Comments on Noonan's thoughts on Monsters

[sjmiller]

Part of this was quoted on the front news page of EN World (otherwise I would not have known about it):

I'm still jazzed about that. But it might be eclipsed by my new favorite thing: easy-to-mix monsters. Encounters at my Thursday night game are a lot richer when Monster A employs technique 1 to assist Monster B's technique 2. You can do that in 3e, of course. But in 4e, I find it:

• Easier to assemble those mixed monster groups on the fly.
• Easier to keep those monsters alive long enough to pull off their cool tricks.
• Easier to convince my players that they're a threat (in 3e, the power curve is such that a monster quickly falls from "appropriate challenge" to "speed bump" in the space of only a couple of levels).
• Easier to run those mixed monster groups at the table without my head exploding.

This may sound a bit snarky, and for that I apologize, but I think these comments by Mr. Noonan are quite telling. They tell me that Mr. Noonan and I are quite different DMs. Not only that, but it makes me question how well he know how to run a game.

Frankly, I am shocked that a DM has trouble keeping monsters alive long enough to pull off the “cool tricks” that are built into the creature. I think if you are having trouble doing this you are: a) playing the monsters incorrectly; b) underestimating the power of the PCs; or c) overestimating the power of the monster. It’s quite possible to be doing all three, which could explain Mr. Noonan’s problems. If you know your players, their characters, and have fully read the monster description, then you should almost always be able to use a creature’s special abilities. The only times this will not be the case is if the party surprises the creature or if they do something truly creative and unexpected.

Running a mixed group of monsters is not hard at all, and should never make one feel that their head is going to explode. Simple monster management is all it takes. I’ve been doing monster management since the early 1980s, and it really hasn’t changed. Jot down important bits of info on a notecard or piece of paper. Highlight special abilities and, if needed, flag the pertinent pages in whatever rulebook is needed. Review your notes before the game begins and quickly scan them just before the encounter. Sometimes, if the creature has some particularly special things to do, I will make a note of what their first few rounds of actions will likely be. Keep encounters orderly should be a piece of cake.

Convincing your players that something is a threat is practically the first law of being a DM. The way you describe things, the entire presentation, should easily convince a party they could be in trouble. Good use of language is key here. Failing that, good surprise use of the powers of a creature can humble a party in no time. Plus, you have to remember that sometimes the opposition wants you to think they are weak. It’s called entrapment.

I guess what I am trying to say is that Mr. Noonan, et alia, are seeing problems where I don’t think problems ever existed. I get the feeling they are fixing things that they think are “broken” or are replacing them with “cool stuff” that are not really necessary. This, coupled with a number of other comments lately, really makes me question whether my idea of D&D and the new design teams ideas are even remotely similar.

 

[Cadfan]

Part of this was quoted on the front news page of EN World (otherwise I would not have known about it):
This may sound a bit snarky, and for that I apologize, but I think these comments by Mr. Noonan are quite telling. They tell me that Mr. Noonan and I are quite different DMs. Not only that, but it makes me question how well he know how to run a game.

As a general rule, comments like yours shock me in apparently the same way as Mr. Noonan's comments shock you. I read them and instantly question whether the writer is competent to comment upon game design. Look at your underlying logical structure: "I don't have problem X or Y because of countermeasures A, B, and C, therefore anyone who sees problem X or Y in the rule set is incompetent." That alone makes me suspect that you should avoid designing games. In my not so humble opinion, recognizing commonly occurring difficulties in a rule set, seeing what users do to avoid these difficulties, and analyzing whether different design might avoid these difficulties altogether is a fundamental part of good game design and good playtesting.

The rest of your post contains a lengthy list of pre game preparation you engage in that you feel allows you to avoid the problems Mr. Noonan listed. I am glad for you if this preparation does the trick. However, I consider the need for that degree of preparation for a simple combat encounter to be a design flaw in a game where 4+ combat encounters are expected per session and where player freedom sometimes prevents complete advance preparation from occurring.

 

[sjmiller]

Look at your underlying logical structure: "I don't have problem X or Y because of countermeasures A, B, and C, therefore anyone who sees problem X or Y in the rule set is incompetent."

