New Design & Development: Encounter Design

[an_idol_mind]

Am I really the first to post this?

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070921

 

[Cam Banks]

Yup. It's just like putting together your own warband in the minis game!

I actually think it's kind of elegant, but I'm pretty sure that's one of the influences.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Rechan]

So, before I read this, anyone want to tell me what's wrong with this article and how it will make the game Not D&D/More like a video game/change for change's sake?

 

[Branduil]

So, before I read this, anyone want to tell me what's wrong with this article and how it will make the game Not D&D/More like a video game/change for change's sake?

In 4th Edition, we’re doing things a bit different. We’re shifting to a system that assumes a number of monsters equal to the number of characters.

Oh noes PvP!

 

[Arnwyn]

So, before I read this, anyone want to tell me what's wrong with this article and how it will make the game Not D&D/More like a video game/change for change's sake?

Hostile much?


In any case, looks good, especially if they can deliver on "superior accuracy", which is pretty much the holy grail for DMs when setting up encounters for the past 30+ years.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yup. It's just like putting together your own warband in the minis game!

I actually think it's kind of elegant, but I'm pretty sure that's one of the influences.

I bet a lot of game designers have done this well before DDM was a gleam in Adkinson's (or whoever's) eye.

It's basically just "figure out what sort of fight you want, pick monsters that fit each role." That's as old as the D series, with front line and archer drow behind them, along with support healers, and so on.

I mean, yeah, that sort of design has gone mainstream with everyone having to think that was for DDM (or Warhammer minis before that), but I don't think we can really say it's a DDM-derived innovation. (Although a designer might say that for marketing purposes.)

 

[Rechan]

Hostile much?

More like curmudgeon-y.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't know that this is going to significantly help out experience DM's who are used to eyeballing this sort of thing already, but simply laying it out like this is going to be a big jolt to the imagination of DMs that are just getting started and that's a good thing.

As for easier balancing, I'm skeptical, but if it works as advertised, great.

 

[Rechan]

While designating a creature’s level is still an art, designating a creature’s level now has more science behind it. By creating robust progressions of attack bonus, damage, and AC, level has become a much more accurate and robust measure of a monster’s power. This step is critically important, as it now allows us a lot more accuracy in determining the threat an encounter presents.

I sure hope they give us this formula for creature creation. As a DM, I like to create monsters, so having a list of 'An AC, HP and special abilities of these designate the monster is this level" would be a real big boon for me.

Rather than pick one monster, you now select a group of critters.

I like this, but under one caveat.

How do you make sure all those monsters make sense together? Why would all these monsters travel or hole up in groups? For instance, wouldn't you more than likely have a camp of giants, rather than a giant (brute), a harpy (ranged attacker), and a choker (lurker)?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

There's a lot of potentail for coolness here ... I look forward to see how it plays out in execution.

It better come with guidelines for building "groups" of monsters, though.