Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9774186" data-attributes="member: 7006">This thread is a perfect example of why having the board game take precedence over the narrative is the wrong way to go for a lot people.&nbsp; And in truth goes completely against the whole main premise of this thread in the first place.&nbsp; That of the existence of a so-called &quot;Boss Monster&quot;.Why is there a &quot;Boss Monster&quot; at all?&nbsp; Why is it a &quot;Boss&quot; and not just merely a more powerful monster amongst all the other monsters in the fight?&nbsp; It's because our STORY of the adventurers getting up to face this creature has been denoted in the NARRATIVE that this more powerful monster is &quot;in charge&quot; over all the others. But being &quot;in charge&quot; is a NARRATIVE distinction and reasoning, and NOT a mechanical one.&nbsp; And this is the entire reason why people do not want their &quot;Boss Monster&quot; dying so quickly... because it makes for a BAD STORY.&nbsp; Not for a bad &quot;winning of the combat&quot;, but a BAD STORY.&nbsp; This story and narrative we have in all our heads about how a fight like this should go based upon the years and decades of other stories and books and movies and shows we have experienced and enjoyed that do just that.The DM wants to keep the &quot;Boss Monster&quot; alive for as long as possible because they want the STORY of the guy in charge being the last one to fall after all the other waves of henchmen and mooks before them have been killed.&nbsp; But this idea or concept is a NARRATIVE conceit.&nbsp; It has NOTHING to do with just &quot;winning the combat&quot; or &quot;winning the game&quot;-- that would be the board game talking.&nbsp; If all that really mattered to everyone at the table was following the combat rules to win the combat such that one side survived and the other side didn't... then the order of which creatures on one of the sides died WOULD NOT MATTER.&nbsp; Because a win is a win.&nbsp; The game rules say one side wins when the other side is eliminated, then just eliminate them in whatever way makes the most tactical board game sense.&nbsp; If that's what you want (and that's fine if you do)... then this whole concern about &quot;the Boss Monster dies too quickly&quot; would not actually be a concern at all because there would not be a &quot;Boss&quot;.But if you as a DM have indeed created a &quot;Boss Monster&quot; and you hope/want that creature to only die at a specific point in the fight (or maybe not even die at all) because that's how you think the &quot;Boss Monster&quot; trope is the best way for the fight to go... then you HAVE to stop being so concerned about trying to use the combat game rules &quot;the right way&quot; or &quot;As Written&quot; in order to try and create that result.&nbsp; Because you can't.&nbsp; At least not consistently.&nbsp; The combat rules of D&amp;D are not designed with drama and narrative being the prime function and result of having a fight.&nbsp; To actually get to that result... you have to use NARRATIVE techniques to let your narrative boss monster survive till the end.&nbsp; You have to use whatever narrative reasoning or non-rule (dare I say it) &quot;fudging&quot; you want... because in this case the story of the fight... the story of the characters &quot;overcoming the odds&quot; (again, another NARRATIVE technique) and fighting through all the mooks to finally engage and kill the &quot;Boss Monster&quot; last... is a more satisfying conclusion to us than trying to create or jerry-rig some sort of &quot;combat rule system&quot; one can use &quot;As Written&quot; in order to FORCE that order of death to occur.&nbsp; I mean if the game actually wanted one creature to be killed last, then the rules of the &quot;tactical miniatures combat board game&quot; version of Dungeons &amp; Dragons would have been designed and written such that every combat occurred in &quot;waves&quot; so that you as the players couldn't ever actually face the &quot;final creature&quot; until you killed all the mooks in front first.&nbsp; Mechanically and artificially create that &quot;end game boss&quot; for you.&nbsp; The game could have been designed that way.&nbsp; But it wasn't.&nbsp; Instead, it gave us&nbsp; &quot;waves of monsters&quot; as a suggestion for a potential narrative technique to get the results we hoped for, but they are not a written requirement of the combat rules.&nbsp; Which means the game itself does not believe in the concept of the &quot;Boss Monster&quot; as a mechanical thing.&nbsp; So if you still want to use it, you have to give up trying to only use the written-down game rules to accomplish it.We've had over 30 years of this issue.