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

[Grog]

But look what it creates for players - it doesn't encourage caution; it just gives them a no-win situation.

Listen at doors? Get attacked by ear seekers. *Don't* listen at doors? Get ambushed by whatever you were trying to hear in the first place.

Not only that, avoiding ear seekers required metagaming on the part of the PCs. If their characters didn't know about them, there's no reason they should have feared listening at doors. And if they didn't metagame, they ended up with a dead PC.

They really were terribly designed monsters.

 

[Grog]

It's a monster that evolved in the dungeon environment to take advantage of how common ears are pressed up against doors/panels, etc. It's a logical extension of the game environment to monster evolution. Is dungeon ecology only good when it doesn't present a hazard to the players?

So ears being pressed up against doors in this dungeon where the ear seekers live was a common enough occurrence to become a factor in an evolutionary process that probably took thousands of years?

Come on. That's ridiculous. Just how much traffic does this dungeon get? Is it the local equivalent of Disneyland?

 

[Korgoth]

Mr. Sernett seems to be claiming that "often" 1e monsters were unfun and/or unfair. I think that would be a preposterous claim. That's right: preposterous.

Or does "often" just mean "a couple of times"? Then we're speaking Politician instead of English.

As to the specific examples, the catoblepas is a mythological monster and not at all out of line: medusas have killer gazes, too. The ear seeker, well, I've never used one (actually, I don't think I've used the catoblepas either but I could be wrong on that). I consider that monster to be simply one of those amusing "gotcha" monsters that you might use under certain circumstances. Ear seekers should probably not be placed by the DM if his player group are a bunch of sobersides who never laugh or smile. Definitely a joke monster. But jokes can be fun with the right group (although the ear seeker is one of the few monsters I can think of off hand that really is "unfair" - that is, in fact, the joke, as far as I can tell).

 

[Gentlegamer]

But look what it creates for players - it doesn't encourage caution; it just gives them a no-win situation.

Listen at doors? Get attacked by ear seekers. *Don't* listen at doors? Get ambushed by whatever you were trying to hear in the first place.

You need to read the "Gaming with Gygax" thread in the General Discussion forum. Ear seekers were avoided by employing an ear trumpet by the skilled and expereienced players in the group.

It is perhaps the single best example of adversarial design, where the DM and the players are set up as opponents - and the other things I listed fall into this category in my opinion. If I wanted to go through all my old OD&D/AD&D/basic/expert etc. stuff, I'm sure I could extend the list greatly.

There's nothing adversarial about creating a hazardous environment for the players/characters to interact with. That is part and parcel of adventuring, particularly in a dungeon environment.

 

[Gentlegamer]

So ears being pressed up against doors in this dungeon where the ear seekers live was a common enough occurrence to become a factor in an evolutionary process that probably took thousands of years?

Come on. That's ridiculous. Just how much traffic does this dungeon get? Is it the local equivalent of Disneyland?

In the game universe of D&D, dungeons and dungeoneering adventure parties are a common element. Ear seekers evolved in this overall environment, not necessarily any given dungeon.

If that is not background you can live with . . . they were the byproducts of a mad wizard's experiments with incests gone horribly wrong.

Either way, they are potential hazards to be encountered by those adventuring in a dungeon environment.

 

[JoeGKushner]

That's not quite right. Monsters will be designed for their most likely use. Many monsters will have several different stat blocks for different monster uses (something like goblin warrior vs. goblin shaman vs. goblin assassin). That way a DM can use the monster (or a group of the monsters with members of the group having different capabilities) right out of the gate without any need for modification.

How is this different than if the Monster Manual was designed with the design sensibilities of MM IV? Heck, how is it different than if the GM just uses a different monster from the core MM to fill those roles now?

And will monsters just be blocks now? If A, B, and C are 'brutes', will it just be an interchange of names? "Man, those orc berserkers fought a lot like those troll berserkers who fought a lot like those ogre berserkers who seemed really similiar to those minotaur ragers!"

If you want to make a tougher version of the monster, there might already be one or more provided for you to use (and there might be more resources online or in future products that provide tougher versions), you might give the monster a class, or you might advance the monster and just make it tougher by hitting results in the target ranges for the level you're aiming for, based on that system.

And I don't see any difference than how this is now. Heck, now there are a lot of ways ranging from old Dungeonscape's suggestion of changing feats, skills, default equipment to adding levels and templates.

However, in theory you could take a monster and repurpose it entirely. Lot's of game elements are works in progress at this point, but I think you'll be able to do that. What I mean is, you could theoretically take the stats for the bear, which we'd probably define as a "brute," and strip those away, leaving just the powers that make the numbers feal "beary." Then you could slap the numbers for a different combat role onto the bear. If you did this, your new bear would likely need some additional powers to make if fully suit its new role. For example, the bear's brutish hug-you-to-death power might not suit its new role as artillery unless you give the bear an artillery power.

I suggest vomitting molten honey which deals fire damage and roots foes in place with stickiness. What else could it do? Think, think, think.

But how will this last part be 'easier' for the GM? And how will the system accomidate this in terms of XP?

 

[Mouseferatu]

And will monsters just be blocks now? If A, B, and C are 'brutes', will it just be an interchange of names? "Man, those orc berserkers fought a lot like those troll berserkers who fought a lot like those ogre berserkers who seemed really similiar to those minotaur ragers!"

This was specifically addressed by Andy Collins at the GenCon seminar. The monster "roles" are a basic building block, but they're all individual creatures. (He used ettins, and their "separate heads and two rounds of actions" gimmick as an example.)

 

[BryonD]

This was specifically addressed by Andy Collins at the GenCon seminar. The monster "roles" are a basic building block, but they're all individual creatures. (He used ettins, and their "separate heads and two rounds of actions" gimmick as an example.)

Am I understanding it correctly that it would be in the right ballpark to say that there are 10 - 12 basic blocks and each monster is like a template to apply on top of the basic block?

 

[Jhaelen]

It is perhaps the single best example of adversarial design, where the DM and the players are set up as opponents - and the other things I listed fall into this category in my opinion. If I wanted to go through all my old OD&D/AD&D/basic/expert etc. stuff, I'm sure I could extend the list greatly.

qft. I'm certainly glad we've left that kind of game design far behind.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Am I understanding it correctly that it would be in the right ballpark to say that there are 10 - 12 basic blocks and each monster is like a template to apply on top of the basic block?

Not really sure, though I suppose that's one possibility.