Monster Roles mentioned by Monte Cook?

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

Not saying this is definitively the case, but keep in mind that designers are often working with prototypical elements that are not fully formed. For all we know, that had some kind of "lurker role" idea they wanted to explore, they gave it appropriate stats, and then the DM fleshed out the description ad hoc while they played. During play, they didn't think of it as necessarily a "lurker", but as the drow assassin or cloaker or whatever. Yet afterwards, they were thinking in design terms because the design in on their minds. Or any number of variations on that. If we get to peak while they make the sausage, we have to see some of the mess, too.

 

[Knightfall]

Monte Cook commented about playtesting (see the D&D 5E Info red link above):

"Playtesting in the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth. My dwarf just slew a lurker with a well-timed crit to save the swallowed paladin." - Monte Cook.

Ugh.

I'm not happy to see "lurker" unless it's actually a monster called a lurker he's talking about. I dislike combat roles for monsters as well and if combat still revolves around them, the game may end up being too close to 4E for my liking. I don't want a game where I fight "brutes" or "soldiers" or "elite lurkers" or whatever.

I think he meant the lurker monster. Not the lurker role. Cordell made a similar comment regarding trolls...

"Playtested in the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth. My cleric burned several downed trolls before they could finish off the unconscious paladin." - Bruce Cordell.

I doubt Monte would say monster role "lurker" instead of the actual monster.

 

[nnms]

I do hope you are right.

Any sign that 4E roles in the way they are hard coded into the encounter system won't be present in D&D Next is a good sign for me.

Other people love them and think they make the game so much better.

I'm starting to have serious doubts about this whole "unity" goal.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I don't agree with your criticism of monster roles. I find it a useful shorthand for working out how, mechanically, a monster is going to play in combat.

But I do agree that WotC could do a lot better in giving guidance to GMs on the use of monsters in encounters to support story goals. One of my dissapointments with the 4e DMG is that WotC showed they could write this sort of advice - in Worlds and Monsters - but then included almost none of it in the DMG. The DMG only talked about encounter design from the mechancial/tactical point of view, not the story element point of view. Which, at least for 4e, is a pity, because I think 4e monsters in many cases very elegantly integrate mechanical and story elements.

 

[nnms]

I don't agree with your criticism of monster roles. I find it a useful shorthand for working out how, mechanically, a monster is going to play in combat.

It's not really just a useful guide, but a prescription. A monsters role + level is what you plug into the system math to get the monsters stats. There are certain damage levels and effects and abilities that are appropriate for each role and monsters of that role have them. Soldiers have defender type mechanics. Controllers either inflict status effects, move people around or do a lot of multi-target attacks. Brutes do lots of damage and are easier to hit. Skirmishers take advantage of mobility and combat advantage.

These aren't really general shorthands or clues for the DM about how to run the monster. These are the mechanics of the game and how it all works. These roles are directly tied into the whole scaling by level system as well as encounter design, xp budgets, etc.,.

And then on top of that, monsters are all essentially based on the standard level scaling system. They're all variations of this:
http://slyflourish.com/master_dm_sheet.pdf

Anyway...

It's sort of funny. Back around 2002/3 I ended up getting burnt out on 3.x and ended up getting into a lot of Forge type games like The Pool, My Life With Master, DitV, etc.,. I thought trad gaming with it's task resolution was the problem.

Then in 4E came out and I really appreciated its focused design and particular type of play it produces. I played and ran it a ton, but got sick of the focused type of play it produces.

I think my issue all along is that I actually like trad type play with it's focus on a continual narrative fiction that emerges out of sequential task resolution called upon by disagreements of success of individual actions in the narrative. I just didn't like how 3.x didn't do that as efficiently and as neatly as it could have.

Deep down inside I think I'm an ardent "right to dream"er and 4E just isn't doing it for me anymore. With it's game play focused approach and it's defined combat roles for PCs and monsters alike and all the various issues I have with its refresh mechanics and reward cycle.

I think at this point, perhaps my default position should be to assume that like the rest of WotC's products, D&D Next won't hold my interest nor fit the type of play I'm looking for at the table. If I get pleasantly surprised, then great.

 

[pemerton]

Pre 3.x monster design: What are the main characteristics of this monster? How deadly is it compared to a common man or a trained warrior? How tough is it? Now make stats that represent that. Monster uses a weapon? Do damage by weapon + bonuses.

4E monster design: What role is this monster? What level? Spit out stats based on the formula. Then tack on abilities or powers to give the impression that it's somehow different than every other monster of that type and level. Monster rules a weapon? Ignore that and do standard monster damage by level.

See the differences?

Yes. I've run both sorts of games - Rolemaster, and 4e. Designing satisfying combat encounters in Rolemaster - satisfying in the sense of playing out with satisfactory tension, pacing etc, which can vary from encounter to encounter - is a nightmare.

Designing satisfying combat encounters in 4e is a breeze.

The question for me is - does the metagame-first approach to 4e monster design impede the use of monsters, at the table, as key story elements? My experience is that it doesn't. And given all it's payoffs, I personally would not be interested in backtracking.

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

<snip>

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.

