# The New Design Philosophy?



## Mark CMG (Jul 24, 2006)

The logic of this new philosophy is lost on me.  Since some creatures, like the ogre mage, were essentially gutted by the revision of certain spells during the switch to 3.x and as they are now ineffectual because their CR is too high for them to be combat threats, the plan is to individually revise each creature based on what can transpire during a five or six round combat?  I would have thought it better to address the perpetually enigmatic CR system.  Or to bulk up the abilities that are used in and out of combat to keep the creature special and not turn it into a large fighting creature with class levels.  I like the idea of leveling spells so that they do more than simply increase in range/duration/etc. when cast by more powerful casters.  If I wanted to just throw an enlarged Fighter/Sorcerer toe-to-toe with an adventuring group can't I already do that using an enlarged Fighter/Sorcerer (and wouldn't it be a better challenge anyway)?


Well, I've voiced my protests a number of times on what seems to be the new design philosophy.  I've gamed since 1974 and moved along with each new edition of the game, always seeing each one as a step forward in the game of D&D (OD&D, AD&D, AD&D 2E, D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5).  I've played in plenty of other systems on the side, to keep abreast of what options for RPGing existed but always felt D&D was the best fit for me.  I'm seeing some things this time that have me seriously concerned with the direction of the game.


----------



## Shade (Jul 24, 2006)

I'm with ya, Mark.  I feel that the new direction the game is taking is to make it simple and speedy, but IMO, at the expense of flavor, history, and fun.   

I like my monsters complex, not one-trick ponies.  I like my monster books filled with monsters, not monsters with classes, sample encounters, and sample treasures.   I like to be given the tools, not the Tools for Dummies guide to using them.  (Note, I'm not implying that anyone is a "dummy" for liking this material...it just reminds me of the guides with that name).

Perhaps I'm in the minority now, and I'm simply a relic of past editions like many of the monsters that are being retconned now.  WotC has better market research at their disposal than I do, so maybe I should just accept it and move on.   But dammit, I love this game, and want to keep enjoying it, so I'll keep voicing my protests as well.   I may be "old school" in some regards, but I still spend enough money on this hobby to be considered.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 24, 2006)

I don't understand the belief that the CR system can be or should be anything other than approximate guideline to help inexperienced DMs judge the difficulty of generic encounters.  This forcing of CRs into discrete electron-like conformity is misguided and doomed to disappointment.

And I also find disagreeable the philisophy of making a couple rounds of combat the sole arbiter of a critters utlity.  

If 'DMs confused by too many special abilities' is the problem they are trying to fix, they already had a good approach in the 3.5MM.  Sketch out general encounter strategies for the less straightforward beasts, and add some RP notes for those abilities that are more subtle/less combat oriented.

Rules are for players.  Stuff that falls outside the rules for players should always be in the DMs toolkit.  It prevents metagaming and complacency.  Saying 'just add class levels' is not a useful solution in many cases.


----------



## BlueBlackRed (Jul 24, 2006)

I like the CR/EL system, but it should only be used as a guideline for your game.

However I do not like changing the core of a game to try to lure console-gamers to the table. I'm sure it works, but the more they do it, the more it costs them their older gamers.

Rewriting monsters to align with the 20%-resources rule is not something I appreciate.

And don't get me started on the MM IV...


----------



## Scribble (Jul 24, 2006)

Hrmm.. 
You mentioned spells being changed which nerf the original OM. Spells, aren't a OM specific feature, however, so you can't really expect the spell to be redesigned for the sake of the monster. That just wouldn't be practical. So unfortunately, with the rework of the spells, the poor OM's abilities didn't function properly in the way they used to. So now he's a bad monster... But it's Dungeons and Dragons not Dungeons and Ogre Mages...  Eggs and Omlets man. (and other such cliches...) 

I'm personally not upset about the design choices. I think the OM redux was a good monster. Maybe it took out some of the flair of the original, but it wasn't a bad monster. Maybe it will inspire some flair and fluff of its own somewhere down the line. 

I think it's a good thing they streamline the monsters. That way, if I just need a monster to fight the party for some reason they're there quick and easy. I don't know about you, but with a job, family, girlfriend, and other intrests I don't have hours and hours worth of D&D time. So easy monsters with sample treasures and lairs are really usefull. I can spend more time modifying whats there as opposed to making everything up from scratch... 

