Monte Cook: Guidance for Monsters and Treasure

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

The somewhat irritating character of the griping that you call out here is aggrivated (for me, at least) by a tendency not to acknowledge the metagame pressures generated by the preferred mechanics (whatever exactly they are - some mix or spread of 3E and AD&D, it seems), as if they were nothing but a pure model of some generic fantasy world.

 

[Balesir]

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.

Agreed - they are where I have put the most work prior to running the scenarios in general (even though I change all the combat encounters to be more of a challenge for the 7 player party I run for).

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.

It's for levels 14 to 16, so it straddles your "cut-off", more or less. Why is 15th your cap, by the way? If 15th is playable for you, I should have thought the rest of Paragon tier should present no further difficulty...

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.

I absolutely disagree, here. I want mechanisims for social interaction, exploration and other non-combat challenges. What form those systems take can be very mutable indeed, but "GM fiat" as a resolution system no longer holds any interest for me at all.

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

I think this is the crux. I don't see how they are any more closely tied in "modern" systems than in older systems. You can pit a first level party against a beholder in order to complete their mission in either AD&D or 4E. They will almost certainly fail in both games, and likely not have that much fun doing so. But neither game system will prevent you from doing it - though both will (if you read the DMG) tell you it's a dumb idea.

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.

Yep, this is definitely a "frame of reference" thing. Anyone with a reasonable grasp of General Relativity should be able to grok it quite readily. Or do I mean that the other way around?

 

[Lanefan]

It's for levels 14 to 16, so it straddles your "cut-off", more or less. Why is 15th your cap, by the way? If 15th is playable for you, I should have thought the rest of Paragon tier should present no further difficulty...

I'm running 1e. 15th is a rough guess, but I think pretty much anything above that would slaughter any party I'll ever have, using the 4e adventure modules I own as guidelines.

I absolutely disagree, here. I want mechanisims for social interaction, exploration and other non-combat challenges. What form those systems take can be very mutable indeed, but "GM fiat" as a resolution system no longer holds any interest for me at all.

The problem with social interaction mechanisms is far too quickly players will give off actually trying to roleplay the interaction in favour of "hell, just roll some dice". Which is not at all what I want.

I think this is the crux. I don't see how they are any more closely tied in "modern" systems than in older systems. You can pit a first level party against a beholder in order to complete their mission in either AD&D or 4E. They will almost certainly fail in both games, and likely not have that much fun doing so. But neither game system will prevent you from doing it - though both will (if you read the DMG) tell you it's a dumb idea.

Quite true.

But let's take a monster slightly less intimidating than a beholder.

In 1e a 1st-level party can go up against a Hill Giant and - while the odds are certainly against them - have a small but real chance of bringing it down. (I know this because it happened in my current game: a Giant wandered by, I thought they'd leave it alone but they charged at it instead and - with casualties - killed it)

Can a 1st-level party in 3e or 4e go up against a Hill Giant with even a 1% chance of winning? I doubt it.

Lanefan

 

[Balesir]

I'm running 1e. 15th is a rough guess, but I think pretty much anything above that would slaughter any party I'll ever have, using the 4e adventure modules I own as guidelines.

Oh, in 1E it should be quite do-able if you convert appropriately. The party will be dealing with drow, some lower ranked demons and fairly powerful undead - nothing too exotic, for the majority of the time.

The problem with social interaction mechanisms is far too quickly players will give off actually trying to roleplay the interaction in favour of "hell, just roll some dice". Which is not at all what I want.

I don't want them just rolling dice, either. I want them thinking about the aims and values of the beings they are dealing with and making interesting choices about what to offer them, how to deal with them and the "tactics" of interpersonal encounters. I see roleplaying as a primarily conscious, rational activity; I don't really want them using unconscious, intuitive brain functions too much because that will, inevitably and necessarily, devolve to dealing with the DM and players as opposed to the characters and creatures in the game world. A rare few individuals can successfully interact immersively with a construct in their imagination, but (a) this works better in solo player sessions than in party play and (b) it requires the GM and the player to be very closely on the same "wavelength" of imagined world to work for any period of time. I also find it works far better with systems other than any edition of D&D, but that is largely an aesthetic thing (which becomes important when considering immersive play).

Quite true.

But let's take a monster slightly less intimidating than a beholder.

In 1e a 1st-level party can go up against a Hill Giant and - while the odds are certainly against them - have a small but real chance of bringing it down. (I know this because it happened in my current game: a Giant wandered by, I thought they'd leave it alone but they charged at it instead and - with casualties - killed it)

Can a 1st-level party in 3e or 4e go up against a Hill Giant with even a 1% chance of winning? I doubt it.

