New Design Paradigms - What are they and are they good or bad?

[Evilusion]

Small rant ahead. Be forewarned


Ok what is it with people and supposed dead levels. You get something every level weather it be attack bonus, hit dice, skill points, feats or saving throws. To me getting something special every level just says to me power gamer. The game should not be about getting something special everytime you level. I'm sorry just I just have to disagree that there are dead levels.

Ok end rant

Evilusion

 

[MerricB]

Everybody in this thread is discussing the two new design paradigms I identified as being increasingly 'trendy' in D&D design and likely to significantly impact the design of the 4th edition and this is fine, as that is one of the purposes of this thread. I also sought, however, to identify other such paradigms that are in increasing use by D&D designers or are in planning stages. Hence, I am adding a third paradigm to the discussion, which, although it has not seen as much use as the other two, appears to be at least in the planning stages. I will update my original starting post, but am also presenting it here:

New Design Paradigm 3: Monsters will be designed in such a way as to eliminate the dissonance between their respective Challenge Ratings and their Hit Dice. If combined with per encounter balancing of monsters... and it will likely be thus combined... this will also eliminate the discrepancy between the usefulness of abilities to monsters and PCs and thus unify Challenge Ratings, Hit Dice, Level Adjustments and Effective Character Levels into one number: Hit Dice

Evidence: My evidence for this is weaker than for the previous two new design guidelines and consists essentially of the articles on monster design published by Mike Mearls several months ago on the WotC website. (As a sidenote, what happened to more of this series of articles? I think I ever only saw two or three.)

The only way you can get HD=CR=LA=ECL is by making monsters all the same, with no variance in special abilities. The moment you give a monster an interesting ability (like flight), the LA goes up far more than the CR does, because of what that ability means is very different as a PC than as a foe. That idea is bunk, and should be ignored.

What is happening is that they're trying to get rid of monsters whose special abilities are very powerful, but can be killed in one hit - I call them "coin flip" monsters, but I think "glass cannon" is also used.

Consider a monster with 1 HD (4 hp) and a DC 20 Death gaze. If you win initiative, it dies. If you lose, it dies. That's my definition of a coin-flip monster, and there are quite a few in D&D; but fewer designed now. Ogre Magi is an example: one really powerful attack (cone of cold), but nothing else, and few hp.

A monster's attacks should be on scale to how hard it is to destroy. Now, you can have a lower-HD monster have the same CR as a high-HD monster... but the low-HD monster will have more defenses. Consider a 40 HD Zombie... lots of HP, but (relatively) poor attacks and poor AC. Meanwhile, a 15 HD Outsider with a good AC would probably be at the same difficulty, and thus CR.

The other evolving philosopy of monster design is as regards simplicity: having 100 special abilities (see devils and demons, also dragons, especially in 3e) does not make a good monster. Having 2 or 3 strongly themed special abilities that affect play does make a good monster. That's the philosophy behind MMIV, and it created some really good monsters; unfortunately that was obscured by the more questionable design decisions in MMIV (enlarged ecologies and tribal monsters).

Cheers!

 

[Roman]

FWIW, Mike Mearls recently noted on Bruce Baugh's weblog that some of the design paradigms used in 3E--the 'encouraging system mastery' and 'ivory tower design' ones called out by Monte Cook--were no longer in play at WotC R&D.

Can you please elaborate on what the two 3E design paradigms you mentioned meant? Thanks!

 

[MerricB]

FWIW, Mike Mearls recently noted on Bruce Baugh's weblog that some of the design paradigms used in 3E--the 'encouraging system mastery' and 'ivory tower design' ones called out by Monte Cook--were no longer in play at WotC R&D.

Monte Cook's "Encouraging System Mastery"
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142

Mike Mearls recent quote:
The concept of mastery in the "Some player decisions are much better than others" is something that has fallen by the wayside in D&D R&D. Put simply, it didn't work. There is some fun to be had in building an effective D&D character, but the joy of D&D lies in an enjoyable experience at the game table - easy to use rules, fun character options, tools that enable fun - rather than a metagame activity.