I never claimed that anyone was incompetent. Far from it. I do claim that I feel Mr. Noonan is finding problems that just don't exist. As for "countermeasures," as you call them, reading the rules/description of monsters and knowing your players is hardly a "countermeasure." It is what every DM should be doing.

That alone makes me suspect that you should avoid designing games.

I will have to let my publisher and co-designers know that. They will want to avoid using my work in the future.

The rest of your post contains a lengthy list of pre game preparation you engage in that you feel allows you to avoid the problems Mr. Noonan listed.

Only one paragraph described anything remotely close to being pregame preperation. That is the part about making notes about an encounter/creature. This is something every DM I have ever met, going back to AD&D 1e, has done. Knowing your players and their characters, along with being organized in how you run an encounter, are all common sense things to do. None of those are really pregame preparation. All of them, however, will help with what Mr. Noonan obviously feels is a problem. Nobody I have talked to feels that running mixed groups of monsters has ever been a problem. Until I saw the comments on the front page here, I never knew that anyone had a problem with that.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

However, I consider the need for that degree of preparation for a simple combat encounter to be a design flaw in a game where 4+ combat encounters are expected per session and where player freedom sometimes prevents complete advance preparation from occurring.

/agree

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Nobody I have talked to feels that running mixed groups of monsters has ever been a problem. Until I saw the comments on the front page here, I never knew that anyone had a problem with that.

I've known lots of people who have.

The small number of DMs you and I are exposed to is nothing compared to the amount of DMs WotC developers hear from.

 

[Gundark]

I have to say that I disagree with "finding problems that don't exist" part of your arguement. I too have seen what Dave is talking about. I consider myself to be an intelligent person and I feel that I "use" the monsters correctly.

At low level I don't think that anyone's head has exploded at using mixed monsters. I have however felt the "exploding effect" with high CR monsters, especially if they have spells or spell like abilities. I use a lot of time savers at the table and still sometimes felt overwhelmed at the game table. I have a busy life, sometimes reviewing monsters before the game isn't possible, doesn't mean it isn't important, it's just that sometimes it falls thru the cracks.

I think the problem is that your assuming that because you don't have an issue with problem x your assuming that it isn't a problem for other gamers. I never found attacks of opportunity to be problematic, however enough gamers did. I support the rule changes to make AoO's less of a headache even though I never had a problem with them rule wise.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

As a general rule, comments like yours shock me in apparently the same way as Mr. Noonan's comments shock you. I read them and instantly question whether the writer is competent to comment upon game design. Look at your underlying logical structure: "I don't have problem X or Y because of countermeasures A, B, and C, therefore anyone who sees problem X or Y in the rule set is incompetent." That alone makes me suspect that you should avoid designing games. In my not so humble opinion, recognizing commonly occurring difficulties in a rule set, seeing what users do to avoid these difficulties, and analyzing whether different design might avoid these difficulties altogether is a fundamental part of good game design and good playtesting.

The rest of your post contains a lengthy list of pre game preparation you engage in that you feel allows you to avoid the problems Mr. Noonan listed. I am glad for you if this preparation does the trick. However, I consider the need for that degree of preparation for a simple combat encounter to be a design flaw in a game where 4+ combat encounters are expected per session and where player freedom sometimes prevents complete advance preparation from occurring.

I agree, except that I wouldn't use the word shock, more surprised

Good DM skills and good Designer skills are not the same.
A DM has to work within the rule framework and use it for the best play experience.
A Designer changes a rule framework to allow for a better play experience.

While the goal is the same, the methods are pretty different, and they require different skills.

Since I am not a Great DM myself, I am happy for every Game Designer thinking of me and trying to improve the rules to make my life easier...

 

[kerbarian]

Running a mixed group of monsters is not hard at all, and should never make one feel that their head is going to explode. Simple monster management is all it takes. I’ve been doing monster management since the early 1980s, and it really hasn’t changed. Jot down important bits of info on a notecard or piece of paper. Highlight special abilities and, if needed, flag the pertinent pages in whatever rulebook is needed. Review your notes before the game begins and quickly scan them just before the encounter. Sometimes, if the creature has some particularly special things to do, I will make a note of what their first few rounds of actions will likely be. Keep encounters orderly should be a piece of cake.

