Monte Cook: Guidance for Monsters and Treasure

[pemerton]

it's true, in every edition of D&D, gaining better abilities - partly through magical gear - enables the PCs to take on progressively tougher opponents they never could have faced before and that can be viewed as a story trajectory for the PCs.

But I don't think that exempts the game from being a treadmill if it is designed that way. As I pointed out before, it's partly a semantic issue but I think it's an important one for forming impressions. When the assumptions are built in that you need +x items to be able to face your own level of opponents, then I do believe you're looking at a treadmill. You must keep running to stand still.

There are two things here that I don't understand.

First, who cares what level of opponents you are facing? Level of opponents is a metagame notion that guides the GM in encounter design. I think this is [MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION]'s point - if my bonuses are +X, then I can safely confront foes with AC of Y. What does it matter what level those opponents are described as?

Second, in what way are the players (or the PCs?) standing still? When my game started, the PCs struggled to beat off twenty lightly-armoured goblins. In a recent session, the paladin on his own held of a phalanx of over twenty well-armoured hobgoblins, driving them back with the Strength of Ten. This strikes me as progress by any measure.

If by "standing still" you mean "still playing a game in which mechanical success depends upon playing with skill, because the numbers on the PC sheet do not guarantee overwhelming success" then that would be true, but to me all that means is that (i) the game is still D&D, and (ii) it is not a Monty-Haul style challenge-free game. In this particular respect, the game is no different from the B/X and AD&D games I GMed nearly 30 years ago - in those games, also, I as GM took steps to ensure that the game remained challenging (and as [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] pointed out upthread, in doing this I was following advice found in the rulebooks). Although it is true that in 4e, the mechanical transparency makes it easier to set the level of challenges where I want them to be (in AD&D I used Don Turnbull's Monstermark for this job, but Monstermark is both a bit more approximate, and not as transparent, as 4e's monster stats).

I realize you don't see it that way but even as you describe it seems to very much support my assertions.

As I've just said, I don't follow. You seem to be saying it's a treadmill because the PCs don't come to numerically dominate the ingame environment with which they are engaged (of course they dominate the ingame environment more generally - the PCs in my game started as relative non-entities, and now dominate the politics and rulership of the city where they are based).

I don't see that as a treadmill. I see that as playing the game. Ever since I started playing fantasy RPGs 30 years ago, it has been taken for granted by me and those I play with that higher level PCs, with their bigger numbers, will face higher level challenges, which also have bigger numbers. Of course I've heard of groups who use their high level PCs to go on inane murder-and-looting sprees in villages and towns, but I've always regarded this as a more-or-less pointless form of the game - you may as well just sit around and free narrate your murder spree, given that the mechanics are playing no meanignful role in the action resolution when 10th level PCs slaughter endless numbers of 0-level NPCs.

I'm also aware that there are sandbox games in which the players, rather than the GM, have principal responsibility for framing the situations. I've got nothing against such games, but I don't think they're the only viable or functional form of play.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't like it. If nothing else, what award to you give out if the PCs do something the DM/writer didn't think of?

You wing it, just like we've been doing since time immemorial.

More to the point, though, I don't think it's necessary to give out different awards for different solutions. I would argue that they'd get much the same effect if they just gave XP for "overcoming challenges", and made it very clear that that included using stealth and diplomacy. This is another area where the 3e DMG said the right things... but the published adventures just assumed that every monster was there to be fought and all challenges were to be overcome with a sword.

I've found the 4e published adventures I've read and-or run* to be even worse in this regard; in large part because 4e really likes its big set-piece battles and the modules are geared toward such.

* - I freely admit to not having read anywhere near all of them, but I do own half a dozen or so of varying levels; I'll assume that to be a reasonable sample size.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

I think having a bit of detail about the creatures in the encounter is great. I don't see that much value in listing different XP values for different ways of handling the encounter because they won't really change the behavior of the players unless they pretty much know about the difference up front. Better for adventures to regularly include suggestions to award bonus XPs for really good ideas or creative ways to resolve encounters and then call them out when you give them.

For example: If the modules says "If the PCs come up with a clever way to gain the help of the ogres without exposing their collusion with their superiors, feel free to award the PCs bonus XPs for the encounter." Then if they succeed in doing so, say "Hey, good job guys. Everyone gets a little bonus XP for the great idea." Do this regularly enough and they should come to the conclusion that they can advance faster not just laying down the violence but by applying some thought and style to the proceedings.

OK, I can go with that.

As long as there's something to alert not just the players but the DM too that there are always options other than battle.

