Monster Roles mentioned by Monte Cook?

[nnms]

So would advocate for a mixed approach?

If mixed means that monsters aren't more defined by their role than by their fictional details, then yes.

One of the things that burned me out of DMing D&D was the sameness of monsters.

One of my players asked me why I was the one who got burned out when I had all sort of opportunities to constantly be trying out new monsters all the time. I told them that there were basically only a few different monster types with slight variations and it got boring.

I guess it's like the leveling math for players. If they don't stop and think about how the monster defenses seem to go up at the exact same rate as their attack bonuses or how skill DCs seem to scale at the exact same rate as their half level bonuses, they fall for the illusion that leveling up means that they are getting more powerful when they are actually not.

4E monsters may appear to be different and unique to players as they fall for that same illusion. But once you've seen through it, you can't go back.

 

[KidSnide]

When I talk about categories being bad I'm talking about when the categories become so definitive of what the monster does that it is more important in game terms than the actual attributes, description, etc., of the monster.

Like in 4E. You can have an orc with a bow that is a skirmisher. You can have one that is a lurker. In 4E, It's more communicative to talk about lurkers and skirmishers than about orcs. If you have an orc and a gnoll working together, the game system is very concerned with what category they belong to. What category they belong to is more relevant and communicative than any actual fictional detail of the monster in the narrative.

Your description of monster roles is very different from my experience. Yes, all the monsters in my 4e games have roles, which are a useful way to come up with balanced stats and an approximation of the power that results. More importantly, they are very useful when searching for a monster to reflavor. If I have some kind of hulking monster, I can search for brutes as a base to modify.

But while my Orc Archer could be a skirmisher or an artillery, the fact that he's an Orc Archer is definitely more important than the specific role chosen. There are fair criticisms of 4e monster design. For example, humanoid monsters with an ostensible class should use powers from the PH over newly invented ones unless there is a good reason to provide the monster with a new type of magic. Likewise, as you mention, the special qualities of weapons should be reflected in the monsters that wield them.

But those issues are separate from roles. I don't see the problem with monster roles.

-KS

 

[nnms]

Ok, so you want the 3.5E Monster Manual V, which invented monster roles implicit in design but didn't make them explicit.

I mean, yeah, the devs could remove the descriptors and leave it to DMs to figure out that they should put some fat Ogre in front of the squishy kobold archer. How does that make the DM's life easier?

The point is that descriptors like "brute" or "artillery" shouldn't come up at the game table anyway. They are handy tools for the DM to design interesting encounters, that's all.

If players start talking about elites and solos, they are metagaming. Are you blaming the system for reducing your immersion through metagaming?

If only that was the case. Knowing a monster is a brute or an artillery or whatever gives so much more information than just a handy tool for the DMs would.

And it's so easy for the players to figure out what the monster roles are. They get combat advantage and do extra damage? Skirmisher. They do something defendery? Soldier. They go away for a round and then come back and hit hard? Lurker. They are easy to hit and do lots of damage? brute.

4E encourages tactical metagaming. It's part of the fun. You even get to know exactly when a monster is half dead. And the details of all effects you suffer. With no consideration as to whether or not your character knows these details.

Some consider it a great feature of 4E. I still see it as a strength even if I don't like that type of play.

EDIT: I have no idea about 3.5 MM Whatever. I largely skipped 3.5 after playing 3.x for only about three or four years. I don't know about more than half of the books published for that system.

 

[nnms]

Yes, all the monsters in my 4e games have roles, which are a useful way to come up with balanced stats and an approximation of the power that results. More importantly, they are very useful when searching for a monster to reflavor. If I have some kind of hulking monster, I can search for brutes as a base to modify.

Definitley. The system has strengths. It produces a certain type of tactical encounter focused play that I have enjoyed in the past. It works great at that.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You don't think monster roles and how they function in the system math of 4E is a real thing?

