for you to have a sample boss or actually build one than it is for me to take the creature apart and try to figure out how to rebuild it how I want it.

Sometimes we don't always get what we want and someone has to come out in the end with what they want and to be blunt I hope it's me. Now if we get both then great but if not then I hope it's me. I know a lot of people who didn't like the 4th edition monster setup so hopefully they will relax that setup and give us something else.