D&D 4E Can WotC Cater to Past Editions Without Compromising 4e Design?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Eh, you know, I think the heart of it isn't anything to do with classes and items and powers really.

The problem is that encounter design is too much of a science. 4e solved designing encounters, and in the process ironically it broke the game.

Every level N monster has almost exactly N + 12 NADs and N + 14 AC, and X HP. It isn't impossible to make interesting monsters but fundamentally they are all largely similar. You'll have some minor variation in defenses, and monster powers mostly vary reasonably in a tactical sense, but making a monster that is ponderous for instance doesn't really come off. It still has a high reflex defense. Having an N + 10 reflex simply isn't enough to make the players even NOTICE let alone give it adequate flavor. So monsters eventually come off feeling a bit bland and there's barely any point in them having 4 different defenses. MM3 monsters have perfected the current design, but it is just a bland design concept. Piled on top of watering down special effects 4e monsters are rather vanilla lot overall.

Then we have the heart of the problem, which is there's just not that much fundamental variation in encounters. Back in the AD&D days you had a few very different 'types' of encounters. You had the 'meat' (IE some orcs, you hacked on them, cast a spell on them maybe, etc) which was kinda like your 4e encounters. Then you had your 'surprise' encounters (IE oops that pillar is really a roper, oh crap). Then you had your solo encounters where the monster could crisp the whole party in an instant if you didn't figure out a way to work around it (IE a dragon), and your 'poison pill' encounters with things like cockatrices. You also had more dimensions of variation. You could make an encounter with a few high damage monsters with mediocre defenses that went down fast but put the ouch on people, like giants. You could also make an encounter that revolved around outlasting a bunch of weaker monsters.

4e encounters are built around a specific formula at the core. You can't really easily create most of the full range you could get back in the day. Each encounter FEELS like an equal battle against a roughly equal number of tough, durable, relatively low damage opponents. There are elements of the design that are obviously intended to work against that, monsters have an encounter power they can all unleash at the start of the fight to rock the party back and make fights a slightly uphill battle, but it is all much more muted than it was in AD&D.

The narrowed range between PCs in 4e has great utility. The narrowed range between monsters not so much. It is easy to understand what the motivation was, but there was too much of a focus on that and too little provision made for going outside it. You CAN mechanically do all of this stuff, but it is just beaten into the DM that things follow a pattern and every existing monster is built around those concepts.

If I wanted to give 4e a kick in the ass I'd burn all the MMs, all the encounter building guidelines/rules, and just rewrite that whole aspect of the game. You don't have to change ANY actual mechanics at the table, just use them differently.

Some similar things can be said about items too, though I don't think that's really near as important in the long run.

So, yes, 4e can adopt a LOT of elements of older editions in a sense and doesn't require any significant mechanical changes. It is a good system that has mostly just been hamstrung by a determined focus on doing things one specific way instead of accepting that RPGs are wonky and simply can't be systematized to the degree WotC would desire.

 

[catastrophic]

I don't find that to be the case in 4e at all.

In fact only in 4e have I see monsters that really operate in distinct, unique, characterful ways, istead of being bags of hitpoints with the occasional nasty attacks.

Even in mm1 you had monsters like he bugbear strangler, which typified this, and as times goes on, the monster design only gets better.

4e monsters are vastly superior to their predecessors. There have been mis-steps with design, but monster design is one place where they've improved dramatically with each iteration.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't find that to be the case in 4e at all.

In fact only in 4e have I see monsters that really operate in distinct, unique, characterful ways, istead of being bags of hitpoints with the occasional nasty attacks.

Even in mm1 you had monsters like he bugbear strangler, which typified this, and as times goes on, the monster design only gets better.

4e monsters are vastly superior to their predecessors. There have been mis-steps with design, but monster design is one place where they've improved dramatically with each iteration.

