Monster Design--from a designer's standpoint

[helium3]

Or, we could just, you know, assign it some stats based on a chart of standards and our personal feelings on how to adjust stuff. Yay!

Well, you can also base it off a series of assumptions about what "balance" actually means and use those assumptions to generate your own table of values for attack, damage and AC. It's actually not that hard to do once you get everything logically worked out and posses a modest amount of Excel-Fu.

I've already done it for 3.5 though I haven't had a chance to actually test the beasties that result. That'll happen in the next game I run, I reckon. The tricky part about working with a table is making sure that your assumptions are very clear. If they aren't, it becomes very difficult to modify how you use the table correctly. I'm still fiddling with that at the moment. It could very well turn out that playtesting is the only good way to develop guidelines for handling situations that deviate from the basic assumptions.

 

[Orcus]

But... but... they're supposed to lawful good! Have the flumphs deceived us all?

Scott was winking

 

[Belphanior]

Nice. Now, just need a Flumph Commander, Flumph Hellspawn, and Flumph Overmind

Which one has the boobs? Also, we need to invent a race called Flumphborn.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Here's what I don't understand though. 3E in its attempt to turn monster generation into an algorithm was obviously reacting to some sort of a flaw in the ad-hoc monster design process that had come before it. What was the flaw that 3E was a reaction to and has that flaw been fixed as well?

I assume it was the general lack of guidelines then, but since I know next to nothing about AD&D, it's hard for me to contribute something substantial here.
The 3E approach was "over-engineering" this. I think their guideline was indeed: "Everything should be created equal. Then we can balance stuff more easily". It didn't work out so well - neither was everything created equal (Compare Dragon HD benefits to Fey HD benefits), nor ended everything balanced out. (Templates can have awkward effect if you base stuff on HD, without linking HD and CR. See also Summon Monster and Polymorph Effects)

Well, you can also base it off a series of assumptions about what "balance" actually means and use those assumptions to generate your own table of values for attack, damage and AC. It's actually not that hard to do once you get everything logically worked out and posses a modest amount of Excel-Fu.

I've already done it for 3.5 though I haven't had a chance to actually test the beasties that result. That'll happen in the next game I run, I reckon. The tricky part about working with a table is making sure that your assumptions are very clear. If they aren't, it becomes very difficult to modify how you use the table correctly. I'm still fiddling with that at the moment. It could very well turn out that playtesting is the only good way to develop guidelines for handling situations that deviate from the basic assumptions.

It might be possible, but it is
- not by the book
- wonky.
All your data points can only guide you in the right direction, but none of them will actually fit it. It's probably easier to start from the beginning and describe the "power curve" you want, and then make monsters that fit these data points. (Though instead of a curve, thanks to stuff like "roles" and "minion/elite/solo notations", you might actually have something n-dimensional...)

 

[FourthBear]

Here's what I don't understand though. 3E in its attempt to turn monster generation into an algorithm was obviously reacting to some sort of a flaw in the ad-hoc monster design process that had come before it. What was the flaw that 3E was a reaction to and has that flaw been fixed as well?

I think the flaw, or common complaint, was that previous editions of D&D really didn't have a monster generation system. I believe in the DMG there was something about Hit Dice and the number of special abilities and how many XP the monster should be worth. But there wasn't any kind of a system for monster creation. It was mostly: look at a current monster that you think is challenging enough and modify it until you've got what you want. Or just eyeball numbers and playtest until it seems to come out right.

Further, monsters in 1e and 2e lacked many characteristics of PCs, most notably ability scores. This made judging some interactions and abilities of monsters non-systematic. It also made it hard to have someone play a monster. This was indeed a big change in 3e, that now monsters were far easier for players to try to use (although as we eventually saw, balancing issues were quite problematic).

I think it's only natural that when the designers decided to create a method for monster creation that they first decided on a method that roughly resembled PC creation.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Which one has the boobs?

The female ones, of course!
Or is this a trick question?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Further, monsters in 1e and 2e lacked many characteristics of PCs, most notably ability scores.

Oh yes, I think this is indeed a major point why 3E did he monster rules. It might have been one of the main reason for the 3E monster rules, and it still seems to be present in 4E.

 

[Storminator]

Or just eyeball numbers and playtest until it seems to come out right.

Playtest? Don't you just me throw it at the PCs and see if it kills them?

PS

 

[Spatula]

Yes. Peeps did/do complain. My group = never (most have been with me since the early/mid 80s of 1e, so they dont mind the difference between monsters and PCs). But- I've been to a few Cons or gaming gatherings around here where I've seen and heard players complain when a monster could do some "uber-cool" trick that couldn't be replicated by spell or magic item.

And those are the people you ignore. The MM (the 1st one!) has all kinds of abilities in it that PCs can't have, so I'm not sure where this impulse comes from...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Playtest? Don't you just me throw it at the PCs and see if it kills them?

PS

Sounds like a play test to me. You play, and test if the PCs die or the monster dies. Sounds allright.