Complete Disagreement With Mike on Monsters (see post #205)

[Gentlegamer]

Ironically enough, the 1st edition DMG had a great table for figuring out base rates and adding xp based on special abilities.

Why do you say this was ironic?

 

[Knightfall]

I suspect NPC classes will go the way of the dodo in Fourth Edition, at least in their current form as "fully-realised but not PC-quality classes".

That I wouldn't mind. The NPC classes are pretty usesless, IMO.

 

[Knightfall]

Where are people getting the idea that monsters won't have set design rules? All we know is that

1) They're simplified from 3E, and

2) They don't work the same way as PCs.

That's it. Done deal. The notion that the above somehow translates into "random abilities thrown together" or "built without any sort of guidelines, rules, or blueprints" is both reactionary and silly, I think.

I'm not saying there won't be a blueprint. My worry is that the blueprint won't be available to the fans, in the actual book, or in the SRD.

Now, if you're saying that won't be the case, then you have negated my biggest concern about monster design in 4E.

Thanks for that,

KF72

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

[The second part of your post is a response to me, not Glyfair]

Oops, sorry! My most sincere apologies.

Why should using monsters as monsters in Dungeons & Dragons be the first consideration of monsters in the D&D Monster Manual?

Yes. It's one possibility. At my table, and the tables of everyone I've personally played with, the 3.5 Monster Manual has been a book of races as well as antagonists.

I tried not to bring it to this, but this seems to mean you aren't really interested in playing D&D. You mention Shadowrun, World of Darkness . . . wouldn't you rather use those game systems and the flavor they contain?

I'm actually not a big WoD fan, either setting or mechanics, although both have some interesting ideas. I've always liked Shadowrun's flavor but never its mechanics, and have always played or run it in other systems when given the chance. Final Fantasy doesn't currently have a licensed tabletop RPG, for whatever ungodly reason, so that's right out.

I think the implication in this discussion that originated with Mearls's quote is that this moddability has hindered the core purpose of monsters in D&D: to be monsters in D&D. That is, the moddability in this area isn't the strength it seemed to be.

I disagree with Mearls on this issue.

Moddability in this area is the only way I'll personally play the game, unless they are incredibly prompt and prolific in providing PC versions of the 'monster' races.

It also doesn't have to equal complexity, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in this thread via references to other systems.

The fact that 3e did have complex monsters because they used the same rules as PCs indicates that 3e was the first version of the game to do so, and not all the kinks had been worked out.

Trust me, my concept for 4e monsters would be a heck of a lot simpler than 3e current version; it would also be compatible with my concept for 4e PCs, which would be heavily based on the Saga rules.

It's the only version of D&D you would consider playing because it's the only version that can handle settings and playstyles that originated in other role-playing games?

Other roleplaying games, D&D's own past, books, movies, non-RPG games - the d20 system has powerful if occasionally somewhat clunky setting emulation. AD&D did not, and often struggled with even settings indigenous to it.

If 4e resembles AD&D in being locked into a narrow view of the game and fantasy in general, it is not suitable for my gaming purposes.

Like I said, I think the "all things to all people" concept has encumbered many of the core things about Dungeons & Dragons in 3e. I think this is exactly what Mearls is addressing.

Your "encumbered," and apparently Mearls's, is another player's "liberated."

In the past incarnations of those settings (none of which originated with 3e), rules for expanded player character races were included. If a setting is to use "monsters as PCs," there ought to be more work done than just pulling stats out of the Monster Manual. In those specific cases, you as a DM need do no work because the authors of the setting have done it during the setting design phase.

WotC has said they'll release one setting a year, starting with the Forgotten Realms (which, I assume, will have at least drow as playable). Eberron (hopefully with goblins and hobgoblins, this time, as well as the Eberron-specific PC races) will almost certainly be next.

We have no way of knowing if they will EVER get around to Planescape, Dark Sun, Spelljammer and Dragonlance, or if they do, when.

Five or six years is a long time to wait for racial rules for some of D&D's settings. In the current version, those rules are already available right from the Monster Manual.

Why should each monster in the Monster Manual be encumbered because some DM, someplace, sometime, might want to use a monsters as a PC race?

Because the game is allegedly about "options, not restrictions?"

Because there no reason the two design principles shouldn't be compatible, when they so often are in other games?

Because both GMs and players should, in many cases, be able to make that decision?

Because some iconic settings from D&D's past pretty much require it?

Because it seems likely to be appealing to new players, since it will allow them to more closely model the kind of fantasy most of them have grown up with?

Because the current version of D&D has spawned an entire subset of the industry that takes advantage of it, which is allegedly still going to be supported?

Because PC-appropriateness should not have to "encumber" a monster?

Mearls is citing the core purpose of monsters in D&D: to be monsters in D&D. The design side of the game is going to be taking this as its central premise which ought to make monsters in D&D even better.

And I honestly hope you enjoy playing it.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm not saying there won't be a blueprint. My worry is that the blueprint won't be available to the fans, in the actual book, or in the SRD.

Ah, I gotcha.

Now, if you're saying that won't be the case, then you have negated my biggest concern about monster design in 4E.

Well, I can't say for sure. I have very little inside access to 4E, and what little I have, I can't talk about.

But I can say, just from knowing the people involved and the aspects of the game that are popular, that I'd be surprised if monster creation rules weren't available in some way, shape, or form.

 

[Mouseferatu]

You know, you'd just be more depressed if you *had* got the job at Wizards... "Hi, Ari! Guess what! 4e! Oh, and we've done the bulk of the work on it already. Sorry."

Yeah, that would've sucked.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Your suggestion that D&D Insider be used to create the rules for monsters as PCs just amplifies my point.

Not Everyone Will Want To Use D&D Insider!

And if I have to have access to D&D Insider in order to get the rules for playing monsters as PCs (or any other rules I consider vital to my game) then WotC has lost me a customer.

Quit freaking out. You conveniently forget that they have clearly stated that D&D Insider material will be periodically reprinted in book form.

There's no meaningful difference between "designed by freelancers and published in a book" and "designed by freelancers, published on D&D Insider, and then republished in a book" from the point of view of someone who doesn't use D&D Insider.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I'm not saying there won't be a blueprint. My worry is that the blueprint won't be available to the fans, in the actual book, or in the SRD.

You know . . . they may not publish the monster design blueprint.

But then, knowing that the blueprint exists, it's trivial to reverse-engineer. Take the Monster Manual. Select the creatures of a given CR. Write down the range of their statistics - AC, hit points, BAB, ability scores, skills, et cetera. Look for correspondences - does a high AC generally translate to lower hit points or BAB?

Voila. You have your blueprint, as far as I can tell.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

There's no meaningful difference between "designed by freelancers and published in a book" and "designed by freelancers, published on D&D Insider, and then republished in a book" from the point of view of someone who doesn't use D&D Insider.

Unless, I suppose, you resent the mere idea of Wizards of the Coast publishing something in a format you don't want before they publish it in a format you do want.

Which is irrational and selfish, but I suppose some people do feel that way.

 

[MerricB]

Now mhacdebhandia is talking to himself.

At least I'm still as sane as the next man!

Cheers!