GRZ 34 - Monster Roles Interview (Has new art, and various stat-boxes)

[Family]

I think this stuff is worth doing for the community.

Agreed

Not only are you Captain Crunch but you're doing a better job than I could (they even passed me over as a spokesgnome for fey rights)...and delivering it gratis! But if you ever need a hand or just someone to game with, I'm only 5 hours away

 

[FadedC]

I actually hear the term draw aggro used in pen and paper gaming from time to time, sometimes even by people who don't play MMORPGs. It's just such a common term. In P&P gaming it usually means to just make yourself an obvious target. When the wizard throws a fireball wiping out half the orcs, or when the barbarian does 150 damage to the dragon in a single round you'd often say they have drawn aggro because you know all attacks are going to be focused on them next round.

It's just a phrase, it doesn't mean that the orcs have to attack the wizard or the dragon has to attack the barbarian. New bits of slang will always be added to the game. Just wait til your hear people calling the monsters mobs

 

[Propagandroid]

It's just a phrase, it doesn't mean that the orcs have to attack the wizard or the dragon has to attack the barbarian. New bits of slang will always be added to the game. Just wait til your hear people calling the monsters mobs

I have a friend that does that already, darnit! In a related note, he's big on 4e so far.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sorry, I'm pretty upset by the Robert Asprin news, so I lashed out instead of taking the opportunity to educate.

Gamers like me (one who was playing text-based MUDs in the early 90s, I might add) are not being spoken to, and it's a bit disconcerting. You can say I'm old-fashioned or that I'm clinging to outdated game styles, but WoW doesn't interest me, and so to see D&D be rewritten as an emulation of WoW makes me less excited about it. When I hear the designers using WoW terminology to describe the way a monster is designed to be interacted with, it confirms the direction they're taking the game (as much as it can without me reading and playing it). So, I roll my eyes and move on...I try not to take it personally.

Keep in mind that game rules for tactical combat in D&D do not make an adventure or roleplaying game session a computer-scripted experience.

The DM is still in the game, and he can still make all the decisions on what the monsters do.
WoW "Aggro" wouldn't allow this, since it limits the monsters attacks to attack those with the highest aggro.
D&D "Aggro" (or stickiness) only adds additional tactical options to consider for players and the DM running the monsters. Yes, there are penalties for not attacking the Defender, but that doesn't mean attacking someone else isn't a good tactical option.

Furthermore, this rules do not affect in any way how you structure your adventures (if at all), what kind of NPCs you create or what stories you want to tell. This is like it has always been in table top roleplaying games. (And the harsher limitations incomputer games will always stay, until we find a way to create a "DM-in-a-box" that can adjudicate stuff outside of hard rules, and even bend the rules if opportune.)

 

[Green Knight]

Just thought I'd point out that we got confirmation that Marking does indeed give a -2 penalty to the marked target when not attacking the one who marked him. I mention this because there were a couple of cases in previews where it'd say that a target is marked, but you wouldn't get any actual mechanics. For instance, the Kobold Wyrmshield, I think, could Mark a target, but no rules were given as to what that meant. The Student of the Sword Feat gives you the ability to Mark 1/Encounter (not the Fighter's Combat Challenge. Just Mark), without any indication of what that means. Now we know for certain.

 

[Propagandroid]

Keep in mind that game rules for tactical combat in D&D do not make an adventure or roleplaying game session a computer-scripted experience.

The DM is still in the game, and he can still make all the decisions on what the monsters do.
WoW "Aggro" wouldn't allow this, since it limits the monsters attacks to attack those with the highest aggro.
D&D "Aggro" (or stickiness) only adds additional tactical options to consider for players and the DM running the monsters. Yes, there are penalties for not attacking the Defender, but that doesn't mean attacking someone else isn't a good tactical option.

Furthermore, this rules do not affect in any way how you structure your adventures (if at all), what kind of NPCs you create or what stories you want to tell. This is like it has always been in table top roleplaying games. (And the harsher limitations incomputer games will always stay, until we find a way to create a "DM-in-a-box" that can adjudicate stuff outside of hard rules, and even bend the rules if opportune.)

All good points, Mustrum. The question, though, is whether or not D&D can model a character that does anything except fight well. The rules *do* have an effect on how you can tell a story through the game, and how you interact with the game via roleplaying. I can't answer that question because I haven't seen all the rules or played the game. We can see, though, that 4e's design philosophy follows that of 3e, which is "system first, characters and adventures second." This is certainly a step away from facilitating the type of game that earlier editions presented, which was a roleplaying game.

 

[Zulithe]

Thank you Mike. Great job and I enjoy every episode. Thanks for shedding some light on the limitations you've had to deal with in the more recent episodes. You're doing a very good job, all considered. Keep at it!

 

[pukunui]

Hey Mike, I think you did a pretty good job for having had to do it all by yourself! I think the awkwardness is fine, really. It shows us that you guys are all nerdy gamers just like us rather than soulless corporate hacks or whatever some of the haters say you all are.

Keep on plugging away and don't let the naysayers get you down.

 

[Tervin]

I apologize for that episode being awkward, I was totally out of it. It was actually the second time we did that interview, which is why it might have sounded scripted and less like a conversation.

/--- Goes on with really good post ---/

I will be frank. I have not been impressed with some of your posts on messageboards and some podcasts before. This post though, has me looking at you in a new light. Thank you, and I (like many others) agree: Clips like the one we talk about could be a great way to convey what is new and exciting about the new edition. This particular one gave me some interesting info, and some new ideas - so I would say the content made it a success for me no matter what people say about it.

Awkwardsness is fine when you talk to long term D&D gamers like people on this board, but I guess might not be perfect for talking to prospective new players.

 

[MindWanderer]

I think the level of transparency you've brought to the process has been a big boon...

<Psst... don't say the "T" word around G0...>

Seriously, Mike, you should really make posts with this kind of tone more often. Apologetic and forthright rather than defensive (for the most part).