Confused about NPC/Monster generation

[I'm A Banana]

I agree that the creation of a new edition is the perfect time to fix problems with an old edition. I apologize if I have misinterpreted your post. What, exactly, are you hoping to see out of 4E?

With this issue, I'm hoping for monsters that can function as a wicked sweet encounter, who fill a valuable role in the game world, and who my players can do more with than kick their butt and move on. 4e definitely fills the former, it looks like (with a page of fluff!) it can probably fill the middle, and my only remaining concern is on the latter, which I think Mearls just addressed quite nicely by pointing out that the DMG will have rules for players gaining monster powers (including, I presume, with monsters as allied NPC's or monsters as PCs).

Part of making sure that a monster fills a valuable role in the game world is ensuring that their gear 'makes sense' for a creature of their stature and ability. Equipping them from the treasure seems to be a perfect solution, to me.

I don't get where you loose 'suspension of disbelief'. If you want to 'hand wave' the stats for super-quick generation; just use the ranges given and SoD goes out the window sure. But if you want to, it is possible to take the extra time for verisimilitude and, as Mearls says, work out that demons AC -pretty much like 3E in time and exactitude- using armour types and feats (just don't accept any wiggle room )

Well, part of my conflict is that I don't want to take extra time to put in verisimilitude. I want it to already be there for me. It conflicts with my spontaneous DMing style if I have to take a few hours to tinker with each monster for the odd chance that the PC's raise some difficult questions. With 4e's promise of quick-and-efficient gaming, I'd hope that I wouldn't have to give up what I can do fairly quickly in 3e in giving creatures a backstory and a reason for existing. It looks like I might be trading monster design time in 3e for monster explanation time in 4e.

 

[mearls]

With this issue, I'm hoping for monsters that can function as a wicked sweet encounter, who fill a valuable role in the game world, and who my players can do more with than kick their butt and move on. 4e definitely fills the former, it looks like (with a page of fluff!) it can probably fill the middle, and my only remaining concern is on the latter, which I think Mearls just addressed quite nicely by pointing out that the DMG will have rules for players gaining monster powers (including, I presume, with monsters as allied NPC's or monsters as PCs).

I want to make one thing clear: there aren't hard coded rules for a PC who wants to gain a monster's power, but there is enough info in the DMG on the system as a whole that the DM can adapt one (with a little work, mainly eyeballing things to make sure that you don't cause any unexpected, long-term consequences).

To answer an earlier question, the swingy monster came out when I was messing around with looking at monsters' stats as an expression of an effect over an entire encounter, rather than on a round-to-round basis. Hence, half hit points but double damage.

 

[Benimoto]

Well, part of my conflict is that I don't want to take extra time to put in verisimilitude. I want it to already be there for me. It conflicts with my spontaneous DMing style if I have to take a few hours to tinker with each monster for the odd chance that the PC's raise some difficult questions. With 4e's promise of quick-and-efficient gaming, I'd hope that I wouldn't have to give up what I can do fairly quickly in 3e in giving creatures a backstory and a reason for existing. It looks like I might be trading monster design time in 3e for monster explanation time in 4e.

While it's useful to wonder about the monster's part in the world, and how it got so far in life without the treasure it has, I think almost any system will break down eventually when examined in this fashion. After all, assuming you run a fairly standard campaign, why do the PCs face so few fights against equal odds? An even stricter sense of verisimilitude would dictate that the PCs regularly face opponents of equal skill, in equal or greater number, with roughly equal amounts of equipment. In such a system, the PCs' wealth resources would double with every encounter, yet they would fairly regularly find themselves overwhelmed or dead.

I'm genuinely curious as to what difficult questions you're anticipating. And as a separate question, what tools does the 3rd edition system give you for backstory and place in the world?

 

[S'mon]

(snip: mearls post)
*APPLAUSE*

This sounds great!
Based on this, it seems like 4e will be much more of a GM's game, as 3e was a game for players. Making GMing fun & easy should be a core part of the design process, and this looks a very hopeful sign.

 

[rkanodia]

With this issue, I'm hoping for monsters that can function as a wicked sweet encounter, who fill a valuable role in the game world, and who my players can do more with than kick their butt and move on. 4e definitely fills the former, it looks like (with a page of fluff!) it can probably fill the middle, and my only remaining concern is on the latter, which I think Mearls just addressed quite nicely by pointing out that the DMG will have rules for players gaining monster powers (including, I presume, with monsters as allied NPC's or monsters as PCs).