Pleasant side effect will be that different parties playing the same adventure will likely have different experiences within it. Your party might tell stories later of how they duped the Ogres into joining them, while mine might glow over the epic edge-of-the-seat battle those Ogres provided when the party stormed their room.

Right now both players and DMs have to think way outside the published box to make adventures run differently than all combat, all the time.

Lan-"all combat all the time is fine with me, but then I am a Fighter after all"-efan

 

[FireLance]

First, who cares what level of opponents you are facing? Level of opponents is a metagame notion that guides the GM in encounter design. I think this is FireLance's point - if my bonuses are +X, then I can safely confront foes with AC of Y. What does it matter what level those opponents are described as?

Well, it's one of my points. To summarize:

1. Math exists, regardless of guidelines. The absence of guidelines does not mean the absence of math.

2. Math exists, regardless of semantics. Whether it's a 12th-level monster that a 12th-level party that is assumed to be armed with +3 equipment can defeat at standard difficulty, or a 15th-level monster that a 12th-level party can only defeat at standard difficulty if they are armed with +3 equipment, the underlying math is still the same.

3. The DM (and/or the players, in a more sandbox campaign) can always adjust the level of difficulty of encounters to what is desired. If the DM (and/or the players, in a more sandbox campaign) wants to keep the level of difficulty constant in a campaign because the DM (and/or the players, in a more sandbox campaign) thinks this makes individual fights more interesting, the DM (and/or the players, in a more sandbox campaign) can always design(and/or select, in a more sandbox campaign) the encounters accordingly. If the DM wants to key monster power level only to the level of power of the characters, so that the power of the magic items will have a direct effect on the difficulty of the encounters, he can do so (as can the players, in a more sandbox campaign, by picking their fights more carefully).

3a. I am now tired of elaborating on what happens in a more sandbox campaign. Again.

 

[FireLance]

If we were discussing how to keep a horse and I said you needed a fence, well a fence might enclose hundreds of acres or a 20' x 20' area, or anything in between. Obviously, I feel modern systems tend to be more like the latter. You would probably suggest that while we might not agree on the exact size of the enclosure, it is tighter than some older games but that the tightness doesn't bother you, but if we get bogged down over whether or not to call a fence a fence we will never get anywhere.

I wonder if we're talking at cross purposes? My main point is that regardless of the level of power of the characters and the level of power of their magic items, it is always possible to find (or adapt) the monsters to provide whatever level of challenge is desired.

However, if you are coming from the perspective that specific monsters (by the book) only provide the desired level of challenge for a very narrow band of levels, then I agree.

For example, maybe by the book, orcs are 1st-level monsters who do not provide much of a challenge to 8th-level characters armed with +2 equipment. From my perspective, I can always send the party against ogres or adapt orcs into (say) 8th-level monsters. However, I can see why some others might not like that, and why 5e's intention to make monsters more viable across a wider range of levels (by capping/reducing numerical bonuses from levels and maybe equipment) might be more appealing.

 

[Mark CMG]

This is one of the most common misconceptions about games such as 3ed and 4ed. Providing a baseline at which the game works as written does nothing the prevent a GM from departing from that baseline.

Sadly, the misconception is that the any individual GM being able to adjust the system means anything in regard to the discussion because the argument isn't that any indivdual cannot change what they do with the system but rather what the system does regardless of what any individual might do. It's a discussion of what the system is written to do on its own because, frankly, any system (Risk, for instance) can be a roleplaying game if an individual person running it decides that everyone who plays has to take on a persona. What a single or any GM can do to make the system something other than what the system is written to do has really no bearing on how the system is actually written.

 

[Mark CMG]

As I've just said, I don't follow. You seem to be saying it's a treadmill because the PCs don't come to numerically dominate the ingame environment with which they are engaged (of course they dominate the ingame environment more generally - the PCs in my game started as relative non-entities, and now dominate the politics and rulership of the city where they are based).

Nope, I see you don't follow me. First, we're discussing a roleplaying game, a game that wants to have "roleplaying" on its cover front and center. We can get back to other aspects of this discussion but first let's look at something truly fundamental to a game that wants to be an actual roleplaying game first and foremost. What if my group wants to advance in a game that has nothing to do with them advancing as combatants or coming "to numerically dominate the ingame environment?" Remember, we're not talking about a combat game, just a roleplaying game. How does a roleplaying game work as a framework for someone to present an environment that may have nothing to do with combat? (We'll get back to other portion of this discussion after we settle this little question.)

