Monster Roles mentioned by Monte Cook?

[pemerton]

It's not really just a useful guide, but a prescription.

<snip>

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.

This is all true. When I said that the label is a guide, I meant that it guides because it is applied to something that follows the prescription.

The benefits of this (for me, at least) are what I tried to articulate in my Rolemaster vs 4e comparison.

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.

<snip>

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.

The distinction is clear (I think), and it's one that [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] has posted about a lot in the context of 4e.

I see it as a contrast between "mere colour", on the one hand, and fictional positioning that matters, on the other hand. I think we can all agree that, in 4e, this sort of fictional positioning often doesn't matter to the immediate action resolution at hand, and hence is in danger of collapsing into "mere colour". I say "often doesn't matter" and not "never matters", because sometimes fictional positioning clearly does matter to action resolution - for example, if a monster has ice walk than it matters what sort of difficult terrain is on the battlemap, or if a character wants to climb up or over something than the line on the battlemap becomes more than merely "blocking terrain" - it's ficitonal nature matters to action resolution.

But beyond these sorts of cases - which I find are more common than some 4e detractors contend (and are a reason for following the encounter design device in the DMG, about having lots of interesting terrain and so on, that the DMG does not itself articulate) but I will agree are not universal - I endeavour to make the fiction matter to the unfolding story, and the possibilities to which it gives rise. So, for example, the players have an incentive to narrate things - to add colour - if that leds them build up the story of their PC and the situation, whether because it facilitates some immediate page 42 manoeuvre, or because it situations their PC in some more long term way within the narrative. And I have an incentive to narrate things - to add colour - if that helps me set up the unfolding narrative in various ways - even as little as following up on a fear effect like the Enigma of Vecna's by using that to establish an ingame rationale for an NPC doing something (like choosing who to attack next), or using it to build a future dream sequence, or as a flashback in a skill challenge, etc.

I think the 4e DMGs would have been stronger if (i) they had emphasised the importance of keywords as anchoring the mechanics in the fiction (the rules as printed only talk about the mechanical interrelations of keywords), and (ii) they gave more advice and ideas on how to make the fiction matter beyond the immediate context of the resolution of a particular action.

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'm a "Story Now" sort of guy, but like stories that are mostly light but really put the fantasy tropes to work in delivering these light stories (think 70s/80s Marvel super hero storylines, or the 1981 Excalibur movie).

And I (and the players for whom I GM) like mechanically crunchy action resolution, especially in combat.

I GMed Rolemaster for over 15 years. This is a great system for rich PCs whose character and personality is mechanically expressed, and it has crunchy action resolution, but it has a lot of the classic simulationist mechanics that get in the way of Story Now (although at mid-to-high levels the magical abilities of the PCs give quite a few workarounds).

For me, 4e is pretty well tailor-made - thematically light but trope-heavy fantasy RPGing with crunchy combat mechanics, and none of the simulationist stuff that gets in the way of Story Now. It does what I was trying to get out of Rolemaster without having to push it and pull it. My scene framing and pacing is pretty light-handed, I'm sure, by the standards of ultra-focused indie GMs, but I find the game mostly delivers what I want in these respects without me even having to do anything very special to achieve it.

When our 4e campaign finishes - probably not for at least another couple of years, at the current rate of progression - I don't know whether I'll try another 4e campaign, or look at 5e, or try and run a Burning Wheel game. There are some clever elements to BW in its blend of simulationist mechanics (the Adventure Burner, especially, emphasises the use of DC-setting and skill applicability to define setting) with more Story Now priorities (action resolution in terms of intent and task, especially for failures, and also the incentives that the artha system and the advancement system provide to players to move away from standard simulationist play).

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.

The vibes I've got from Legends and Lore, and especially Monte Cook's contributions, have struck me as somewhat reactionary. But there's not a lot of information to judge on.

 

[nnms]

For me, 4e is pretty well tailor-made - thematically light but trope-heavy fantasy RPGing with crunchy combat mechanics, and none of the simulationist stuff that gets in the way of Story Now.

For a while I was running 4E as pretty much explicitly story after (we would literally pause during the session and sum things up, interpreting them into a story structure after they happened). We were primarily interested in "getting it right" with the "it" being heroic fantasy-- so right to dream about heroic fantasy fiction play.

The game lasted until myself and half the group sort of realized that all the game stuff didn't necessarily matter to our goals. We started having sessions of near complete disengagement from the combat system, often replacing entire combats with 5 minute skill challenges or just describing what we were doing and making a single attack roll for the entire fight for each creature in the combat instead.

As you could imagine, this is pretty contrary to the normal expectations of play for 4E. A couple of people who weren't 100% on board with our shift towards something more like "right to dream OD&D using 4E as a basis" asked that we go back to "normal." After a couple months of running it more like normal 4E, I realized I wasn't getting anything out of it and all the stuff like the monster roles just kept leaping out at me. So I stepped aside and let someone who wanted to run the game as 4E for its own sake.

Since then it's been story after, right to dream, Labyrinth Lord for everyone interested. And we call our character "dungeoneers" rather than characters or adventurers. We've narrowed the "getting it right" target from heroic fantasy fiction to mythic underworld exploration fiction. We'd almost switch to OD&D/Swords & Wizardry, but we like the extra rules content in Moldvay style Basic D&D.

