Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
do CRs seem a bit arbitrary?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6559521" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>I fail to see how any version of D&D has managed to achieve substantially greater variation at the monster level, without resorting to (IMO) BS gotcha-tricks like rust monsters or the like--such "puzzle monsters" are only strategic until you solve the puzzle, at which point they're just "Activate Anti-(Monster X) Plan Alpha." That is, they (the non-puzzle monsters) all involve attacks or saves and deal damage or inflict some kind of undesirable status. Can you provide an example of one that wouldn't fit this pattern? I may just be brainfarting (I've been studying for a physics midterm all week, on top of Latin homework and a major programming report, so I'm not exactly running on all cylinders.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because DMs should be <em>empowered</em> in knowing the strength of the things they use. If they don't <em>want</em> to know that, they can do what they have always been able to do: make monsters in whatever way they see fit. The encounter design and monster design systems can be ignored if one doesn't want any of the things they provide. A lot of people want a system that means they don't have to worry, "Have I screwed over my players by accident?" *That* is where consistency is valuable. And if you don't want consistency...do whatever you want. Seriously, do whatever. Make random monster tables--that's a great way to circumvent any amount of system-derived consistency, because you never know whether you'll get the five-kobold curbstomp or the five-ogre TPK.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It was coded into player abilities, sure. I fail to see how DMs were <em>forced</em> to use monster stats as-is. There's an entire (and relatively popular, as I understand it) style of play dedicated to making 4e a vicious, more old-school-like experience; it was called Fourthcore. I believe their websites are defunct now, sadly, but if they could do it, anyone <em>can</em> do it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not sure what half of these things mean. So in order for things to be reliable, they have to be completely bland (no strengths or weaknesses), <em>and</em> you have to be extremely careful about which monsters you use <em>even after that</em>? That hardly sounds "easy." It sounds a hell of a lot harder than just "make or use whatever monsters you like of whatever level." Which was precisely my point. DMs have always, from time immemorial, been able to make whatever the hell they like--the system exists to back them up, to provide them with tools to fall back on, as it were. If you want a lack of consistency, <em>you don't want a system</em>. You want--at very most--rules of thumb.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6559521, member: 6790260"] I fail to see how any version of D&D has managed to achieve substantially greater variation at the monster level, without resorting to (IMO) BS gotcha-tricks like rust monsters or the like--such "puzzle monsters" are only strategic until you solve the puzzle, at which point they're just "Activate Anti-(Monster X) Plan Alpha." That is, they (the non-puzzle monsters) all involve attacks or saves and deal damage or inflict some kind of undesirable status. Can you provide an example of one that wouldn't fit this pattern? I may just be brainfarting (I've been studying for a physics midterm all week, on top of Latin homework and a major programming report, so I'm not exactly running on all cylinders.) Because DMs should be [I]empowered[/I] in knowing the strength of the things they use. If they don't [I]want[/I] to know that, they can do what they have always been able to do: make monsters in whatever way they see fit. The encounter design and monster design systems can be ignored if one doesn't want any of the things they provide. A lot of people want a system that means they don't have to worry, "Have I screwed over my players by accident?" *That* is where consistency is valuable. And if you don't want consistency...do whatever you want. Seriously, do whatever. Make random monster tables--that's a great way to circumvent any amount of system-derived consistency, because you never know whether you'll get the five-kobold curbstomp or the five-ogre TPK. It was coded into player abilities, sure. I fail to see how DMs were [I]forced[/I] to use monster stats as-is. There's an entire (and relatively popular, as I understand it) style of play dedicated to making 4e a vicious, more old-school-like experience; it was called Fourthcore. I believe their websites are defunct now, sadly, but if they could do it, anyone [I]can[/I] do it. I'm not sure what half of these things mean. So in order for things to be reliable, they have to be completely bland (no strengths or weaknesses), [I]and[/I] you have to be extremely careful about which monsters you use [I]even after that[/I]? That hardly sounds "easy." It sounds a hell of a lot harder than just "make or use whatever monsters you like of whatever level." Which was precisely my point. DMs have always, from time immemorial, been able to make whatever the hell they like--the system exists to back them up, to provide them with tools to fall back on, as it were. If you want a lack of consistency, [I]you don't want a system[/I]. You want--at very most--rules of thumb. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
do CRs seem a bit arbitrary?
Top