Not the way some people that apparently haven't played 4E see them, no. Morgan Fairchild is a real thing. But she wasn't at my house last week, and neither was Jon Lovitz. It seems to be a recurring theme here the last few days.

 

[Aldarc]

If mixed means that monsters aren't more defined by their role than by their fictional details, then yes.

One of the things that burned me out of DMing D&D was the sameness of monsters.

One of my players asked me why I was the one who got burned out when I had all sort of opportunities to constantly be trying out new monsters all the time. I told them that there were basically only a few different monster types with slight variations and it got boring.

I guess it's like the leveling math for players. If they don't stop and think about how the monster defenses seem to go up at the exact same rate as their attack bonuses or how skill DCs seem to scale at the exact same rate as their half level bonuses, they fall for the illusion that leveling up means that they are getting more powerful when they are actually not.

4E monsters may appear to be different and unique to players as they fall for that same illusion. But once you've seen through it, you can't go back.

Hmmm...I had the same reaction in 3e. Most of the monsters looked mostly the same to me with only slight variations. I guess I wasn't surprised then with 4e's approach.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

ok, so in your mind monsters all fall into sameness... how can we make monsters more distinctive.


Personaly I agree as you level alot of monsters look the same. I think we need only look at some iconic heroic tier enemies to see 4e had the tools (and fell flat sometimes) to change that.

Kobolds, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bug bears, and Orcs... If you fight a kobold or Goblin soldier they seam a little similar, becuse both are small annoying movement guys, but I feel they made them distinctive enough... but fight a Hobgoblin soldier and it is a very diffrent fight. Fight a Bugbear soldier and it is some thing intirely diffrent...the orcs...god the first time we fought orcs I think I made a PC cry.

fighting 2 kobold slingers, a kobold wyrm priest and a kobold dragon shield (maybe sprinkle some minons in) is a very diffrent then 2 hobgoblin archers, a hobgoblin warcaster, and a Hobgoblin Soldier.

Why are they diffrent, becuse the story is and the mechanics reflect that (Yea 4e rocks when it works), but then you get ogers, trolls, and most giants and they all blur togather.


If every set of stats was set up like the Orcs, and Bug bears, with story and fluff reflected by mechanic and nitch, then everything would work better, and I think the roles could still be there in that world

 

[Crazy Jerome]

More serious to your point, the main problem I see with roles (monster and otherwise) is not that they exist but that there aren't enough of them, and they are applied to narrowly. 1:1 correspondences in game parts often have that problem. This is why players that want to metagame can so readily observe and infer other things.

Though you have to be careful here, because a certain amount of this is logical, in-game thinking. I'd expect an orc archer in leather to have some mobility, for example, in any version of D&D, and even in GURPS or something like that. It's not because he is a "skirmisher" role example. It's because things with ranged attacks and light armor like to be able ot move.

 

[nnms]

More serious to your point, the main problem I see with roles (monster and otherwise) is not that they exist but that there aren't enough of them, and they are applied to narrowly. 1:1 correspondences in game parts often have that problem. This is why players that want to metagame can so readily observe and infer other things.

Though you have to be careful here, because a certain amount of this is logical, in-game thinking. I'd expect an orc archer in leather to have some mobility, for example, in any version of D&D, and even in GURPS or something like that. It's not because he is a "skirmisher" role example. It's because things with ranged attacks and light armor like to be able ot move.

I like this direction of thought. If I didn't have to wait to give out more XP, I totally would. Anyone want to help me out?

My main issue is this: I don't want what category a given monster fits into to be so definitive and informative about the monster that one of the game's designers recounts his gaming by talking about it in terms of monster role rather than in narrative terms by naming the actual monster.

Hopefully he is actually talking about the individual monster known as a lurker and not the lurker monster role.

 

[Knightfall]

All this talk about monster roles makes me think of all the conversion work [MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION] did. All that work and now he's going to have to do it all over again.