Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Thing I thought 4e did better: Monsters
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6983970" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I know a lot of people who criticised 4e's MM made this assumption - they got angry that, in 4e, devils couldn't animate dead - and their argument for this was that the ability to animate dead was not in the stat-block.</p><p></p><p>I think those people were wrong - a 4e stat-block is not a "total picture" of a monster and its capabilities, any more than a PC sheet in that game is a "total picture" of a character and his/her capabiltiies - but that might be a discussion for another day. </p><p></p><p>I very rarely see anyone compare his/her own game to a boardgame. It's almost always a comparison I see made by others criticising those games (as you are doing here).</p><p></p><p>It's fine to prefer one's own game to others who are playing differently, but if you want to understand what those others are talking about you're going to have to go beyond pejorative labels.</p><p></p><p>If someone says, for instance, that monster X (say, kobolds) is boring because just a bag of hit points, telling them to play Tucker's kobolds - and pointing to the kobold flavour text about trap-making - is probably not very helpful advice. If that person wanted to play Tucker's kobolds s/he probably could. But it seems more likely that s/he wants to play a game in which confrontations take place in a more forthright manner. Probably what s/he is looking for is a way to make kobolds play with some of the same sort of mechanically-expressed dynamism as (say) a battlemaster with his/her manoeuvres or a monk with his/her ki.</p><p></p><p>I mean, we don't <em>need</em> those abilities - we could, as classic D&D tended to, wrap it all up in hit points and simply narrate our PCs dodging, tripping, staggering etc as the enemy's hit points go down - but many people clearly find them fun. Presumably the person who complains about monsters as bags of hit points finds those sorts of things particularly fun, and wants more of them on the monster side of things.</p><p></p><p>The fact that the MM mentions kobolds using traps doesn't tell us whether or not Tucker's kobolds is good GMing, or fair GMing. Consider this: the MM mentions other things, too, like Rakshasas ability to "take on any guise", and their 1x/day Dominate Person. A GM could easily look at this and decide that a Rakshasa imitates one of the PCs, thereby gets close to any or all of his/her (NPC) friends, loved ones, etc and has them kill themselves. Or, disguised as the PC, the Rakshasa could get the local banker, where the PC has his/her money stored, to hand it all over to the Rakshasa. Etc, etc. But this would not necessarily by good or fair GMing just because it is consistent with what the MM tells us about Rakshasas, and might be described as playing a Rakshasa to the best of its ability.</p><p></p><p>That's not to say that Tucker's kobolds were bad GMing - Roger Moore seems to have had fond memories of them. But one can't tell whether or not they were good GMing just by reading the MM flavour text. And, personally, I don't think Roger Moore's GMing advice that he derioves from them is very good advice.</p><p></p><p>There seems to be some edition-confusion here.</p><p></p><p>5e has a clear "encounters per day" expectation - 6 to 8, with 2 short rests - or else the mechanical balance between long-rest and short-rest based classes can get out of whack.</p><p></p><p>3E had a clear "encounters per day" expectation, though that had nothing to do with AEDU because (unlike 4e and 5e) it had no systematic distinction between short rest and long rest recharge. It nevertheless talks about "encounters per day" because hp and spells are recovered on a per-day basis.l</p><p></p><p>4e - the only edition which has an explicit AEDU structure - has no "encounters per day" expectation (there is discussion of encounters-per-adventure, eg on DMG p 104, but not of encounters per day). I think this is mostly becauase it doesn't need one, because the bulk of recoverable resources in 4e are on a "per encounter" rather than "per day" basis.</p><p></p><p>In my view, one of the biggest issues in D&D play is <em>who gets to decide what encounters the PCs have</em>.</p><p></p><p>In classic, Gygaxian D&D the answer has two parts. First, the players decide which placed encounters they meet, because they are the ones who explore the dungeon, gather intelligence, and plan their assaults. (The Tucker's kobolds story is about a group playing in this fashion.) Second, the GM rolls for wandering monsters - which are, in effect, encounters that the players can't control (except very indirectly, by reducing their time spent and hence the number of wandering monster rolls). However, with regard to this second category of encountrs, classic D&D has quite robust and elaborate evasion rules, which means that players can still avoid these encounters with a bit of luck and decent play.</p><p></p><p>In this sort of game, if the players decide to have their PCs assault a dungeon level or dungeon room which is on the tought side for them (eg they're 3rd level and the room has a couple of hill giants in it), well, that's on them. If the GM rolls up a tough wandering monster, well, that's a bit more tricky. Gygax has express advice about this - first, the bit I quoted upthread, about tailoring numbers to the strength of the party; and second, this discussion in the intro to his DMG (p 9):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">[T]he rules call for wandering monsters, but these can be not only irritating - if not deadly - but the appearance of such can actually spoil a game by interfering with an orderly expedition. You have set up an area full of clever tricks and traps, populated it with well thought-out creature complexes, given clues about it to pique players’ interest, and the group has worked hard to supply themselves with everything by way of information and equipment they will need to face and overcome the imagined perils. They are gathered together and eager to spend an enjoyable evening playing their favorite game, with the expectation of going to a new, strange area and doing their best to