If I want to then turn one into a mastermind, I can always add abilities as I see fit.

Which I think is a big part of 3.x design philosophy. Give you monsters that are usable right out of the box, and customizable if you want...

The OM seems like it was built for a specific purpose. Which means unless you were running a game that had mysterious Ogre intrigue, it was kind of pointless.

But that's only my opinion...


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 24, 2006)

XP should be based on how hard something is to kill in combat, IMO.

XP for dealing with his political machinations should be ad hoced by the DM as roleplay XP.

So a political mastermind Ogre Mage should be the same CR as a 4 round combat Ogre Mage.

The question isn't one of CRs, the question is what do you want the purpose of the Ogre Mage to be?


----------



## pogre (Jul 24, 2006)

I think the design philosophy reflects a broader general demand for the game. You can poo-poo the thing as just trying to get video gamers, but that's akin to saying they are just trying to appeal to highschoolers, and well, yeah - they are. And should.

The designers should be relativewly unconcerned with the needs of a sophisticated DM - we're all different and we can adjust. They need to be most concerned with two groups - folks getting into the game and having fun right away and those with limited time who want maximum fun in the time they have. Consideration for hardcores like us has to be secondary at best.

The number one complaint from folks about 3E is it is too complicated. The entry level to the game is just too high.

The task then for D&D designers is two-fold:

1. Simplify.
2. Greater ease of use.

Complications are easy - simplifications are where the true geniuses of design shine.

To bring it full circle - the CR table should reflect the basic D&D encounter - a fight with monsters. Let the sophisticated DM who uses his monsters in a myriad of interesting ways also figure out the appropriate XP award.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 24, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> The logic of this new philosophy is lost on me.  Since some creatures, like the ogre mage, were essentially gutted by the revision of certain spells during the switch to 3.x and as they are now ineffectual because their CR is too high for them to be combat threats, the plan is to individually revise each creature based on what can transpire during a five or six round combat?



Sure. Wizards is going to dedicate many resources to provide us something that won't bring a single penny and that, at the current pace, will take one or two years to be completed. I can see that. 
Of course monsters will get their CR assigned on how well they hold up in a fight. Anything else would be, sorry, foolish. You don't assign a CR to a trap based on how hard it is to fast-talk it. You don't assign a CR to a skill-based obstacle based on how often you need to whack it with a sword. But that doesn't mean you can't try to reason with an intelligent trap, or gut that annoying valet blocking your path. And it definitely doesn't mean that monsters cannot manipulate others.

You are proposing to change a subsystem that is far more tied to aspects of the game than a single monster. If you somehow change the CR system, officially, the ripples are far larger than changing a single monster (may I insert the infamous phrase blast radius here?). The core assumption of 3rd Edition, for better or worse, has always been that heroes fight villains, physically. That's not something new. The articles build on that assumption. If you are aware of that core assumption, it is easy to deviate from it.

One of the criticisms of the new ogre mage is that, to paraphrase, it has been dumbed down. Constrasting, one of the criticisms of the new rust monster was, it, has been made harder to use. Apparently, there are two ways in which the game is going, then? I don't think so. Monsters with odd abilities, with social competence, and with many abilities, have always been part of the game, and will continue to be. But there is also a place for monsters with straightforward abilities, perhaps even a bigger one. Not all DMs are experienced rat bastards capable of weaving plots and encounters from their fingertips. That takes experience. Monsters that gradually become more complex provide nice learning opportunities for those fledgling DMs.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 24, 2006)

Genericizing (? - I work in IT, I'm allowed to make up words   ) monsters and saying 'If you want an ogre to cast spells, give it X levels of sorceror' makes things harder and more time-consuming DM than creating a niche creature with a paragraph of suggested combat strategies.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 24, 2006)

The CR *System* (not just the table) isn't as simple as some in this thread are making it out to be.  The reason some have a problem with the CR of certain creatures is because the CR *System* suggests adding to the base CR of a creature for various features, whether or not those features are meant to be for direct combat.  The new design philosophy seems to suggest that the features be stripped rather than the CR *System* have a mechanism for adjusting to creatures having features that aren't meant for direct combat.

Simplifying something doesn't require removing all of the bells and whistles that don't directly inform combat capability.  The game can be made more simple to use and to play without removing all of its complexity.  *That's* where true geniuses of design shine, IMO.