The embedded mastery makes for a bad game. A cleric/rogue character might look fun, but if that option is too weak it makes the game harder for the players and the DM. The players are stuck with a situation where one player might have too little to contribute to the game, either in terms of character ability or player spotlight. The DM is stuck building challenges that are satisfying for the group without leaving the weaker PC useless.

R&D's attitude now is, simply, "If you can play it, it's our duty to make it balanced, fun, and interesting." It's probably impossible to get that exactly right, but it's something we strive for. - Mike Mearls (posted here)

Cheers!

 

[Roman]

The only way you can get HD=CR=LA=ECL is by making monsters all the same, with no variance in special abilities. The moment you give a monster an interesting ability (like flight), the LA goes up far more than the CR does, because of what that ability means is very different as a PC than as a foe. That idea is bunk, and should be ignored.

I guess I may have misunderstood the purpose of the modifications done to monsters in those articles - I thought it was as ambitious as HD=CR=ECL (LA is eliminated).

Still, I think it is potentially viable. Suppose, for instance, that the flight ability you used as an example is only given to monsters of sufficiently high HD that PCs would be able to have flight through spells and other means. It can work. As I said, though, this may constrain monster design freedom - hence my ambiguous thoughts on the matter. I am as yet unsure just to what degree design freedom would be constrained, hence my only qualified support.

(BTW: By the same token, I think per encounter balancing constrains class design freedom and gets rid of interesting trade off options, which is a pity, but it also suffers from other problems)

What is happening is that they're trying to get rid of monsters whose special abilities are very powerful, but can be killed in one hit - I call them "coin flip" monsters, but I think "glass cannon" is also used.

Consider a monster with 1 HD (4 hp) and a DC 20 Death gaze. If you win initiative, it dies. If you lose, it dies. That's my definition of a coin-flip monster, and there are quite a few in D&D; but fewer designed now. Ogre Magi is an example: one really powerful attack (cone of cold), but nothing else, and few hp.

A monster's attacks should be on scale to how hard it is to destroy. Now, you can have a lower-HD monster have the same CR as a high-HD monster... but the low-HD monster will have more defenses. Consider a 40 HD Zombie... lots of HP, but (relatively) poor attacks and poor AC. Meanwhile, a 15 HD Outsider with a good AC would probably be at the same difficulty, and thus CR.

Fair enough - if that is the movement than that is the movement. I have not made up my mind whether this movement is positive or negative yet and will wait for other people's comments to form my opinion. In the specific case of the 1d4 hd monster, it is a good thing, but in more generalized cases... I guess that takes us back to the HD=CR=ECL problem of restricting monster design freedom. Sometimes it may be interesting to have low HD monster with powerful special abilities, relying on something else (e.g. stealth or invisibility or ...) to defend itself. As I said, I will defer judgement.

The other evolving philosopy of monster design is as regards simplicity: having 100 special abilities (see devils and demons, also dragons, especially in 3e) does not make a good monster. Having 2 or 3 strongly themed special abilities that affect play does make a good monster. That's the philosophy behind MMIV, and it created some really good monsters; unfortunately that was obscured by the more questionable design decisions in MMIV (enlarged ecologies and tribal monsters).

I like strongly themed monsters, so this is probably a step in the right direction, so long as it is not taken too far. The important monsters, for example, such as dragons, demons and devils, should definitely have more than just 2 or 3 special abilities.

 

[MerricB]

I like strongly themed monsters, so this is probably a step in the right direction, so long as it is not taken too far. The important monsters, for example, such as dragons, demons and devils, should definitely have more than just 2 or 3 special abilities.

Oh, yes. However, their abilities shouldn't...
...make them too complicated for the DM to run
...detract from their overall theme.

Dragons with spellcasting are a case in point - instead of flying around, clawing you and breathing fire, you have dragons sitting back and casting horrid wilting. That's not good, and any spellcasting increases the complexity greatly.