If all of those preparation steps are necessary to make it easy to run mixed encounters, wouldn't it be a big improvement to the game if they were already done for you in the MM? i.e. have the MM clearly present all the "important bits of info", "special abilities", and "make a note of what their first few rounds of actions will likely be", so that the DM doesn't have to make his own set of notes. It sounds to me like that's just what David Noonan is talking about.

 

[Mercule]

The rest of your post contains a lengthy list of pre game preparation you engage in that you feel allows you to avoid the problems Mr. Noonan listed. I am glad for you if this preparation does the trick. However, I consider the need for that degree of preparation for a simple combat encounter to be a design flaw in a game where 4+ combat encounters are expected per session and where player freedom sometimes prevents[/b] complete advance preparation from occurring.

Important passages bolded.

I've played D&D for, apparently, as long as the OP. In 1E and 2E, I had no problem with GMing on the fly or prep time. Most of my prep time was in worldbuilding, actually.

I don't know whether it's been 3E or the coming of four kids, but I don't find that I have enough time to reasonably prep for games anymore. I GM mostly because I enjoy the worldbuilding, but I find that I must spend most of my prep time in 3E on adventure prep.

I have to evaluate monster threats vs. PCs for fairness. I have to ensure I'm giving appropriate treasure to keep the PCs balanced both within the party and against the appropriate monsters. The 3E balance structure means that, if either my PCs or I forget some option (whether our own or the "other team's"), a balanced encounter can turn into a cake walk or a slaughter. I don't mind the occassional TPK-or-flee encounter, but it shouldn't come because one PC forgot about one niche ability, which I've seen happen multiple times.

You may be a superGM with all the time you need to devote to your game. Some of us still rate D&D as a hobby, and pretty far down on the list. Wife, kids, church, job, housework, recreation. That's #6, at best. When I often have to choose which of the top 5 get my attension in any given week, the item on my list for unwinding had best not feel like a chore. If it does, it gets dropped.

Movies, my PS2, and just plain reading Harry Potter (etc.) are all competing for that coveted slot. Money isn't the issue, for me. Gaming is competing with the others for greatest reward for least opportunity cost. I use that term "opportunity cost" intentionally, BTW. Every minute I work on my game is time I can't devote to my wife, kids, or something else I consider a priority. The relaxation I get from my time prepping for D&D (or the fruits of that labor) has to be better than any of the other options available to me.

Heck, prepping for combat encounters even has an opportunity cost compared to the other aspects of game prep. My (YMMV) entire reward for combat prep is in the execution of the combat and the reaction of the players. When I do a write-up for a deity, a nation, or an organization, I definitely get pay off from sharing it with the players, but I also enjoy just sitting down and being creative. In 3E, my ratio of good prep (setting) vs. bad prep (disposable paperwork like combat encounters) has been horrible. Again, my heady school days of old may just have had enough free time that the paperwork was transparent, or maybe I've just grown up too much to really enjoy gaming, but I really don't think so.

Although I really, really like some of the advantages that have come with 3E (shared systems for PCs and NPCs, mathematic progressions for attacks and defenses, freer multiclassing, skills, etc.), I find myself having arrived at a point where the benefits do not outweigh the costs. One way or the other, I expect to exit D&D 3E when my current campaign ends (other than maybe keeping my 3 core books for running modules or playing in someone else's game). If nothing else, I am sure that Fantasy Hero would be no more complex to run/prep -- possibly easier -- and it is much more flexible in terms of how characters can develop and how the rules can be fit to the built world which gives me a better RoI even if the cost doesn't go down. Alternatively, Savage Worlds promises significant cost reduction and only marginal reward reduction, which is pretty good.

This is what 4E has to compete with for my time. I really like the idea of staying with the best supported system on the market. That means, if WotC can reduce the (opportunity) cost to me, without reducing my reward, I'm all over it.

Or, put another way: Just because something can be done for a high cost doesn't, in any way, shape, or form mean that reducing the cost reduces the value.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

I find myself having arrived at a point where the benefits do not outweigh the rewards.

That's great to hear, I guess... My benefits always outweigh my rewards nowadays