----------



## Belen (Jul 24, 2006)

I detest the new philosophy, although I see it more as a development rather than a design standard.  

The developers are trying to make everything fit a single mold.  They seem to worship at the altar of balance and they are trying to balance everything to fit the combat round.  I think the end result is going to kill the thing that made the game so endurable. 

I do not think everything has to abide by the holy combat round.  A monster could be designed to be effective in combat and have spells or powers that could be used outside of that.

When I read WOTC material these days, I am bored to tears.  All of the items are functional, but they often lack any flavor.  This has been the trend throughout 3e and I do not see it changing anytime soon.

WOTC wants to deal with mechanics.  Flavor seems to be a dirty word with them.  They want everything to fit a specific niche and utilize standard effects.

Boring.

I miss the days when a powerful spell with good flavor may have been balanced by taking 3 rounds to cast, or causing the cleric to need bedrest for a few days.  Now, everything has to be able to be handled in 6 seconds.  

Bleh!


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 24, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> The new design philosophy seems to suggest that the features be stripped rather than the CR *System* have a mechanism for adjusting to creatures having features that aren't meant for direct combat.
> 
> Simplifying something doesn't require removing all of the bells and whistles that don't directly inform combat capability.



Then I guess it's good that the ogre mage article shows that this is not the case, right?


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 24, 2006)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Then I guess it's good that the ogre mage article shows that this is not the case, right?




Many do not believe that to be the case and that is a discussion for the other thread.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=169179


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 24, 2006)

WotC's way of doing things seems to be based around how they've done Magic cards...and even those have gone a similar route, from flavourful, random, and widely disparate in power level at the beginning to now being so balanced and overdesigned it's boring.  A side effect is that their designs tend to force you into playing from among a relatively limited number of workable decks.

Same thing is starting to rear its ugly head in D+D.  Look, for example, at "buff" spells.  In days of old, sure somebody might cast "Strength" on a fighter now and then, but that was about it.  But that wasn't "balanced", that Fighters could get such a thing but no-one else could, so they dreamed up an equivalent spell for the other 5 stats.  Now, with so many buff spells in the system, it's almost expected the party will be buffed to the max every time.  In other words, the game is somewhat forcing you to play that way...kinda like when a Magic set has loads of good Goblin cards, that somewhat forces you to play a Goblin deck to be competitive.

I'm not being very clear here...if this doesn't make sense, ask away and I'll try to clarify.

Lanefan


----------



## Pants (Jul 24, 2006)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> When I read WOTC material these days, I am bored to tears.  All of the items are functional, but they often lack any flavor.  This has been the trend throughout 3e and I do not see it changing anytime soon.



During the entire _Fiendish Codex I_ fiasco, the argument was swapped in favor of people complaining about the functionality of certain creatures, blasting the book for it, then ignoring the oodles of flavor that it conatined.



> WOTC wants to deal with mechanics.  Flavor seems to be a dirty word with them.  They want everything to fit a specific niche and utilize standard effects.



Back in 2003 I would've agreed with you. Thankfully, this seems to be changing now.

As for the Ogre Mage, it's a web article of 'what if's.' The Ogre Mage is the same semi-useless monster that it used to be. Mearls is doing a bunch of 'what if' articles to spark controversy and debate about HOW the monsters work and how they could be better-ified. 

If the new revised versions of the rust monster and the ogre mage suddenly start appearing in books, then maybe I'll agree with the griping, but as it stands now, the articles are forcing us to pick out what we like about certain aspects of the game, how they work, and how they could be improved. 

The articles are doing their job, apparently.



> I miss the days when a powerful spell with good flavor may have been balanced by taking 3 rounds to cast, or causing the cleric to need bedrest for a few days.  Now, everything has to be able to be handled in 6 seconds.
> 
> Bleh!



You're ignoring all the spells that have 1 minute, 1 round, 10 minute, 1 hour, etc. casting times ja know.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 24, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> WotC's way of doing things seems to be based around how they've done Magic cards...and even those have gone a similar route, from flavourful, random, and widely disparate in power level at the beginning to now being so balanced and overdesigned it's boring.  A side effect is that their designs tend to force you into playing from among a relatively limited number of workable decks.
> 
> Same thing is starting to rear its ugly head in D+D.  Look, for example, at "buff" spells.  In days of old, sure somebody might cast "Strength" on a fighter now and then, but that was about it.  But that wasn't "balanced", that Fighters could get such a thing but no-one else could, so they dreamed up an equivalent spell for the other 5 stats.  Now, with so many buff spells in the system, it's almost expected the party will be buffed to the max every time.  In other words, the game is somewhat forcing you to play that way...kinda like when a Magic set has loads of good Goblin cards, that somewhat forces you to play a Goblin deck to be competitive.
> 
> ...