I see. I guess I was not so worried about the last part - the skills as presented were enough 'out of combat' stuff for monsters to be doing for me, and 'monsters as PCs' doesn't come up much in my game world - though it would be nice if it could! I am still actually somewhat skeptical on that front - after all, this board has had endless discussions about powers that are 'OK for a monster, but game-breaking for a player'.

Part of making sure that a monster fills a valuable role in the game world is ensuring that their gear 'makes sense' for a creature of their stature and ability. Equipping them from the treasure seems to be a perfect solution, to me.

Glad to see, then, that the 4E statblocks apparently accommodate this desire. And yes, I agree that equipping NPCs from the 'dungeon treasure' is an elegant way to make NPCs look like PCs without turning them into 'bonus loot pinatas'.

 

[mach1.9pants]

WWell, part of my conflict is that I don't want to take extra time to put in verisimilitude. I want it to already be there for me. It conflicts with my spontaneous DMing style if I have to take a few hours to tinker with each monster for the odd chance that the PC's raise some difficult questions. With 4e's promise of quick-and-efficient gaming, I'd hope that I wouldn't have to give up what I can do fairly quickly in 3e in giving creatures a backstory and a reason for existing. It looks like I might be trading monster design time in 3e for monster explanation time in 4e.

Gotcha, see what you mean. tell your players to stop being so picky
But once you know the system I would hope you can easily do 'on the fly' explanations of the the 'fudge factor/wiggle room' used. Especially if monsters have access to things that PCs don't and never will under standard rules. But yes you will have to accept a lot more ''his AC is this because his AC is this" if you want quick generation.

 

[The Little Raven]

The one problem with all that seemingly 'make-it-up-more-or-less-stuff'-approach is, how is it going to work with the virtual game-table? I mean, that thing will need to be correctly codified, won't it? It's surely not going to be easy for the gamemasters who will use that feature (not that I would recommend it anyway, seeing as how mediocre the online-services of WotC are, at least for now, it may change for the better) to simply fudge up stuff...

The Virtual Tabletop adjudicates rules just as much as my Chessex Battlemat: not at all.

 

[Remathilis]

Thank you Mike for answering my post!

Normally I'm not that uptight about keeping the numbers honest (I routinely add or subtract hp to monsters in mid-combat) but I was curious as to how the baseline was built (numbers based on assumed challenge, or numbers by formula). My examples were a bit extreme if only to emphasize some possible illogical extremes.

Again, thanks for giving me some insight into the madness (do I need to make a sanity check now?)

 

[kennew142]

I'm really excited about this new system. It looks like we'll be able to eyeball monsters very easily. I've been toying around with that in 3e, with some limited success. I have to say that I am not a GM who assumes that all tough monsters will magic weapons and armor. It's cool when they do. If I can work it into the story, I will. But I don't see it as a necessity.

I would also add that this discussion was important for me. I think I understand some of the anti-4e folks a little more. I saw a system that seemed somewhat off to me. Some other folks reacted the same way I did, and posted their concerns. The discussion became a little more heated (although not too bad) as the posts piled up. I felt myself getting caught up in the wave of negativity as well. I'm glad MM came on and explained the system a little better. It turns out that it works the way I had assumed that it would in the first place.

For me, it's all good now.

 

[pemerton]

For instance, that paper tiger you created, how did it get to be what it was? What changed it, and what happens if the PC's seek that same change? Say I'm playing some sort of zealot who gladly sacrifices his body for the power to take out his enemies, and he captures that binary paper tiger and demands, through Diplomacy or threats or bribes, to be taught the creature's ways.

Do I just have to say "No," as a DM? Or does the system allow me to say "Yes" and figure out the consequences of that yes?

KM, I don't want to kickstart the whole simulation/gamism etc thing on this thread and derail it, so feel free to disregard this: but there is a coherent (non-hardcore simuationist) approach which says "Just because NPCs and monsters can do it, doesn't mean PCs can."

So in the same way that we don't allow PCs to be wealthy monarchs at 1st level (although there may be such NPCs in the gameworld), we don't allow them to be paper tigers (because, like a lot of ECL PCs built using the Savage-Species approach, they won't play very well).

I get the strong impression this doesn't really satisfy you, but I can see why the game only sets out to support a certain range of PCs. Not every conceivable possibility has to exist as a PC build.

The issue of monsters as allied that you have raised from time to time, however (and their treasure/equipment presumably feeds into that) is a good point that I agree with.