triumph. They are willing to accept the hazards of the dice, be it loss of items, wounding, insanity, disease, death, as long as the process is exciting. But lo!, everytime you throw the ”monster die” a wandering nasty is indicated, and the party’s strength is spent trying to fight their way into the area. Spells expended, battered and wounded, the characters trek back to their base. Expectations have been dashed, and probably interest too, by random chance. Rather than spoil such an otherwise enjoyable time, omit the wandering monsters indicated by the die. No, don’t allow the party to kill them easily or escape unnaturally, for that goes contrary to the major precepts of the game. Wandering monsters, however, are included for two reasons . . . If a party deserves to have these beasties inflicted upon them, that is another matter, but in the example above it is assumed that they are doing everything possible to travel quickly and quietly to their planned destination. If your work as a DM has been sufficient, the players will have all they can handle upon arrival, so let them get there, give them a chance.</p><p></p><p>In other words, Gygax was quite aware that when it is the GM who is framing the PCs into encounters, there is a possibility of imablance/unfairness. And he gave advice on how to deal with it: namely, avoid using the unfair/imbalanced encounter (but don't use it, then fudge it, as they would be contrary to the precepts of the game).</p><p></p><p>In contemporary D&D play it is much more common for the GM to be in charge of all encounter framing; and the modern game lacks the robust evasion rules of those earlier versions. In these circumstances, I think that Gygax's advice to GMs becomes all the more important.</p><p></p><p>What counts as a poor choice? In Gygax's style of D&D, it is poor play to recklessly engage wandering monsters; to recklessly provoke wandering monster checks (eg by being needlessly noisy); and to enter placed encounters without properly scouting, scrying etc first.</p><p></p><p>What is poorplay in a contemporary game, where the GM chooses all of the encounters? In a recent thread (maybe this one?) [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] talked about using encounters where the players are expected to have their PCs flee. I'm personally not sure about the point of such an encounter. It looks a bit railroad-y to me - the players' job becomes to guess what reaction the GM expects them to take to whatever it is they're confronted with. Whereas that was never the case in Gygaxian play.</p><p></p><p>It's a game, and a leisure activity. It's not unreasonable to expect the GM to play fairly. What counts as "fairly" is obviously variable from table-to-table.</p><p></p><p>But if I prefer Conan-esque play to Advanced Squad Leader, and the GM knows that, and then the GM hits me with Tucker's kobolds, I'm going to be irritated. And I will absolutely blame the GM, and justifiably so. There's a million-and-one contrivances in the game that make it work as a game. The millionth-and-first, especially if it's the one I care about, isn't going to be a problem. (The millionth-and-second, wherein a Rakshasa - offscreen - doesn't pretend to be my PC and kill all my PC's friends and family and steal all my PC's stashed loot, will be fine by me too.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6983970, member: 42582"] I know a lot of people who criticised 4e's MM made this assumption - they got angry that, in 4e, devils couldn't animate dead - and their argument for this was that the ability to animate dead was not in the stat-block. I think those people were wrong - a 4e stat-block is not a "total picture" of a monster and its capabilities, any more than a PC sheet in that game is a "total picture" of a character and his/her capabiltiies - but that might be a discussion for another day. I very rarely see anyone compare his/her own game to a boardgame. It's almost always a comparison I see made by others criticising those games (as you are doing here). It's fine to prefer one's own game to others who are playing differently, but if you want to understand what those others are talking about you're going to have to go beyond pejorative labels. If someone says, for instance, that monster X (say, kobolds) is boring because just a bag of hit points, telling them to play Tucker's kobolds - and pointing to the kobold flavour text about trap-making - is probably not very helpful advice. If that person wanted to play Tucker's kobolds s/he probably could. But it seems more likely that s/he wants to play a game in which confrontations take place in a more forthright manner. Probably what s/he is looking for is a way to make kobolds play with some of the same sort of mechanically-expressed dynamism as (say) a battlemaster with his/her manoeuvres or a monk with his/her ki. I mean, we don't [I]need[/I] those abilities - we could, as classic D&D tended to, wrap it all up in hit points and simply narrate our PCs dodging, tripping, staggering etc as the enemy's hit points go down - but many people clearly find them fun. Presumably the person who complains about monsters as bags of hit points finds those sorts of things particularly fun, and wants more of them on the monster side of things. The fact that the MM mentions kobolds using traps doesn't tell us whether or not Tucker's kobolds is good GMing, or fair GMing. Consider this: the MM mentions other things, too, like Rakshasas ability to "take on any guise", and their 1x/day Dominate Person. A GM could easily look at this and decide that a Rakshasa imitates one of the PCs, thereby gets close to any or all of his/her (NPC) friends, loved ones, etc and has them kill themselves. Or, disguised as the PC, the Rakshasa could get the local banker, where the PC has his/her money stored, to hand it all over to the Rakshasa. Etc, etc. But this would not necessarily by good or fair GMing just because it is consistent with what the MM tells us about Rakshasas, and might be described as playing a Rakshasa to the best of its ability. That's not to say that Tucker's kobolds were bad GMing - Roger Moore seems to have had fond memories of them. But one can't tell whether or not they were good GMing just by reading the MM flavour text. And, personally, I don't think Roger Moore's GMing advice that he derioves from them is very good advice. There seems to be some edition-confusion here. 5e has a clear "encounters per day" expectation - 6 to 8, with 2 short rests - or else the mechanical balance between long-rest and short-rest based classes can get out of whack. 