I don't really agree that it's "forcing" anyone to use buff spells... There's just an option for all types of Buff spells. Those seem like spells people would have house ruled into the game anyway.


----------



## sjmiller (Jul 24, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> You're ignoring all the spells that have 1 minute, 1 round, 10 minute, 1 hour, etc. casting times ja know.



Could you, perhaps, give examples of spells with these casting times?  Preferably spells found in the core books, as they are ones that would apply to everything.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 24, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> Back in 2003 I would've agreed with you. Thankfully, this seems to be changing now.




I see far more emphasis on crunch than flavor.  Magic of Encarnum, PHb2, etc.  The explosion of sudden/swift/immediate stuff is a good example, I think.



> The articles are doing their job, apparently.




I've got no problem with what-ifs, and given a choice between a closed development process and these kinds of articles, I'd take the more open approach any day.   Being people that have a lot invested in D&D, we're just doing our job, too, by providing push-back on elements we find unwelcome.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 24, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> I don't really agree that it's "forcing" anyone to use buff spells... There's just an option for all types of Buff spells. Those seem like spells people would have house ruled into the game anyway.



Oddly enough, coming from someone from whom no rule, spell, or ability is safe from tweak or redesign, I'd never even considered adding in such things until seeing 3e...the thought had simply never entered my mind.  That said, those aren't the only buff spells out there...just look at what a Cleric can do to herself if given 5 rounds prep time before a battle...it's almost ridiculous. 

Lanefan


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 24, 2006)

I agree.  I actually really liked 3.0, from a rules perspective, except for a few things...the emphasis on measuring everything against the idea of how it performs in a dungeon, the reliance on X many magic items/level for balance, and a few minor things...but otherwise, it was awesome.  I really started having problems when they moved to 3.5, and now, with some of these redesigns of monsters, it's just getting worse.

Paladins with a summonable warhorse...sheesh.

I'm not sure I'll end up moving to 4 when it comes out, if this is the direction they want to go.

Banshee


----------



## Mercule (Jul 24, 2006)

I don't mind swift/immediate actions.  Yeah, it feels a bit like like an interrupt, but spells of the nature make sense.  In general, I like the codification of the underlying engine.

What I don't like are some of the odd decisions that seem to be made on some things.  Monsters is a wonderful example.  I've complained about it elsewhere, but I loathe the notion that monsters (demons, esp.) should have some of their redundant or extraneous special abilities culled, just because they're not useful or convenient in combat.  :vomit:

In thinking about the integration with minis, I've begun to realize that it isn't the terms, etc. that get to me.  1E used inches for everything, for crying out loud.  But, 1E felt like that was just an oddball convention.  3E feels somehow more limiting.  I can't put my finger on it, but it definitely bears some consideration.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 24, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Oddly enough, coming from someone from whom no rule, spell, or ability is safe from tweak or redesign, I'd never even considered adding in such things until seeing 3e...the thought had simply never entered my mind.  That said, those aren't the only buff spells out there...just look at what a Cleric can do to herself if given 5 rounds prep time before a battle...it's almost ridiculous.
> 
> Lanefan




Really? It never occured to you? 

Dunno. Just never seemed like a problem to me. Along the same lines as why couldn't someone make an ice ball instead of a fire ball.

I mean, the suggestion is in the rulebook for making new spells... Look at existing spells and modify.

I think maybe the problem (for some) is too many options... Options are a double edged sword. Too little and game play is stale. Too many and game prep is harder for the DM.

Power Gamers and Min/maxers have existed with every edition... I don't think limiting options is a good way to deal with them.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 24, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Power Gamers and Min/maxers have existed with every edition... I don't think limiting options is a good way to deal with them.




No, but sticking with core design principles would have been.  The concept of named bonuses not stacking, for example, was brilliant, but then they went and ruined it by adding new types every time you turned around. 