A basic Hill Giant is a 13th level standard monster in 4E, which means you could re-spec it as a level 3 solo (as, indeed, I just have, using my trusty monster builder). This would be a tough encounter for first level characters, but quite possible to win at.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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

I would reward them with experience for meeting their goals (4e "quest XP") and for overcoming challenges that involved some risk of failure (4e skill challenges). This would be my method for any edition I've run since BD&D.

Now, I run pretty standard campaign worlds (Greyhawk, et al) where many people and creatures resort to violence to achieve their goals, so avoiding combat altogether could be a challenge in and of itself. But that would be entirely up to my players how they would want to approach their goals.

 

[D'karr]

A basic Hill Giant is a 13th level standard monster in 4E, which means you could re-spec it as a level 3 solo (as, indeed, I just have, using my trusty monster builder). This would be a tough encounter for first level characters, but quite possible to win at.

Our very first game of Dark Sun 4e had a battle against a giant. I don't recall if it was a hill giant. We were all 1st level, it was supremely tough and we had some deaths but we eventually defeated it. So is it possible? Yes. Desirable? Not so much.

 

[D'karr]

I would reward them with experience for meeting their goals (4e "quest XP") and for overcoming challenges that involved some risk of failure (4e skill challenges). This would be my method for any edition I've run since BD&D.

Now, I run pretty standard campaign worlds (Greyhawk, et al) where many people and creatures resort to violence to achieve their goals, so avoiding combat altogether could be a challenge in and of itself. But that would be entirely up to my players how they would want to approach their goals.

Yep, this is a very similar experience to how I've run games of the sort. What 4e actually did well is provide a solid framework for how to provide XP for things outside of combat.

How things get resolved is as much a function of how the players approach goals as of how the DM sets up challenges.

If the only solution the DM provides is combat then XP will almost always be tied to combat. On the other hand, if the DM is flexible and uses the provided guidance he can sort this out rather easily.

 

[howandwhy99]

Whether it's in a monster's lair or in another location determined by wandering monster checks my prep includes tallying the difficult of an encounter with all the factors I track. This means encounter challenges include environmental factors, items on hand, as well as monster knowledge and tactics when rating them at the very least. Playtesting some of the more difficult to assess encounters with me playing the PCs prior to game session has also helped iron out obscured nuances missed during design.

Why are Monsters and Treasures Randomized?

My answer is: it saves times while offering tons of variety. If the results don't make sense to you, then change your tables for rolling this stuff until they do. (the MM treasure tables have some major faults IMO) Maybe you have an "underwater encounters" table for treasure commonly found underwater. The elemental plane of fire doesn't exactly lend itself to paper scrolls or treasure maps. Not that diversity isn't in all the different regions. Only that certain likelihoods changes by what one would expect to find there. Then the rares are more astonishing again.

Monsters are randomized similarly, but early editions did a better job of using rolls as relational representations. Sleep cycles were determined by day or night encounter tables. Likelihood of encounters could represent density of creatures in an area. Rare creatures could have only 1-2 percentage points for a result, while common ones could be several more points and therefore more likely to be rolled. The whole of the tables themselves could be seen as population charts for monsters definitely existing within a region (until they leave, are wiped out, etc.) Randomizing these prepared materials meant much of the world was already designed and short term prep between sessions had shortcuts built in.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, in 1E it should be quite do-able if you convert appropriately. The party will be dealing with drow, some lower ranked demons and fairly powerful undead - nothing too exotic, for the majority of the time.

OK. I'll check it out if-when I can ever find it.

A rare few individuals can successfully interact immersively with a construct in their imagination, but (a) this works better in solo player sessions than in party play

Oddly enough I've found the opposite to be the case: one-on-one rarely if ever works well for RP; the best seems to come when the group has 2-3 players because they can feed off each other rather than just reacting to me.

A basic Hill Giant is a 13th level standard monster in 4E, which means you could re-spec it as a level 3 solo (as, indeed, I just have, using my trusty monster builder). This would be a tough encounter for first level characters, but quite possible to win at.

OK. But I have to ask, as my 4e-fu isn't what it might be - isn't a monster just a monster? What is mechanically different between a level-13 standard Hill Giant and a level-3 solo Hill Giant?

Lanefan

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

OK. But I have to ask, as my 4e-fu isn't what it might be - isn't a monster just a monster? What is mechanically different between a level-13 standard Hill Giant and a level-3 solo Hill Giant?

The level 3 solo has the lower attack bonuses, damage, and defenses of a 3rd-level creature. The standard level 13 hill giant should have a very simple set of attack options that only allow him to attack once per round. The level 3 solo should have complex options that allow him to attack multiple times per turn, through sweeping attacks that effect multiple targets and triggered attacks when it isn't his turn. The level 3 solo also gets two action points and +5 to saving throws, which the standard level 13 does not. The level 3 solo will also have about 50 more hit points.