Monte Cook: Guidance for Monsters and Treasure

[billd91]

One possibly radical thing they could do for the first few adventures is to suggest different XP awards for each encounter based on how the party took on said encounter, as in: (let's assume an adventure for levels 1-3)

Room 25 - Monsters: 2 Ogres [stat block] These two fine fellows are well-fed and content, and will treat the party's presence with disdain unless attacked. If approached carefully, they might even be persuaded to reveal information about the presence of the Wizard in Room 36 - these Ogres have had their fill of following her orders.

XP award (under no circumstances may more than one be given):
75 per character if Ogres defeated in combat.
100 per character if combat avoided by stealth or diplomacy.
125 per character if Ogres persuaded to join or help party.

Anyone think this might work?

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.

 

[FireLance]

Right, that's an unfortunate analog, given it's about giving something a plus one bonus and has a single, limited outcome. I get that you *personally* don't feel that all of the restrictions are restrictive. Nevertheless, a game with built in restrictions (even if you don't *personally* call them that) is more restrictive than a game without them. I really don't see much point in having more discussion on this as I think you've made the point that if someone uses a word by it's common definition another person can personalize the context and thus refute the definition.

I guess if you want to get really precise about it, I see it as a consquence rather than a restriction. It's like the difference between playing with a tough but fair DM and a railroading DM. It doesn't stop you from doing whatever you want, it just enforces the logical outcome of whatever you decide.

 

[DEFCON 1]

In fact, I'm really starting to question the need for a new edition at all - it seems to me that they're just going to give us another slightly different way to do what we can already do anyway. For those of us who are already gamers, I'm inclined to think applying some serious thought to adventure design may well be more beneficial.

I suspect they'd prefer to have both. Because they'll make money selling the new edition, and regain gamer favor by having strong adventures.

I do have to wonder though why popular opinions always seems to be that the reason we are getting a new edition is because 4E "failed" as opposed to (what appears to me to be the more logical conclusion) the fact that new editions sell more books than splats do of an edition several years in.

Thus, even if 4E "did well"... we'd still probably have seen Essentials, and we still probably would see an upcoming a 5E... except that 5E might've been more of a remolding/combination of 4E & Essentials, as opposed to a remolding/combination of BD&D,1E,2E,3E & 4E.

And this is going to continue to occur... even with all the supposed "fracturing" of the player base... until such time as players stop buying the first books of a new edition in much more volume than other books from the previous one.

 

[FireLance]

I do have to wonder though why popular opinions always seems to be that the reason we are getting a new edition is because 4E "failed" as opposed to (what appears to me to be the more logical conclusion) the fact that new editions sell more books than splats do of an edition several years in.

4e gave me what I consider to be a great game. As far as I'm concerned, it's a success.

I'm still looking forward to the potential innovations and improvements that 5e could bring, though.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I do have to wonder though why popular opinions always seems to be that the reason we are getting a new edition is because 4E "failed" as opposed to (what appears to me to be the more logical conclusion) the fact that new editions sell more books than splats do of an edition several years in.

For various reason, the views of 4E have become as much a "gaming politics" question instead of merely a good gaming or good sales question. You can see it in some of the tactics used to critique it.

 

[Ranes]

For various reason, the views of 4E have become as much a "gaming politics" question instead of merely a good gaming or good sales question. You can see it in some of the tactics used to critique it.

Cue lots of people mentally replacing '4' with the integer (or even floating point) of their choice.

 

[Mark CMG]

I guess if you want to get really precise about it, I see it as a consquence rather than a restriction. It's like the difference between playing with a tough but fair DM and a railroading DM. It doesn't stop you from doing whatever you want, it just enforces the logical outcome of whatever you decide.

That analogy feels a bit off but I think I get what you are driving at with it and I'd just add that as long as "whatever you decide" is on the menu, and with some modern systems a very limited menu, then you're a happy customer. And I think you are saying that it happens to hit the right notes for you so that it doesn't feel limiting. But we're discussing this in the context of 5E and drawing in (or back in) folks like you but also a vast array of lapsed players and new players who may or may not have your tastes. It helps in such cases to be precise and not avoid calling something a restiction just because the word sometimes has negative connotations.

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.

 

[Harlekin]

A system set up to run a particular way and requiring a specific range items to be in play for the system to run the way it was intended requires the GM to make those items available and for PCs to have those items. It funnels the players toward expecting those items to be in play and funnels the GM toward making sure those items are in play. Otherwise, either the system needs to be adjusted to accomodate doing anything but including the narrow range of items. If the GM is to run the system as written, he is restricted to including those items that are required for the system to run as written and, as a correlary, to not included additional items that would put the PCs beyond the expected levels of power. There's an expected window of power that the PCs are meant to be in for the system to run as written and a range of items they are expected to posees in some combination during their careers within that system.

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. All it does is provide a measuring stick that allows comparing the GM's campaign to a typical campaign. This empowers a DM to make informed choices, it doesn't restrict him.

For example, if I wanted a 4ed game with less powerful magical items, so that PCs typically were ~5 levels behind the curve, I have a very good idea what that does to the game: all PCs will have -1 to all defenses, to hit and to damage. And I can adjust my game if I consider that necessary.

Older games don't allow more freedom in how they assign magic items just because they have so little design that it isn't even possible to describe a baseline. Hence, all a DM has is trial and error, which easily results in bad gaming.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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. All it does is provide a measuring stick that allows comparing the GM's campaign to a typical campaign. This empowers a DM to make informed choices, it doesn't restrict him.

Yes. And to drive this home, this is the difference between a system with a strong baseline (such as 3E or 4E) versus a system with more ingrained playstyle, such as Burning Wheel. Don't get me wrong, there are some very flexible parts of BW. However, there are also parts that simply don't work if you don't play them as written--at least not without a whole lot of other changes that practically makes a whole new game. If the players aren't willing to "Fight for what they believe," then at least half of BW falls apart.

 

[Zaran]

I dislike random tables. There are too many times when no magic items drop or too powerful monsters are rolled. I would rather know what exactly the players get for treasure and what monsters I need in a particular situation that fits my story.

I DO want a list of monsters that would be around in a given area. This allows me to design my encounters with ease. I also would enjoy not having to make sure certain items are placed so the players can handle their level of monsters.