That's my biggest beef with the swift/immediate/sudden stuff.  Not that they exist (because, conceptually, they make sense) but because they added another level of power and yet another way for things to get out of hand really quick.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 24, 2006)

Mercule said:
			
		

> In thinking about the integration with minis, I've begun to realize that it isn't the terms, etc. that get to me.  1E used inches for everything, for crying out loud.  But, 1E felt like that was just an oddball convention.  3E feels somehow more limiting.  I can't put my finger on it, but it definitely bears some consideration.




Is it really limited or just streamlined?

Maybe it has something to do with the rules themself... In 3.x the rules are sort of codified into a coherent whole that builds off of itself. Terms have very specific meanings, and there are rules for just about everything. If there ISN'T a rule for a particular event or action, there's probably a way it can be built based on other actions...(a logical build) If that makes sense... In 3.x if I forget the particular mechanics for something, while I look it up I normaly just say: "roll a d20." because 9.9999999 times out of 10 that's how you start doing just about anything.  

In earlier editions this wasn't always the case. Rules were sometimes handled with multiple seperate mechanics... Bend bars lift gates was a % and Thief skills were percentages, while other "skills" were basically just stat checks...

Maybe because of this 3.x seems limiting because if there isn't a rule for something there's kind of a "way" it should be handled... Whereas earlier editions left things open as one way was just as valid as another based on DM whim?


----------



## Ciaran (Jul 24, 2006)

Who uses ogre magi these days anyway?  If I want a sorcerous ogre in 3e, I'll just take a regular ogre and give it sorcerer levels.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 24, 2006)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> No, but sticking with core design principles would have been.  The concept of named bonuses not stacking, for example, was brilliant, but then they went and ruined it by adding new types every time you turned around.
> 
> That's my biggest beef with the swift/immediate/sudden stuff.  Not that they exist (because, conceptually, they make sense) but because they added another level of power and yet another way for things to get out of hand really quick.




But spells and magic item effects have always, to me at least, been about breaking the rules... kind of. Like when you get the chance card and it tells you to advance to Boardwalk without having to roll the dice. 

So yeah, Like I said, too many options makes things harder for the DM to prep, but I dissagree it's a bad thing.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 24, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Oddly enough, coming from someone from whom no rule, spell, or ability is safe from tweak or redesign, I'd never even considered adding in such things until seeing 3e...the thought had simply never entered my mind.  That said, those aren't the only buff spells out there...just look at what a Cleric can do to herself if given 5 rounds prep time before a battle...it's almost ridiculous.
> 
> Lanefan




But how quickly can that prep time be dispelled by dispel magic or anti-magic fields? And those spells aren't free. Each prep spell takes away from an otherwise 'vulgar' defense or offense. For every shield spell in use, that's one less magic missile. For every Fire Shield, that's one less Evard's Black Tentacles. For every Bull's Strength, etc...

It's front load stacking vs in combat stacking.


----------



## BlueBlackRed (Jul 24, 2006)

I'm wondering if these design changes are coming from an idea of improving the game or the R&D group thinking they're improving the game by infusing it with their personal wants and concepts of "how the game should be".


----------



## Scribble (Jul 24, 2006)

BlueBlackRed said:
			
		

> I'm wondering if these design changes are coming from an idea of improving the game or the R&D group thinking they're improving the game by infusing it with their personal wants and concepts of "how the game should be".




My guess would be it's coming from a look at what products are selling...


Also, part of it probably is playtesting too.

I know the whole new stat block rang true with me if you read the article online. I've had that same "Oh man, I totally forgot to use that power!" experience...


----------



## Victim (Jul 24, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> WotC's way of doing things seems to be based around how they've done Magic cards...and even those have gone a similar route, from flavourful, random, and widely disparate in power level at the beginning to now being so balanced and overdesigned it's boring.  A side effect is that their designs tend to force you into playing from among a relatively limited number of workable decks.
> 
> Same thing is starting to rear its ugly head in D+D.  Look, for example, at "buff" spells.  In days of old, sure somebody might cast "Strength" on a fighter now and then, but that was about it.  But that wasn't "balanced", that Fighters could get such a thing but no-one else could, so they dreamed up an equivalent spell for the other 5 stats.  Now, with so many buff spells in the system, it's almost expected the party will be buffed to the max every time.  In other words, the game is somewhat forcing you to play that way...kinda like when a Magic set has loads of good Goblin cards, that somewhat forces you to play a Goblin deck to be competitive.
> 
> ...