&nbsp; It's something we should have all come to terms with years ago and not something that should still be bothering us.&nbsp; The &quot;Boss Monster&quot; phenomenon should not still be a thing to get mad at the rules for after all this time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 9774186, member: 7006"] This thread is a perfect example of why having the board game take precedence over the narrative is the wrong way to go for a lot people. And in truth goes completely against the whole main premise of this thread in the first place. That of the existence of a so-called "Boss Monster". Why is there a "Boss Monster" at all? Why is it a "Boss" and not just merely a more powerful monster amongst all the other monsters in the fight? It's because our STORY of the adventurers getting up to face this creature has been denoted in the NARRATIVE that this more powerful monster is "in charge" over all the others. But being "in charge" is a NARRATIVE distinction and reasoning, and NOT a mechanical one. And this is the entire reason why people do not want their "Boss Monster" dying so quickly... because it makes for a BAD STORY. Not for a bad "winning of the combat", but a BAD [I]STORY[/I]. This story and narrative we have in all our heads about how a fight like this [I]should[/I] go based upon the years and decades of other stories and books and movies and shows we have experienced and enjoyed that do just that. The DM wants to keep the "Boss Monster" alive for as long as possible because they want the STORY of the guy in charge being the last one to fall after all the other waves of henchmen and mooks before them have been killed. But this idea or concept is a NARRATIVE conceit. It has NOTHING to do with just "winning the combat" or "winning the game"-- that would be the board game talking. If all that really mattered to everyone at the table was following the combat rules to win the combat such that one side survived and the other side didn't... then [I]the order[/I] of which creatures on one of the sides died WOULD NOT MATTER. Because a win is a win. The game rules say one side wins when the other side is eliminated, then just eliminate them in whatever way makes the most tactical board game sense. If that's what you want (and that's fine if you do)... then this whole concern about "the Boss Monster dies too quickly" would not actually be a concern at all because there would not [I]be[/I] a "Boss". But if you as a DM have indeed created a "Boss Monster" and you hope/want that creature to only die at a specific point in the fight (or maybe not even die at all) because that's how you think the "Boss Monster" trope is the best way for the fight to go... then you HAVE to stop being so concerned about trying to use the combat game rules "the right way" or "As Written" in order to try and create that result. Because you can't. At least not consistently. The combat rules of D&D are [I]not designed[/I] with drama and narrative being the prime function and result of having a fight. To actually get to that result... you have to use NARRATIVE techniques to let your narrative boss monster survive till the end. You have to use whatever narrative reasoning or non-rule (dare I say it) "fudging" you want... because in this case the story of the fight... the story of the characters "overcoming the odds" (again, another NARRATIVE technique) and fighting through all the mooks to finally engage and kill the "Boss Monster" last... is a more satisfying conclusion to us than trying to create or jerry-rig some sort of "combat rule system" one can use "As Written" in order to FORCE that order of death to occur. I mean if the game [I]actually[/I] wanted one creature to be killed last, then the rules of the "tactical miniatures combat board game" version of Dungeons & Dragons would have been designed and written such that every combat occurred in "waves" so that you as the players couldn't ever actually face the "final creature" until you killed all the mooks in front first. Mechanically and artificially create that "end game boss" for you. The game [I]could[/I] have been designed that way. But it wasn't. Instead, it gave us "waves of monsters" as a [I]suggestion[/I] for a potential narrative technique to get the results we hoped for, but they are not a written requirement of the combat rules. Which means the [I]game itself[/I] does not believe in the concept of the "Boss Monster" as a mechanical thing. So if you still want to use it, you have to give up trying to only use the written-down game rules to accomplish it. We've had over 30 years of this issue. It's something we should have all come to terms with years ago and not something that should still be bothering us. The "Boss Monster" phenomenon should not still be a thing to get mad at the rules for after all this time. [/QUOTE]

Verification