Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mearls" data-source="post: 332140" data-attributes="member: 697">Ignore the Man Behind the CurtainThis touches on a problem I have with RPG design in general.Back when I programmed computers for a living, there would be times when I would use code I found in a book or off the Internet. For instance, if I had to build a script that would check email addresses to make sure they were properly formatted, I might refer to a sample given in a book I owned like The Perl Cookbook.Never, ever, would I have ever used a chunk of code that didn't include an explanation as to why it worked the way the designer claimed it would. That's just common sense. If my code didn't work, I'd lose my job. I couldn't just slap other people's code into my work and hope it worked fine. If the code was buggy or I had to make future modifications to it, I needed to understand what was going on throughout the process.Now, apply that logic to an RPG.I find a CR 7 monster I want to use in my campaign. Fine, but what makes that creature CR 7? What made the designer look over its stats and say "OK, this is a CR 7 critter." There's an implicit trust relationship there that the designer had very good reasons for making that creature CR 7, reasons so good that he doesn't need to let me know about them.He's a professional after all. I can trust him, right?What I'd like to see is more openness in designs. If I see a new monster, I'd love to see a short paragraph explaining why it's CR 7. I'd like to see more talk about how I'm supposed to use that monster in my game, not more information about its mating habits.By applying a few basic metrics to a creature, like "How can a wizard, cleric, fighter, or rogue handle this monster?" I think a lot of these problems clear themselves up. Instead of being handed an edict from up on high, the designer opens a dialogue with the DM. The more data a DM has, the more likely he is to hit upon a combination in his own designs that works for him.There seems to be this implicit assumption in RPG writing that it's bad to ever slip into pure game mechanics, mathematics, or design talk. A monster description that goes something like "The astral strider's spells and melee ability make it effective against a wide range of parties and at both close quarters and long range. With its dimension door ability, it can pick its enemies in battle. Use it to allow the strider to escape from the party's fighter types and target wizards and rogues. Its vulnerability to fire is a key weakness that balances the creature. Give it spells or items that mask that weakness only against parties at least 2 levels above its CR."Since DMs are game designers with a smaller audience, I think it makes far more sense for articles and game material aimed at them to treat them as fellow designers who need to be given sound reasons and advice on using a monster. There needs to be an increased focus on addressing the DM in terms of his role in the game, as scenario designer and rules arbiter. Pull back the magic curtain and show him the guts behind a system, or the design decisions, or whatever thinking yielded a process.It isn't enough to show a DM how to do something. We need to show him WHY he should do it (or use it).I think something like that would help clear up a lot of the trepidation and dissatisfaction that high level play can cause.</blockquote>

Verification