The thing is that having encounters designed under the assumption that nobody uses buffs is an equally controling assumption.


----------



## lukelightning (Jul 24, 2006)

Ciaran said:
			
		

> Who uses ogre magi these days anyway?  If I want a sorcerous ogre in 3e, I'll just take a regular ogre and give it sorcerer levels.




I do like the idea of ogre mages being a separate race, physically distinct, from regular ogres.


----------



## Taraxia (Jul 24, 2006)

sjmiller said:
			
		

> Could you, perhaps, give examples of spells with these casting times?  Preferably spells found in the core books, as they are ones that would apply to everything.




*sigh* You would ask for the one variable by which d20srd.org doesn't let you filter.

While longer-than-an-action casting times are not terribly common anymore, a lot of divination spells or spells that induce permanent effects have long casting times. _Commune_ takes 10 minutes, as does _lesser planar ally_. _Scrying_ takes 1 hour. _Hallow_ takes 24 hours.


----------



## Taraxia (Jul 24, 2006)

All I'm gonna do is ask how the heck the Ogre Mage fits into this criticism.

*What* flavor? What "classic" feel? What about him was so great and so special?

Mearls' criticism -- echoed by other designers in other columns -- is that if you look at the original Ogre Mage he's a hodgepodge of essentially random SLAs that were *originally* chosen by cherrypicking various random magical powers various oni have been said to have in Japanese folklore. Since none of them are really centered around a single folkloric concept or story element, an ogre with sorcerer levels is a lot more true to the original concept of an oni (a big ugly guy with unpredictable magic powers) than the One-Trick Ogre Mage. 

As Mearls' pointed out, the mechanical use of the Ogre Mage (fly in, blast with cone of cold, turn gaseous and run away) doesn't even match the actual flavor text and illustration, where he's shown being a muscular badass with a greatsword and being a cunning leader of other ogres. Certainly this whole Ogre Mage as Master Manipulator thing isn't in there. Does it *say* you're supposed to find Ogre Mages masquerading as the new prince? Does it *say* he has a bunch of innocent human peasant slaves who will defend him? This isn't real flavor -- it's retconned flavor made to match the OM's ill-chosen abilities. It doesn't even work that well -- as opposed to a monster who actually has abilities that *reliably* work to mess with people's minds, like _dominate_ and _modify memory_ and whatnot, he just has the single _charm_ spell, which has the unpredictable effect of making people like you. (Unless you're going to unbalance the game horribly in favor of your bard PC, _charm_ does *not* function as any kind of mind control or coercion or make anyone do anything they wouldn't normally do.)

You have to write a whole, big, long, complicated story to justify why an Ogre Mage has a bunch of town guards defending him. It isn't a natural part of the Ogre Mage's defined abilities, and, moreover, it kind of contradicts the Ogre Mage's defined flavor as such. (Don't the typical encounter stats say he hangs out with other ogres? Isn't his environment in the wilderness? Doesn't the illustration show him all tattooed and whacking things with his sword?)

The master-manipulator Ogre Mage isn't a basic part of the OM's flavor, it's something DMs can come up with as a creative way to use the OM's powers, and today, thanks to 3.5's greater modularity, a DM can do that by adding class levels or homebrew SLAs to a monster if he so chooses. Nothing has been sacrificed of the OM's *actual* flavor -- he's just been altered to *fit* the flavor he actually has in the text.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 24, 2006)

Taraxia said:
			
		

> All I'm gonna do is ask how the heck the Ogre Mage fits into this criticism.





That is a discussion for the other thread, please.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=169179


----------



## ehren37 (Jul 24, 2006)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I miss the days when a powerful spell with good flavor may have been balanced by taking 3 rounds to cast, or causing the cleric to need bedrest for a few days.  Now, everything has to be able to be handled in 6 seconds.
> 
> Bleh!




What, all of the 5 spells or so from earlier editions? Identify, Contact other plane and a few others had such restrictions. Compare it to the dozens of spells with feedback, backlash, ability loss, taint, etc in 3.5. You're wrong on this. 

I think this whole thread is a huge overraction from the bitter grognards' club that EN World has devolved into. Most likely, those articles were quickly written, and any attempts to actually redesign poorly thought out monsters of previous editions would be a bit better. And yes, the rust monster and the "cone of cold on a stick" that the ogre mage was needed to be revised.