Yeah, we obviously have different perspectives on that. I don't think 4e monsters are terrible. In fact many monsters, the majority of them, are perfectly fine in isolation but the overall effect is that each monster tends to blur into the others. They don't have distinct enough strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The narrowed range between PCs in 4e has great utility. The narrowed range between monsters not so much. It is easy to understand what the motivation was, but there was too much of a focus on that and too little provision made for going outside it. You CAN mechanically do all of this stuff, but it is just beaten into the DM that things follow a pattern and every existing monster is built around those concepts.

If I wanted to give 4e a kick in the ass I'd burn all the MMs, all the encounter building guidelines/rules, and just rewrite that whole aspect of the game. You don't have to change ANY actual mechanics at the table, just use them differently.

Some similar things can be said about items too, though I don't think that's really near as important in the long run.

So, yes, 4e can adopt a LOT of elements of older editions in a sense and doesn't require any significant mechanical changes. It is a good system that has mostly just been hamstrung by a determined focus on doing things one specific way instead of accepting that RPGs are wonky and simply can't be systematized to the degree WotC would desire.

If you want to make that kind of change, I think magic items are very important. This is one of those places where two drastic changes are better than one, and less disruptive at the same time.

Make your changes to monsters to have all kinds of special problems to deal with. Then make changes to magic items to help the characters deal with those special problems.

Now the game operates at two levels:

A. The current one, where you use your normal abilities to deal with orcs and the like.

B. The exceptional one, where you combine your normal abilities with oddball magic items to handle special monsters--or do skill challenges or roleplaying to work around it, like you did in 1E.

The only real problem with that is that a lot of people will "need" the magic items to deal with the monsters. But unlike earlier versions, I don't think it is as big a deal, because it is two different things running in parallel. If you don't want to deal with the special monsters, then don't include the special magic items, and vice versa. Of if you prefer that all special monsters be handled via clever play, then don't use the items. And if you use the special items without the monsters, no harm done--most of their power is in handling the specials.

 

[Scribble]

One thing I like about 4e and newer editions in general is the idea of balance.

When I was in film school I remember people getting upset all the time about having to learn stupid "rules" like what different camera angles were supposed to be used when and what lighting styles conveyed what message.

"Art shouldn't have rules!" they'd yell, and then inevitably make a 10 minute long crapfest for their projects. The professors always said it's important to learn the rules so you know how to break them- you aren't locked into using the rules, and in truth being a slave to them can make just as big a crapfest, but understanding them is key.

I think this applies to games as well. It's important for the game to be balanced because that's the harder part. Once it's balanced the DM can easily unbalance areas he wants to, but he can't do that without creating the inevitable crapfest unless there's a good starting point.

I think too many people want to skip right to the unbalanced part assuming that it will make the game more exciting.

What I think REALLY needs to happen is more discussion in the books about how it's ok to unbalance the game, as long as you're aware of what you're doing, and then tips on how to do it.

IE explain it's ok to have encounters well out of range, so long as this is communicated in some way, etc...

Unbalancing the game from the start won't make it more fun in my opinion. That way just leaves room for annoyance.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree with both you, Scribble, and CJ too. I think the real problem was just that balance was achieved, but a certain amount of crazy wackiness and distinctiveness was baked out when balance was baked in. As CJ says, you CAN have both if you do it right. The problem is I can put this stuff into my game, but it REALLY REALLY needs to be included in the game itself, and the reasons for it and how to use it need to be described in the DMG. People unwrap their shiny new 4e and play and they find that pretty soon each combat is a lot like the other combats, it is difficult to achieve pacing with encounters that all work on the same basis instead of having a variety of different types. You can easily solve that, but most players and DMs don't really quite understand what is going on and why it doesn't just happen naturally, which it really did in older D&D. People will say 'it creates problems' but in a sense the problems are part of the magic of the game, and if the DM can manage what problems he allows to come up and always has the nice smoothly working core of the game to fall back on, then it will work, I think.