Actually, spellcasting monsters are a pain, because they only list the names of the spells, not what they do. So, I can look at an Inferno Spider (MMIV) and see how it works, but when I look at a monster that has "rope trick, web, guards and wards, and trollshape", I need to look up four spell descriptions and remember them in play. Common spells like invisibility & fireball are fine, because you use them so often, but uncommon spells present problems.

Cheers!

 

[Roman]

Oh, yes. However, their abilities shouldn't...
...make them too complicated for the DM to run
...detract from their overall theme.

Dragons with spellcasting are a case in point - instead of flying around, clawing you and breathing fire, you have dragons sitting back and casting horrid wilting. That's not good, and any spellcasting increases the complexity greatly.

Actually, spellcasting monsters are a pain, because they only list the names of the spells, not what they do. So, I can look at an Inferno Spider (MMIV) and see how it works, but when I look at a monster that has "rope trick, web, guards and wards, and trollshape", I need to look up four spell descriptions and remember them in play. Common spells like invisibility & fireball are fine, because you use them so often, but uncommon spells present problems.

I agree for the most part, but in some cases, such as in the case of dragons, I would retain full spellcasting for monsters. Spellcasting is just too intimately tied to the D&D concept of dragons - the intelligent and magical, yet physically powerful monsters - pinnacles in both magical and physical prowess exceeding or at least matching the abilities of best humanoids in both areas. Dragons just would not be the same without full spellcasting.

I guess the solution to the dilemna is to conceptually divide monsters into boss monsters and mook monsters for the purposes of design. Dragons would be considered boss monsters (and may even have further special status considering it is Dungeons & Dragons ) and so would some other monsters and these could be more complex than mook monsters. Only solitary (or those in very small groups) monsters should be considered boss monsters for design purposes (though for in-game purposes DMs are, of course, free to use any monster as a boss monster).

 

[Roman]

Monte Cook's "Encouraging System Mastery"
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142

Mike Mearls recent quote:
The concept of mastery in the "Some player decisions are much better than others" is something that has fallen by the wayside in D&D R&D. Put simply, it didn't work. There is some fun to be had in building an effective D&D character, but the joy of D&D lies in an enjoyable experience at the game table - easy to use rules, fun character options, tools that enable fun - rather than a metagame activity.

The embedded mastery makes for a bad game. A cleric/rogue character might look fun, but if that option is too weak it makes the game harder for the players and the DM. The players are stuck with a situation where one player might have too little to contribute to the game, either in terms of character ability or player spotlight. The DM is stuck building challenges that are satisfying for the group without leaving the weaker PC useless.

R&D's attitude now is, simply, "If you can play it, it's our duty to make it balanced, fun, and interesting." It's probably impossible to get that exactly right, but it's something we strive for. - Mike Mearls (posted here)

Cheers!

Interesting articles... and I agree that purposeful creation of inferior and superior combinations to promote rules mastery should be dumped. That said, it is pretty much impossible to make all combinations equally powerful, so some combinations will still be better than others, which is fine, its just that this should not be designed in with the intention to promote rules mastery.

 

[Greg K]

FWIW, Mike Mearls recently noted on Bruce Baugh's weblog that some of the design paradigms used in 3E--the 'encouraging system mastery' and 'ivory tower design' ones called out by Monte Cook--were no longer in play at WotC R&D.

And with the abandonment of "encouraging system mastery", the design team gains some new respect in my eyes.

 

[MerricB]

I agree for the most part, but in some cases, such as in the case of dragons, I would retain full spellcasting for monsters. Spellcasting is just too intimately tied to the D&D concept of dragons - the intelligent and magical, yet physically powerful monsters - pinnacles in both magical and physical prowess exceeding or at least matching the abilities of best humanoids in both areas. Dragons just would not be the same without full spellcasting.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20061013a

Personally, I don't think spellcasting dragons really fit - they've never been part of my games of D&D, except when running Age of Worms (and I pretty much played them without spellcasting).

Cheers!