The New Design Philosophy?

[The Shaman]

As I see it, unless you add in lots of mooks and whatnot to make the OM useful, the OM pops up, gets off its Cone of Cold, then dies. How is this a memorable encounter?

It's the mooks that make the encounter memorable, not the cone of cold, Hussar - that's what you and others seem to be missing. It's the heretofore faithful servant who turns on you at the worst possible moment thanks to that charm person, or the guards who fall victim to sleep allowing the hobgoblins to gain access to the town gate, or the wazir who's promises of gold and jewels lead them into a trap thanks to polymorph self.

That's what makes the ogre mage a fun boss monster (or used to, at least, before 3e changed nerfed the ogre mage's spell-like abilities).

There's something else that I'm noticing here: there seems to an assumption that every monster should be designed to fight to the death. Why is that? The ogre mage is an intelligent opponent - if it knows that it's facing adversaries more powerful that itself, might it negotiate instead? Or even throw itself at the mercy of the adventurers? With its ability to gather extensive intelligence on the party in advance of the "big boss encounter," it could develop some powerful bargaining chips for the final confrontation - or simply take advantage of the merciful nature of the cleric of Pelor in the party, begging forgiveness for its foul deeds?

 

[Scribble]

That's what makes the ogre mage a fun boss monster (or used to, at least, before 3e changed nerfed the ogre mage's spell-like abilities).

There's something else that I'm noticing here: there seems to an assumption that every monster should be designed to fight to the death. Why is that? The ogre mage is an intelligent opponent - if it knows that it's facing adversaries more powerful that itself, might it negotiate instead? Or even throw itself at the mercy of the adventurers? With its ability to gather extensive intelligence on the party in advance of the "big boss encounter," it could develop some powerful bargaining chips for the final confrontation - or simply take advantage of the merciful nature of the cleric of Pelor in the party, begging forgiveness for its foul deeds?

I dissagree that the spell like abilities of a monster make it memorable.

As to the next point. Should a first level character have access to say, power word kill?

It's not that some bosses shouldn't be able to stand head to head against a group of adventurers. It's just that the CR should match the abilities, and if one or two abilities are throwing the monster way out of whack, then the monster needs to be looked at. Just like if I were to create a base class with a power word kill ability as 1st level... I bet I could come up with a lot of stories to explain that... But does that mean good "game" design?

 

[The Shaman]

I dissagree that the spell like abilities of a monster make it memorable.

I agree - it's what the monster does with those abilities that's memorable.

As to the next point. Should a first level character have access to say, power word kill?

It's not that some bosses shouldn't be able to stand head to head against a group of adventurers. It's just that the CR should match the abilities, and if one or two abilities are throwing the monster way out of whack, then the monster needs to be looked at. Just like if I were to create a base class with a power word kill ability as 1st level... I bet I could come up with a lot of stories to explain that... But does that mean good "game" design?

Sorry, but I cut my teeth on "save or die," so that part of your argument goes nowhere with me. In 1e AD&D, a 1+1 HD large spider could kill your character outright with its poison - I still have no problem with that, and I don't care for how this was nerfed in 3e.

I've already covered how I feel about the CR system, so I'll refer you up-thread on that one.

 

[BluSponge]

It sounds like a few people in this thread don’t think D&D is too complex right now, and that any attempt to make it simpler is a deplorable dumbing down of the game, a thumb in the eye of tradition.

I'm not one of them. I'd put 3e up there with GURPS and Rolemaster in complexity. If the game was completely modular, that might not be the case. But its more like Jenga, and any single piece you pull could bring the whole thing down (attacks of opportunity, for instance). Mix that in with all the exceptions built on the various feats and spells and you wind up with a fairly complex game, even if it does have a really simple core mechanic.

But that's neither here nor there, so...

But lately, I’ve begun to wonder about the game system itself. If professional game designers at the largest RPG company in the industry -- smart people working very hard on something they presumably enjoy very much -- if these same designers continue to make errors at an unacceptably high rate, doesn’t that suggest something about the game?

Yes. It suggests the game can't support its own weight.

But I don't think the answer is necessarily to "dumb it down." After all, there are plenty of people who enjoy that degree of complexity. I'm just not one of them.