I'm not sure at this point WotC can bear to reimagine their approach to 4e though. The system can handle many more modes of play than they have even touched on, but they seem bound and determined to stay their course. Essentials basically missed the boat, even if it did introduce some elements that were beneficial. The incremental MM3 monster changes helped too, but they need to get bold and take some real risks and get the crazy back in the game.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

What I think REALLY needs to happen is more discussion in the books about how it's ok to unbalance the game, as long as you're aware of what you're doing, and then tips on how to do it.

And lots and lots of examples. In detail. The advice without the detailed examples doesn't seem to take very well or very fast, as any number of, err, less than fully informed statements over the years about certain games will attest.

So I think Abdul is correct, that something like this needs to be in the game, fully supported. If not his idea, something else very much like it. And it absolutely should be called out as something that is outside the normal balanced realm, and meant to be used as such.

Among other reasons, when you explicitly call out sections of the rules as either assumed to be balanced or assumed to not necessarily be--you send powerful messages that balance as a base is very useful, but at the same time that it isn't everything. Called out and deliberate imbalance (if carefully selected) reinforces the balance. It tells you where tinkering is easy and where you need to be more careful.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And lots and lots of examples. In detail. The advice without the detailed examples doesn't seem to take very well or very fast, as any number of, err, less than fully informed statements over the years about certain games will attest.

So I think Abdul is correct, that something like this needs to be in the game, fully supported. If not his idea, something else very much like it. And it absolutely should be called out as something that is outside the normal balanced realm, and meant to be used as such.

Among other reasons, when you explicitly call out sections of the rules as either assumed to be balanced or assumed to not necessarily be--you send powerful messages that balance as a base is very useful, but at the same time that it isn't everything. Called out and deliberate imbalance (if carefully selected) reinforces the balance. It tells you where tinkering is easy and where you need to be more careful.

Yeah, that is a good point. I don't know that I have conceived of the best way to achieve it either of course, any ideas I have certainly would need work. The thing is it really needs to come from WotC somehow. I see Mike maundering on about twigging with skill systems and optional modules and whatnot, but I haven't seen him actually dig down to where I'm coming from. I guess that might mean I'm full of it, lol. I don't think so though. I think he's too close to things and some outside perspective is needed.

Anyway, yeah, items and monsters that are labeled "use with caution, doesn't really fit into the normal power progression" would be a good start. Rituals could exist like that too. Much of this stuff is ALMOST there already. There are for instance "not really for players" rituals, and they've started to break free some on items from what we see of MME. The 'story item' thing for instance, while in essence just "you can break the rules" at least points DMs in a direction that is good and makes them feel like they have that license.

I think it really needs to extend to monsters though. Have some monsters that are significantly lower hit points at their nominal level for instance that can be used as 'shock troops' for quick brutal encounters that go fast but actually suck enough PC resources to be worth having. Some "you're screwed" monsters too. I mean the Medusa is fine, it is along those lines. It isn't the only approach, but even the Medusa has a sort of mediocre feel in a way with its nasty effect being rather gradual. It is OK and maybe it does hit the right balance point, but I think we could live with some lurkers that can just disable a character in a single shot for instance. Used correctly this kind of stuff can be fun. I'd also increase the variance on a lot of monsters for hit points and defenses. Really make them almost caricatures of themselves. You basically can't miss the giant with vs Ref attacks. So what? Yeah, it means they have a weak point, but they can also have some 'shed those pesky conditions because I'm just so huge and nasty' things that keep them effective while letting the players really get a strong visceral feel for the nature of the creature and some tactics they will know to try on them.

 

[catastrophic]

Yeah, we obviously have different perspectives on that. I don't think 4e monsters are terrible. In fact many monsters, the majority of them, are perfectly fine in isolation but the overall effect is that each monster tends to blur into the others. They don't have distinct enough strengths and weaknesses.

The power based approach 4e uses is just plain better than the previous edition's efforts in this regard. Having wildly different hit points or imbalanced 'save or die' powers don't really make monsters distinct, it just makes them inconsistant.