----------



## Pants (Jul 24, 2006)

sjmiller said:
			
		

> Could you, perhaps, give examples of spells with these casting times?  Preferably spells found in the core books, as they are ones that would apply to everything.




Variant Casting Time:
Legend Lore

Casting Time - 1 round
Call Lightning
Call Lightning Storm
Changestaff
Deep Slumber
Fabricate (+1 round per 10 cubic feet)
Insect Plague
Lesser Geas
Modify Memory
Sleep
Summon Monster 1-9
Summon Nature's Ally 1-9
Summon Swarm

Casting Time - 2 rounds
Permanency

Casting Time - 3 rounds
Find the Path
Restoration
Restoration, Lesser
Restoration, Greater

Casting Time - 6 rounds
Forbiddance

Casting Time - 3 full Rounds
Regenerate

Casting Time - 1 minute
Augury
Break Enchantment
Dream
Illusory Script (or longer)
Ironwood
Minor Creation
Prying Eyes
Prying Eyes, Greater
Raise Dead

Casting Time - 10 Minutes:
Clairaudience/Clairvoyance
Clone
Commune
Commune With Nature
Contact Other Plane
Divination
Geas/Quest
Hallucinatory Terrain
Liveoak
Major Creation
Mark of Justice
Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum
Nightmare
Planar Ally
Planar Ally, Greater
Planar Ally, Lesser
Planar Binding
Planar Binding, Greater
Planar Binding, Lesser
Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer
Reincarnate
Ressurection
Screen
Secret Chest
Secret Page
Sending
Sepia Snake Sigil
Spellstaff
Stone Tell
Symbol (All)
True Ressurection

Casting Time - 30 Minutes
Astral Projection
Guards and Wards

Casting Time - 1 hour
Atonement
Identify
Scrying

Casting Time - 12 hours
Simulcrum

Casting Time - 24 Hours
Awaken
Hallow
Unhallow



			
				Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> I see far more emphasis on crunch than flavor.  Magic of Encarnum, PHb2, etc.



PHB2 had a large amount of flavor, almost a half-n-half book.

D&D has moved away from the crunch only approach that was popular during the revision and has become a lot more flavor heavy. MM4, in fact, gives a lot more space to ecologies and societies of the monsters. Fiendish Codex I had massive amounts of flavor, so did Lords of Madness.



> I've got no problem with what-ifs, and given a choice between a closed development process and these kinds of articles, I'd take the more open approach any day.   Being people that have a lot invested in D&D, we're just doing our job, too, by providing push-back on elements we find unwelcome.



That's the point, to get us to voice our opinions. Thus, the articles have done their jobs.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 24, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> PHB2 had a large amount of flavor, almost a half-n-half book.




More like 80/20%.  Four new classes, 25 pages of new feats (including 3 new *types* of feats), dozens of spells.  But going by page count is foolish.

The fact remains that drastically increasing the options available to players and then claiming that the problem with the game being too complex is because of a couple oddball monsters is rather misguided.  Claiming that the fix for that generic mobs is class levels (or templates, or whatever else) and that that is less work for the DM than a couple paragraphs of tactics text in the MM is silly.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 24, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> I think this whole thread is a huge overraction from the bitter grognards' club that EN World has devolved into.




Watch the tone.

A lot of us 'bitter grognards' are people that abandoned D&D at some point and came back into the fold when 3e came along, and you'll find that a lot of us are far more interested in stretching the possibilities in the rules than in playing the same-old, same-old.  Hardly reactionary.   About the only generalization that holds true here is the DM community is probably over-represented.  

We're not objecting to crunch, or new ideas or rules.  We're objecting to some spurious notion that the future of the game lies in reducing it to a bland, by-the-numbers collection of rules bereft of spirit.


----------



## Pants (Jul 24, 2006)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> More like 80/20%. Four new classes, 25 pages of new feats (including 3 new *types* of feats), dozens of spells. But going by page count is foolish.



I maintain the half-n-half.

All those pages on Affiliations, sample affiliations, backgrounds, character traits, providing ways to create more memorable PC's, yada yada, that's adding flavor to the game right there. 

