Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9348539" data-attributes="member: 4937">So animals frequently fall into that category of low challenge opponents that you really aren't meant to fight beyond the &quot;rats in the basement&quot; stage of learning the game, but there is plenty of opportunity to distinguish animals from each other by size, speed, mode of attack, mode of movement, sensory capability and special attack forms.&nbsp; Some animals attack in coordinated packs; some animals are venomous; some animals are stealthy; some can track by scent; others have low light vision; some animals are resistant to damage because of armor or padding; some animals can fly and others are aquatic.&nbsp; Some animals grapple and others maul.&nbsp; If you've seen animals made interesting, it just sort of is unsatisfying when they aren't.&nbsp; And this goes double for things that are often as not, not the background color of a setting.Even if you don't adopt the particular examples, Bestiary: Predators by BetaBunny is a great example of, &quot;There is no need for mundane animals to be boring.&quot;&nbsp; Just because a game survives with boring animals doesn't mean that the game is better for it.D&amp;D is something most people are familiar with and in this case - as with the hit point and the class - I think this is an underrated element of D&amp;D design where D&amp;D does it really well.&nbsp; It's not just that cRPGs and TTRPGs are copying D&amp;D because D&amp;D did it first, but that the design of giving a monster a gimmick is just such good design but it engages the player on so many levels.&nbsp; It's good narrative, because one of the things you try to give to characters in a story is some easy to remember trait or feature.&nbsp; It's good challenge, because tactics are defined by space and weapons and a gimmick is a weapon that alters how you approach the combat.&nbsp; It's good sensation, because you're giving the player something visceral to imagine.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's good fantasy because it makes overcoming the monster so much more rewarding.&nbsp; I've been playing the heck out of Slay the Spire lately, and just imagine how that game would be if the monsters didn't have such strong gimmicks.&nbsp; It's just strong design and it doesn't have a ton of cost relative to the reward aside from requiring good design.If you're like dropping that and saying, &quot;Eh, not important to me.&quot;, then you are losing out I think.&nbsp; Imagine you'd spent 30 years playing a game with monsters without gimmicks and then coming to one where they had it.&nbsp; I think your mind would just be blown.&nbsp; It's not like game designers whether in cRPGs or TTRPGs have been going, &quot;Well, we've learned that's pointless.&nbsp; Everyone gravitates the games where the monsters are generic.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9348539, member: 4937"] So animals frequently fall into that category of low challenge opponents that you really aren't meant to fight beyond the "rats in the basement" stage of learning the game, but there is plenty of opportunity to distinguish animals from each other by size, speed, mode of attack, mode of movement, sensory capability and special attack forms. Some animals attack in coordinated packs; some animals are venomous; some animals are stealthy; some can track by scent; others have low light vision; some animals are resistant to damage because of armor or padding; some animals can fly and others are aquatic. Some animals grapple and others maul. If you've seen animals made interesting, it just sort of is unsatisfying when they aren't. And this goes double for things that are often as not, not the background color of a setting. Even if you don't adopt the particular examples, Bestiary: Predators by BetaBunny is a great example of, "There is no need for mundane animals to be boring." Just because a game survives with boring animals doesn't mean that the game is better for it. D&D is something most people are familiar with and in this case - as with the hit point and the class - I think this is an underrated element of D&D design where D&D does it really well. It's not just that cRPGs and TTRPGs are copying D&D because D&D did it first, but that the design of giving a monster a gimmick is just such good design but it engages the player on so many levels. It's good narrative, because one of the things you try to give to characters in a story is some easy to remember trait or feature. It's good challenge, because tactics are defined by space and weapons and a gimmick is a weapon that alters how you approach the combat. It's good sensation, because you're giving the player something visceral to imagine. It's good fantasy because it makes overcoming the monster so much more rewarding. I've been playing the heck out of Slay the Spire lately, and just imagine how that game would be if the monsters didn't have such strong gimmicks. It's just strong design and it doesn't have a ton of cost relative to the reward aside from requiring good design. If you're like dropping that and saying, "Eh, not important to me.", then you are losing out I think. Imagine you'd spent 30 years playing a game with monsters without gimmicks and then coming to one where they had it. I think your mind would just be blown. It's not like game designers whether in cRPGs or TTRPGs have been going, "Well, we've learned that's pointless. Everyone gravitates the games where the monsters are generic." [/QUOTE]

Verification