3E had a clear "encounters per day" expectation, though that had nothing to do with AEDU because (unlike 4e and 5e) it had no systematic distinction between short rest and long rest recharge. It nevertheless talks about "encounters per day" because hp and spells are recovered on a per-day basis.l 4e - the only edition which has an explicit AEDU structure - has no "encounters per day" expectation (there is discussion of encounters-per-adventure, eg on DMG p 104, but not of encounters per day). I think this is mostly becauase it doesn't need one, because the bulk of recoverable resources in 4e are on a "per encounter" rather than "per day" basis. In my view, one of the biggest issues in D&D play is [I]who gets to decide what encounters the PCs have[/I]. In classic, Gygaxian D&D the answer has two parts. First, the players decide which placed encounters they meet, because they are the ones who explore the dungeon, gather intelligence, and plan their assaults. (The Tucker's kobolds story is about a group playing in this fashion.) Second, the GM rolls for wandering monsters - which are, in effect, encounters that the players can't control (except very indirectly, by reducing their time spent and hence the number of wandering monster rolls). However, with regard to this second category of encountrs, classic D&D has quite robust and elaborate evasion rules, which means that players can still avoid these encounters with a bit of luck and decent play. In this sort of game, if the players decide to have their PCs assault a dungeon level or dungeon room which is on the tought side for them (eg they're 3rd level and the room has a couple of hill giants in it), well, that's on them. If the GM rolls up a tough wandering monster, well, that's a bit more tricky. Gygax has express advice about this - first, the bit I quoted upthread, about tailoring numbers to the strength of the party; and second, this discussion in the intro to his DMG (p 9): [indent][T]he rules call for wandering monsters, but these can be not only irritating - if not deadly - but the appearance of such can actually spoil a game by interfering with an orderly expedition. You have set up an area full of clever tricks and traps, populated it with well thought-out creature complexes, given clues about it to pique players’ interest, and the group has worked hard to supply themselves with everything by way of information and equipment they will need to face and overcome the imagined perils. They are gathered together and eager to spend an enjoyable evening playing their favorite game, with the expectation of going to a new, strange area and doing their best to triumph. They are willing to accept the hazards of the dice, be it loss of items, wounding, insanity, disease, death, as long as the process is exciting. But lo!, everytime you throw the ”monster die” a wandering nasty is indicated, and the party’s strength is spent trying to fight their way into the area. Spells expended, battered and wounded, the characters trek back to their base. Expectations have been dashed, and probably interest too, by random chance. Rather than spoil such an otherwise enjoyable time, omit the wandering monsters indicated by the die. No, don’t allow the party to kill them easily or escape unnaturally, for that goes contrary to the major precepts of the game. Wandering monsters, however, are included for two reasons . . . If a party deserves to have these beasties inflicted upon them, that is another matter, but in the example above it is assumed that they are doing everything possible to travel quickly and quietly to their planned destination. If your work as a DM has been sufficient, the players will have all they can handle upon arrival, so let them get there, give them a chance.[/indent] In other words, Gygax was quite aware that when it is the GM who is framing the PCs into encounters, there is a possibility of imablance/unfairness. And he gave advice on how to deal with it: namely, avoid using the unfair/imbalanced encounter (but don't use it, then fudge it, as they would be contrary to the precepts of the game). In contemporary D&D play it is much more common for the GM to be in charge of all encounter framing; and the modern game lacks the robust evasion rules of those earlier versions. In these circumstances, I think that Gygax's advice to GMs becomes all the more important. What counts as a poor choice? In Gygax's style of D&D, it is poor play to recklessly engage wandering monsters; to recklessly provoke wandering monster checks (eg by being needlessly noisy); and to enter placed encounters without properly scouting, scrying etc first. What is poorplay in a contemporary game, where the GM chooses all of the encounters? In a recent thread (maybe this one?) [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] talked about using encounters where the players are expected to have their PCs flee. I'm personally not sure about the point of such an encounter. It looks a bit railroad-y to me - the players' job becomes to guess what reaction the GM expects them to take to whatever it is they're confronted with. Whereas that was never the case in Gygaxian play. It's a game, and a leisure activity. It's not unreasonable to expect the GM to play fairly. What counts as "fairly" is obviously variable from table-to-table. But if I prefer Conan-esque play to Advanced Squad Leader, and the GM knows that, and then the GM hits me with Tucker's kobolds, I'm going to be irritated. And I will absolutely blame the GM, and justifiably so. There's a million-and-one contrivances in the game that make it work as a game. The millionth-and-first, especially if it's the one I care about, isn't going to be a problem. (The millionth-and-second, wherein a Rakshasa - offscreen - doesn't pretend to be my PC and kill all my PC's friends and family and steal all my PC's stashed loot, will be fine by me too.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Thing I thought 4e did better: Monsters
Top