Frankly, wasn't this the whole point of the D&D/AD&D split? One game was simple enough for beginners, the other was beefed up for experienced players and tournament games. If WotC is intent on "simplifying" the game for the inexperienced, it suggests they should focus those efforts on the basic game. Watering down the game isn't likely to help you keep your following through to the next edition -- though I suspect many will switch simply because the new books will have DnD on the cover. ::shrug::

Tom

 

[GravyFingerz]

Rot grub. Funny thing is, I like the rot grub. It's one of the reasons I bought Tome of Horrors along with the core three books. It served it's purpose. It taught players not to go jumping around in trash heaps and other situations without checking them out first.

I was going to ask why your players were jumping around in trash heaps, but upon reflection, I am reminded of our cyborg PC in our weekly RIFTS game, who, upon seeing the BBEG, will invariably jump in the trash can and hide. Thought I'd share that for amusement's sake

 

[Remathilis]

An encounter where a PC dies if he or she loses initiative, and the monster dies if it loses initiative is not a good encounter.
Cheers!

Clearly, you've played alot of Star Wars d20.

Remathilis "What do you mean the padawan took out lord sidious in one round?" Ooi.

 

[painandgreed]

I was going to ask why your players were jumping around in trash heaps, but upon reflection, I am reminded of our cyborg PC in our weekly RIFTS game, who, upon seeing the BBEG, will invariably jump in the trash can and hide. Thought I'd share that for amusement's sake

Dude. There's always some gold peices, a few gems, or a wand that looks like an old bone in dungeon trash heaps.

 

[BluSponge]

First let me say I like the new OM, more of the oni I always loved, never read of an oni that used cold, but lightening, flame yes. I also like the new rust monster. So the end result doesn't lose flavor for me.

Except that its not an oni. It's basically a super ogre. According to Mike's logic, the ogre mage should be leading teams of ogre shock troops. It's all part of the same species now, instead of being part of its own distinct group.

Nevertheless, the above quote is just the point raised about focusing on toe-to-toe combat as the sole touchstone of design, as opposed to combat that requires a bit more tactical thinking. Yes the OM against a party with comparable HP and AC is going to lose someone IF they face it toe-to-toe. Thus, don't face it toe-to-toe. You are going to need to surprise it, attack from range, trick it into burning that cone of cold, get some protection against that cold, have healing ready, make sure only your toughest fighter type faces it, etc. The underlying assumption seems to me to be, combat=rush in and swing. If so the OM is a poor design from that point of view.

Agreed. But if that is going to be the guiding design principle, that all monsters require the same basic tactics (ie. peasant rush) to defeat, then what is the point? Why do we need 4 MMs if that's all there is to it?

IF the design philosphy is there should be some monsters that while readily defeatable can cause the loss of a party member if tactics and/or trickery are not used, then the original OM is not so bad.

The original wasn't designed badly, but the game has evolved since then and some of its abilities didn't have the same impact as before. That's why the redesign didn't set me off like the rust monster did, even as a hypothetical. The only thing that bothered me about it was that instead of updating those powers to be more effective against the modern adventure party, they were almost summarily discarded in the interest of making it a sort of ogre chieftain with magical powers -- something that could have been handled better, as many in that other thread have suggested, by just giving an ogre a few levels in sorcerer.

Tom

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

There is room for master manipulators in the MM, but the O-M ain't got the right stuff (and never did). So I finding the implication that Mearls broke a perfectly good subtle monster hard to swallow.

IME Charm Person is too easy to detect once the PCs become suspicious. In terms of low combat RP-heavy adventuring, the real dangerous hombres are the ones who have Suggestion and know how to use it.

If I were in a ~7th level party, I would much rather have to match wits with a vanilla O-M than a 6th or 7th level Sorceror or Bard. (And I would note that a 7th level Sorceror or Bard is likely to have more staying power in a toe-to-toe fight than the surprisingly anemic O-M.)

 

[The_Gneech]

What bothered me about the rust monster redux, and the main thing that I notice from the ogre mage overhaul, is that the general goal seems to be "turn everything into a melee encounter with variations" -- minimize the rust ability and up the melee, minimize the spell-like abilities and up the melee ... I'm waiting for a doppleganger who instead of shapeshifting just gets a racial bonus of +5 to bluff and sprouts Wolverine-esque claws once the jig is up.

I like melee -- there are few things that make me cheer like seeing "Great Cleave" in action -- but I very definitely don't want D&D to turn into the "wander from melee to melee and reset after every one" game. I want there to be times when my stuff is in danger, I want there to be times when my hit points are in danger, I want there to be times when my sanity is in danger.

Variety is the spice of life! And the spice of monster encounters.

And "minimizing blast radius" is probably the single worst thing you can do to anything in a game.

-The Gneech