This is very interesting. From my point of view, I quite like it that 4e monsters, mechanically, are built from a fairly small set of components. It means that to run my monsters with a modicum of tactical ability I don't have to think too hard. I can focus on the story/thematic significance of encounters a bit more, and use those limited mechanics to bring that out.

A very simple example: when a Deathlock Wight or Enigma of Vecna "pushes" a PC with its horrific appearance, I get to focus on what is happening in the fiction - the PC fleeing from fear - without having to worry about how the mechanics handle it - like any other forced movement.

For me, the mechanical advancement of player levels is similar - the increase in power is mostly not mechanical (although the mecahnical changes, like a wider range of options, do increase mechanical power to an extent) but in story terms - becoming a paragon hero means something, and the story changes to reflect that. (The only default way it changes is that the PCs' opponents change - another weakness of 4e isn't it doesn't give any more comprehensive advice on differences in scenario design for different tiers. In my own campaign I've gone a bit beyond this default.)

So I don't think there is (or has to be) an illusion. There need only be a recognition that the mechanics are a metagame framework on which the story is suspended. But it goes almost without saying that not everyone likes to RPG in that sort of way. Or, even if they do, to use D&D(-ish) mechanics as their framework.

I'm starting to have serious doubts about this whole "unity" goal.

Amen to that.

 

[pemerton]

It's more a general and broad guideline to give an idea of how it operates in its behavior.

"The fictional detail of the monster in the narrative" is up to your discretion and imagination, which I would like to imagine that you have.

In many cases, though, it is built into the monster. For example, an Enigma of Vecna, when it Horrifically Transforms, delivers a push attack vs Will with the Fear keyword. This, if it hits, represents PCs running (or at least falling back) in fear.

For me, at least, this integration of mechanics and story elements is part of the beauty of 4e monster design.

 

[nnms]

In many cases, though, it is built into the monster. For example, an Enigma of Vecna, when it Horrifically Transforms, delivers a push attack vs Will with the Fear keyword. This, if it hits, represents PCs running (or at least falling back) in fear.

For me, at least, this integration of mechanics and story elements is part of the beauty of 4e monster design.

It is cool.

Unfortunately one thing 4E doesn't do well is having fast combats (and I'm comparing that to AD&D1E/B/X/BECMI/OD&D rather than long 3.x combats). So if you end up wanting to speed that up, the easiest way to do that is to consciously or unconsciously stop translating these mechanical events into the narrative.

When the DM announces that the Enigma of Vecna uses Horrific Transformation and has a result that you can interpret into story terms, that's cool. But actually taking the time to describe it in story terms or to narrate it isn't part of the game procedures in the rules. It's not like Don't Rest Your Head where you interpret the dice to see that Madness dominates and then narrate the result. It's just sort of an optional extra that is very, very easy to toss aside to speed things up.

I'd much prefer a system where we go along describing things that happen and declaring what we're all doing and then reference the system as needed to resolve that. You may still have a similar fear effect that calls for some sort of system usage and then a change in the narrative about someone fleeing or recoiling, but it's not one you can just divorce from the narrative to speed things up.

I don't know if I've made the distinction clear enough.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Unfortunately one thing 4E doesn't do well is having fast combats (and I'm comparing that to AD&D1E/B/X/BECMI/OD&D rather than long 3.x combats). So if you end up wanting to speed that up, the easiest way to do that is to consciously or unconsciously stop translating these mechanical events into the narrative.

There is no inherent reason why 4E itself had to have combats that long, except that the designers wanted them that way. Nevermind 5E. You could rebuild a version of 4E from the ground up, that did 90% of the stuff that pemerton (I think) and I and some (non trivial number of) others appreciate about it, and do with combats that took 20-30 minutes. It wouldn't be easy, because you'd have to rewrite a lot of stuff, but it would be conceptually simple. Now, you couldn't easily do that and preserve the 2 hours indepth combats for those that like that. That takes some modular rework and hooks that simply don't exist in 4E right now.

People tend to drag all kinds of stuff into the "long, tactical combats" that aren't inherently connected to them, but only related because you pick up the 4E we have, and they happen to be in the same system. You might as well say that you don't like a particular brand of automobile because a couple of guys you can't stand are the only people you know who drive it. (Not entirely without reason, but certain not something that will stand up to a rigorous examination. )

 

[I'm A Banana]

Man, Monte is going to probably regret that one word.

FWIW, my vote is on him meaning the monster that drops from ceilings and not the monster role.

This is for a few reasons. For one, monster role is entirely DM-facing, not player facing. If Monte's character were to fight a "lurker-as-in-monster-role" Monte probably wouldn't call it that. He'd call it a "Ythrak Stealthmonger" or whatever, since that's the ACTUAL monster he fought.

Second, check out the module. Check out the theme of reunification. That little G+ update tells old 1e fans that this new edition includes everything you need to play that old module, including that old monster (which isn't a good monster according to the 4e paradigm, since it's more of a "gotcha monster" -- AKA a trap, but I digress).

Those G+ updates are about the designers saying "These are the raw elements of D&D that we are experiencing with the new system -- the new game has trolls, and runs modules, and has lurkers, and also has paladins and dwarves?"

In other news, monster role itself doesn't so much bother me as a statistical organizational tool, since it is essential DM-facing, and meaningful only in the context of generating the numbers. It was only ever the beginning to monster definition, never the end.