So I guess it makes a lot of sense that current 4E preferences aren't going to fit very well with what I'd like to see happen with D&D Next.

If WotC is serious about getting people from *every* edition of D&D back under the D&D banner, then there is very little 4E stuff that can be included as "core" to the game. D&D's monster level, roles and encounter design system is pretty much anathema to OD&D or B/X players. OD&D's encouragement of rulings by the DM as the primary system to resolve things certainly does not mesh with the "rules for everything" approach of 3.x.

My gut feeling at this point is that the majority of RPG players are either 4E or 3.x/Pathfinder players. And if they are the target and all the pre 3.x players are just sort of hand waved when it comes to players of every edition finding what they liked, then I will probably not be on board.

 

[vagabundo]

I love monster roles. It makes encounter design so much easier. However I could see how the game could use more roles and have a little more variability in each role, maybe - shock, horror - bring back an optional die roll for HP with an average for those who dont care.

Or maybe have a role-less monster as a template with avaerage statistics, for people to customise.

 

[nnms]

Here is a role-less monster reference sheet for people to customize:

http://slyflourish.com/master_dm_sheet.pdf

 

[dd.stevenson]

The lurker is a carnivorous scavenger found only in subterranean settings. It resembles a large manta ray; its grayish belly is textured like stone. The lurker typically attaches itself to a ceiling, where it is very difficult to detect (only 10% chance) unless actually prodded.

Combat: Lurkers are slow-moving creatures that must wait for their prey to come into range. Lurkers wait on the ceiling, then drop and wrap themselves around their prey. Lurkers cause a -4 penalty to opponents' surprise rolls. The constriction causes 1d6 points of damage per round and suffocation within 1d4+1 rounds, regardless of the damage suffered by the victim. This damage is automatic each round unless the victim breaks free or the lurker dies. Lurkers do not stop attacking until dead. Prey can only fight with short weapons that were in hand when the lurker attacked.

Pretty sure this is what Monte was referring to. I would bet good money that he's gonna be surprised his tweet could be taken any other way.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sounds like good news, maybe they are not throwing away all the good stuff 4E brought to us.

 

[Ichneumon]

This concerns me.

There's a lurker, probably also a lurker, in 5e D&D with a dwarf-sized hunger.

Which means there's other lurking things besides purple worms which will swallow you. Of course they might have omitted purple worms, just that we have only lurkers to worry about. But I doubt that Mearls and Monte will be that Merciful...

 

[Teataine]

Hey, nnms, I think this is very much a creative agenda disconnect. I also think D&D has always been a 'step on up' game and if it satisfied people's 'right to dream' agendas it was because of the sparse rules (that were often twisted and ignored). Essentially, people were playing their own game on top of the other.

That said, I have no problem with roles.

In older editions, there was an orc in the book and if I wanted him to shoot a bow and run around, I'd have to give him levels of ranger, or if I wanted him to be shaman of the tribe I'd have to toss in a few levels of wizard, or if I wanted him to be a big burly bastard with a huge axe I'd give him levels of barbarian or fighter.

That's what roles are, basically. You don't have to do the work, if you don't want to. Want an orc with a bow? Pick the Orc with the skirmisher tag out of the book. You can still make your own monsters in various flavors if you want. Monster roles are just shorthand that make it easier for the GM to assign monsters...well...roles.


EDIT: Just wanted to say, this is the biggest problem WotC must face. If they want to "unite all the players and playstyles" then they must account for different creative agendas. Which is more or less impossible...

 

[beej]

I like roles as much as the next 4E DM, in so much as it facilitates encounter design and implementation.

With that being said, I'm not sure if it's the system's fault or my shortcomings as a narrator when, even after elaborating how each monster looks like and hunting for the right minis (I had to salvage MageKnight figs to get orc archers, for example), players still go, "get the artillery guy first, DPRanger!"

Granted, it's not always the case. (My players remember the roc I used in 4e as a roc, and not as a solo skirmisher the first time they saw it, an elite the second time they encountered one and a standard monster by the time they were level 19, for example.)

But it does happen, sometimes to the point where they remember fights against the roles moreso than they remembered that they were orcs/gnolls/what have you.

 

[Storminator]

Monster roles are great in 4e. They're extremely functional. You can get the right encounter and just change the fiction to match.

I just ran a dungeon crawl in 4e. The PCs (all goblins) had found the back door to the rival clan's throne room and assaulted it.

A typical fight included an eladrin sorcerer (artillery), a cave bear (brute), a warforged fighter (soldier), a demon (artillery) and a deva (controller).

Except I picked all those based on how they were supposed to fight, and just called them all hobgoblins. The eladrin sorcerer was a archer with fire arrows, the cave bear was the kitchen drudge with a pair of meat cleavers, the warforged was a clan guardsman, the demon was a pet hell hound, and the deva was a tribal shaman. None of my players even knew I mashed the stat blocks together. Someone wondered where I got so many different hobgoblin stats.

Divorcing the mechanics of the monster from the fiction means I can get EXACTLY the mechanical fight I want and EXACTLY the fiction I want at the same time. No compromise.

PS