Monte Cook: Guidance for Monsters and Treasure

[FireLance]

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.

You know, there are two issues here. One is a steady stream of adventure rewards. The other is the PCs meeting challenges commensurate with their abilities. The two can go together, but they don't have to.

You could have a campaign where the PCs always advance in terms of personal power and magic item power, but face off against a variety of challenges ranging from very easy (a handful of orcs at high levels) to virtually impossible (an army of giants at low levels). You could also have a campaign where the PCs' personal and magic item power is highly variable (due to level drain, curses, long-term injury, destruction and loss of equipment, etc.) but they always face foes that they can defeat (after losing all their magic items, the fights become easier).

Which of the above do you see as the actual problem, or is it only the combination of the two?

 

[FireLance]

Actually, thinking about the issue a little more, I can see one limitation with respect to a system of steadily advancing power and constant challenge levels: you usually would not get the chance to "revisit" monster types. For example, you would not have a situation in which a group of low-level adventurers encounter an ogre and defeat it after a tough fight. A few levels later, they encounter ogres again and defeat them quite easily. Some time later, they lose their equipment and encounter ogres again, and the nature of the fight changes because they don't have their magic gear.

Rather, you would have a situation where you fight orcs at low levels, then move on to ogres and then to giants. If you encountered an ogre at low levels, it would be different from the ogres you encounter later on (a "solo" maybe) and if you encounter ogres at very high levels, they would again be different (perhaps "minions").

That said, most systems that I am aware of do suggest that encounter difficulty should be varied. So, there would be some scope for encountering the same creature across a range of levels, with the fight getting progressively easier. Not quite the same range as trivial to almost impossible, of course, nor will there be much scope for the difficulty to go up and down, but not nearly as restrictive as never encountering the same creature again, either.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Incidentally, the rule of thumb should be "treasures should be awesome". Finding 1,000 gold pieces gives your character a boost, sure, but it's dull. And the 4e notion of "item wish lists" is likewise problematic - it's like Christmas when you know exactly what you're getting.

Yes to this point.

My primary system is Hero. Point buy for powers and equipment. You know what you have, and what you are getting. When last I played D&D 3.x (before 4E was released) it was solo with the Wife GMing, but I had a Hero mindset going in, and wanted what spells and items best fit the character, and she went along with.

About a month ago we started playing 3.x again (I got interested in D&D N, and realized I like 3.x why not play it again) - and I approached it completely differently. I've been rolling spells I find in spell book - and it is more fun I'll see "Hey this is a cool spell - I'll likely never use it, but it is a nifty new thing!"
That sense of wonder returning (especially to someone who has been gaming since '77) is really nice.

 

[pemerton]

Actually, thinking about the issue a little more, I can see one limitation with respect to a system of steadily advancing power and constant challenge levels: you usually would not get the chance to "revisit" monster types.

<snip>

If you encountered an ogre at low levels, it would be different from the ogres you encounter later on (a "solo" maybe) and if you encounter ogres at very high levels, they would again be different (perhaps "minions").

That said, most systems that I am aware of do suggest that encounter difficulty should be varied. So, there would be some scope for encountering the same creature across a range of levels

But a creature statted as a minion is still the same creature - as with many mechanical aspects of 4e, minion is generally a metagame status, not an ingame one.

Another technique I've used recently is swarms. As I posted upthread (I think), the PCs in my game recently fought a hoblgoblin phalanx - a Huge swarm with a spear attack and some other hobgoblin-ish stuff, and also the ability to heal by absorbing nearby hobgoblin minions. This certainly gave the sense of revisiting old foes, and with noticeably increased power on the part of the PCs - the PC paladin held off the swarm single handedly for a couple of rounds at least, driving it back with the Strength of Ten (Questing Knight encounter burst) and then - when the phalanx surrounded him (via the swarm ability to move into enemies' squares) - turning the tables and hacking them apart with his khopesh.

I'm still waiting to learn in what sense this is really a treadmill, with the players (or their PCs? - it's a bit ambiguous) running to stand still!

 

[Mark CMG]

You know, there are two issues here. One is a steady stream of adventure rewards. The other is the PCs meeting challenges commensurate with their abilities. The two can go together, but they don't have to.

This is true and primarily it is when they are too closely tied that the problem is most prevalent.

 

[FireLance]

But a creature statted as a minion is still the same creature - as with many mechanical aspects of 4e, minion is generally a metagame status, not an ingame one.

It is described as the same, but it doesn't feel the same (at least, not to me) because the mechanics are different.

 

[Incenjucar]

It is described as the same, but it doesn't feel the same (at least, not to me) because the mechanics are different.

A master does not see a novice the same way another novice does. There's a difference in degree that fundamentally alters the dynamics of the situation.

 

[FireLance]

A master does not see a novice the same way another novice does. There's a difference in degree that fundamentally alters the dynamics of the situation.

Then what happens when a 1st-level character and an 8th-level character attack the same ogre?

Look, I know it's not a big deal. I can work around it easily. Still, it bugs me. It's something that David Noonan once called a "proud nail" in a Design and Development article, based on a woodworking term for a nail "that isn't quite far enough into the wood. It's sticking out just a little bit - just enough to tick you off".

In the D&D context, proud nails are rules that are "just a bit off ... They won't mess up your game on a week-by-week basis, but you sure notice them when they rear their ugly heads".

 

[pemerton]

Then what happens when a 1st-level character and an 8th-level character attack the same ogre?

I think the game utterly takes for granted that that won't happen. Which is to say, if you want to run a game in which that does happen, 4e won't necessarily be up to the task.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think the game utterly takes for granted that that won't happen. Which is to say, if you want to run a game in which that does happen, 4e won't necessarily be up to the task.

It is unlikely to come up, but if It did, a DM familiar with the purpose of minions could roll with it well enough--because as you noted, "minion" is a metagame state.

Is the ogre in the scene as a somewhat threatening speed bump for the 8th level guy--one that he can easily dispatch but can't ignore? Then minion. That means that the 1st level guy has ways to be vey capable helping, even though the ogre is hard for him to hit and more than capable of killing him if the swinging attack rolls grant it. (You know, the same thing that people have been advocating elsewhere in this forum that 5E be designed specifically to do, but apparently don't like it when minion rules allow for it.) If the 8th level guy smacks the ogre to remove the threat early, then that is either misplaced priorities (bigger threats) or because the 1st level guy is inordinately threatened somehow.

OTOH, is the ogre in the scene as a normal, very tough encounter for the 1st level guy--one that would almost certainly doom him with the help of his higher level friend? Then not minion. The scene is about the 1st level guy being rescued by the 8th level guy.

I get that some people don't like metagaming states that explicit -- or in some cases, like their preferred states built into the mechanics, everyone else go hang--but not working to do what the participants want is generally the last thing that a metagaming state does. Of course, if someone wants to insist that an overtly metagaming state is an in-game state, they'll usually find something to gripe about in the resulting interaction. That is usually a sign that they are playing the wrong game.