 

[pemerton]

My last time was last weekend, as an ad hoc ruling (but per the DMG guidelines), while running parts of Gardmore Abbey.

The players in my game also earned Diplomacy XP in the last session, for negotiating their way past some guardian statues of Nerath.

I've found the 4e published adventures I've read and-or run* to be even worse in this regard; in large part because 4e really likes its big set-piece battles and the modules are geared toward such.

Shoot - actually, I did forget a discussion/negotiation with a Drider and some Drow in the last weekend session (as part of The Demon Queen's Enclave, the original module that follows Trollhaunt Warrens)!

Demon Queen's Enclave is one of the more negotiation-heavy modules I've seen from TSR/WotC - although the skill challenges could be better detailed in my view.

Sadly, the misconception is that the any individual GM being able to adjust the system means anything in regard to the discussion because the argument isn't that any indivdual cannot change what they do with the system but rather what the system does regardless of what any individual might do. It's a discussion of what the system is written to do on its own because, frankly, any system (Risk, for instance) can be a roleplaying game if an individual person running it decides that everyone who plays has to take on a persona. What a single or any GM can do to make the system something other than what the system is written to do has really no bearing on how the system is actually written.

What game are you talking about here? 4e?

If you're suggesting that a GM using a variety of encounter levels in a 4e game is breaking from the game-as-written in the same way as it would be to try and use Risk as a roleplaying game, I don't follow at all. Risk has no RPG mechanics - no interaction between fiction and system. Whereas 4e's rules are so transparent that setting encounters at higher or lower levels in order to achieve various sorts of consequences in play is trivial and indeed (I would have thought) expected. I've been doing it from day one - using varying encounter levels, for example, to achieve various sorts of pacing and dramatic effects.

To set up a parallel comparison - in my game we don't use Expertise feats. So, in some technical sense, the PCs in my game are "+2" short on their attack bonuses. But the game keeps humming along, even at mid-paragon tier, using MM3 damage and frequently encounters of party level +2 or higher. Comparing this to converting Risk to an RPG is bizarre, in my view.

we're discussing a roleplaying game, a game that wants to have "roleplaying" on its cover front and center.

<snip>

What if my group wants to advance in a game that has nothing to do with them advancing as combatants or coming "to numerically dominate the ingame environment?" Remember, we're not talking about a combat game, just a roleplaying game.

I don't see why you link "numerical domination" to combat. Many RPGs - including but far from only 4e - have social conflict resolution mechanics, and the idea of numerical domination applies to them just as much as to combat.

But if you are talking about non-numerical advancement - say, in Traveller, building up a trading empire - it seems to me that you are talking about the sort of story progression I was discussing upthread. In Traveller this sort of story progression is not linked to PC advancement. In classic D&D it is (you generally can't become a ruler until you reach name level) and in 4e it is. They're different games. But all RPGs, last time I checked.

How does a roleplaying game work as a framework for someone to present an environment that may have nothing to do with combat?

There are many possible design solutions for this. I assume that the particular one you have in mind is freeform roleplaying mediated by GM judgement calls.

But if you're trying to tell me that Rolemaster is not an RPG because it has had social skills as part of its system since the mid-1980s, or that Burning Wheel is not an RPG because it has a social conflict resolution system (Duel of Wits) of comparable mechanical complexity to its advanced combat resolution mechanics, I don't agree.

And I don't particularly see what any of this has to do with "treadmilling" or "running to stand still". Where is the standing still in a game which presupposes, as its basic story arc, a PC's progression from local hero to epic figure of cosmological importance? That game may not be to your taste, but that seems orthogonal to the issue.

 

[Mark CMG]

What game are you talking about here?

Many modern systems relative to older systems, and how that may or may not influence the design of 5E.

And I don't particularly see what any of this has to do with "treadmilling" or "running to stand still".

It has to do with systems that have a steady stream of advancement rewards that are matched on the other side of a combat equation by challenges, essentially maintaining a virtual balance.

 

[Lanefan]

Demon Queen's Enclave is one of the more negotiation-heavy modules I've seen from TSR/WotC - although the skill challenges could be better detailed in my view.

Hmmm...not familiar with that one. If it's for levels I can use (i.e. under about 15th in 4e terms) I'll have to check it out.

I don't see why you link "numerical domination" to combat. Many RPGs - including but far from only 4e - have social conflict resolution mechanics, and the idea of numerical domination applies to them just as much as to combat.

Unfortunately, that's more a bug than a feature when it comes to PC interactions with each other and with the immediate world around them; which is, when you think about it, about 95% of the roleplaying that ever gets done.

Lanefan