Only in 4e do they have genuine and distinct strengths and even weaknesses.

Show me the water elemental in 3e that takes extra damage from attacks after you freeze it.

Or the dragon that keeps lashing out even as you try and hold it in place.

Or the orc that let's loose one last savage assault before failling.

Or the zombies who die if you decapitate them with a critical hit.

Or the (here I randomly flip to a page in the mm3) 'Girillon Alpha', well surely this will be a generic dull monster- oh wait it's not, it's got a bunch of auras that slide and ca people combined with high damage output, making it a four-armed clawing-frenzy killing machine that will, as with most mm3 monsters, be an extremly distinctive part of the fight.

I can go on LITERALLY FOR HOURS with these examples. I can't believe that 4e bashing has gone so far down the rabbit hole that people are pretending that 3e monsters are more distinct.

There are 'you're screwed' monsters. i'm right now designing an unbeatable solo that i'll be posting on this forum in a couple of days- but I could never do that with 3e monster design, because 3e monster design leads to generic, undistinctive bags of hit points with a few wierd attacks thrown in. Poor balance is not a feature, it's a bug.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The power based approach 4e uses is just plain better than the previous edition's efforts in this regard. Having wildly different hit points or imbalanced 'save or die' powers don't really make monsters distinct, it just makes them inconsistant.

Only in 4e do they have genuine and distinct strengths and even weaknesses.

Show me the water elemental in 3e that takes extra damage from attacks after you freeze it.

Or the dragon that keeps lashing out even as you try and hold it in place.

Or the orc that let's loose one last savage assault before failling.

Or the zombies who die if you decapitate them with a critical hit.

Or the (here I randomly flip to a page in the mm3) 'Girillon Alpha', well surely this will be a generic dull monster- oh wait it's not, it's got a bunch of auras that slide and ca people combined with high damage output, making it a four-armed clawing-frenzy killing machine that will, as with most mm3 monsters, be an extremly distinctive part of the fight.

I can go on LITERALLY FOR HOURS with these examples. I can't believe that 4e bashing has gone so far down the rabbit hole that people are pretending that 3e monsters are more distinct.

There are 'you're screwed' monsters. i'm right now designing an unbeatable solo that i'll be posting on this forum in a couple of days- but I could never do that with 3e monster design, because 3e monster design leads to generic, undistinctive bags of hit points with a few wierd attacks thrown in. Poor balance is not a feature, it's a bug.

I never mentioned 3e at all... Don't mistake what I'm trying to say. We're not talking about tossing a bunch of SODs on monsters or etc. There are two aspects to this. One is as you say, giving all the monsters basically identical hit points and defenses, and to a great extent fairly regularized attacks, has the benefit of making them fairly interchangeable and makes encounters easy to balance, as we can precisely predict how much damage they will output and how long they will last. OTOH this same characteristic of predictability undermines one of the major points of interest of the game. It also reduces DM flexibility in developing different types of encounters, as I've already indicated.

I don't think it is necessary to have 'poor balance' to have increased interest and diversity. I think those underlying numbers can be a powerful way to differentiate the core characteristics of monsters and make them come more alive in the game. This WILL mean it is trickier to precisely balance things, but I don't believe personally that will undermine the game and recreate crap shoots that often passed for encounters. I'd also point out that despite some flaws that these earlier editions DID work. DMs WERE able to make encounters that were fair contests. Some aspects of older monsters were problematic, and I'm well aware of that. I think you and many other people simply underestimate the degree to which the precise packaging up of the encounter system and monsters has created a loss of something, some kind of ZEST from the game.

The real discussion to have on the topic isn't about how good or bad 3e monsters were. It is about how can 4e walk a line between overbalanced and overly difficult to run/DM. Given that we have long since had people doing things like halving hit points and doing other drastic things to monsters without the game falling apart we already KNOW that there are significant variations that can be tolerated without breaking anything.