The fact remains that drastically increasing the options available to players and then claiming that the problem with the game being too complex is because of a couple oddball monsters is rather misguided.  Claiming that the fix for that generic mobs is class levels (or templates, or whatever else) and that that is less work for the DM than a couple paragraphs of tactics text in the MM is silly.[/QUOTE]
Well, I never argued that. I just found the entire reactionary 'D&D being dumbed down because of a what-if article posted on the website that a developer might do if a revision were in the works' thing ludicrous.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 24, 2006)

[conspiracy]I HOPE design direction goes askew! 'Cause you know, if 3.5 is still as well designed in 2007 as 3e was in 2000, no one will ever buy 4e in 2008. But if it's as well designed as 2e was in 1999...[/conspiracy]


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 25, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> Well, I never argued that. I just found the entire reactionary 'D&D being dumbed down because of a what-if article posted on the website that a developer might do if a revision were in the works' thing ludicrous.




And I maintain it's not reactionary.  I have zero desire to return to the days where every 9th level fighter was the same, or where only elves could be fighter/mages.  I *like* 3e.  I like having new classes to monkey with, new spells to try out.  I'm a crunch-junkie.  I just don't think the long-term interests of the game are served by removing all the quirks, or by reducing it to a spreadsheet.

But regardless of when it comes out, there will be a 4th edition unless the laws of capitalism are somehow repealed.  And this was more than the beer-lubricated musings of some low-level functionary at WotC.  Mr Mearls is a visible and respected (and don't let anything said here, Mike, give you any other idea -- we're passionate because we love   ) member of the D&D publishing world, and certainly will have a voice in the future of the game. Nothing gets posted to the WotC website without other eyes looking at it and giving it their tacit consent.

I'm glad these articles are getting posted, and that they are engendering this kind of debate.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 25, 2006)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> (. . .) and you'll find that a lot of us are far more interested in stretching the possibilities in the rules than in playing the same-old, same-old.  Hardly reactionary.   About the only generalization that holds true here is the DM community is probably over-represented.
> 
> We're not objecting to crunch, or new ideas or rules.  We're objecting to some spurious notion that the future of the game lies in reducing it to a bland, by-the-numbers collection of rules bereft of spirit.







			
				Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> And I maintain it's not reactionary.  I have zero desire to return to the days where every 9th level fighter was the same, or where only elves could be fighter/mages.  I *like* 3e.  I like having new classes to monkey with, new spells to try out.  I'm a crunch-junkie.  I just don't think the long-term interests of the game are served by removing all the quirks, or by reducing it to a spreadsheet.
> 
> But regardless of when it comes out, there will be a 4th edition unless the laws of capitalism are somehow repealed.  And this was more than the beer-lubricated musings of some low-level functionary at WotC.  Mr Mearls is a visible and respected (and don't let anything said here, Mike, give you any other idea -- we're passionate because we love   ) member of the D&D publishing world, and certainly will have a voice in the future of the game. Nothing gets posted to the WotC website without other eyes looking at it and giving it their tacit consent.





Hard to put things much better than that, RI.


----------



## Kormydigar (Jul 25, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> The logic of this new philosophy is lost on me.




Whats all this then? I really don't see anything like a new philosophy going on here. WOTC is doing exactly what they have always done and will continue to do. They will publish a set of rules, and pump out the supplements designed for maximum rules bloat. The gaming community screams for less confusion and more simplicity which WOTC is more than happy to provide in the form a brand new edition with fresh ideas and all kinds of cool stuff. Shortly after the core is released the supplement bloat begins again adding to the ever turning circle of games. This is how game companies sell products, provide a living for game designers, and keep the industry alive and bubbling with excitement.  The day that the mega edition to end ALL editions that makes EVERYONE so happy that there is no desire for another book will be the death of D&D. 

It may sound like I am really giving WOTC a hard time, but I'm really not. I started gaming in 1980 so I am one of the old farts around here. The game must evolve and constantly change to keep up with the desires of the new generation of gamers. I don't agree with all the changes that have come about but the reality is that I am a dinosaur and WOTC would be foolish to cater to my desires over those of new players. I have all my older gaming material so if the latest offering just isn't for me I can still use it. When all is said and done I would rather welcome the release of an edition I hate than see tabletop roleplaying die.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 25, 2006)

What's interesting is that the monsters are being designed with the goal of greater simplicity to run in combat - something directly counter to Kormydigar's point. 

I think this is an admirable goal. (Try running 4 Vrocks in an encounter one day, and you'll see what an overcomplex creature is.) What is important is that the monsters do not lose the hooks that can give them roles in an adventure. As is pointed out in the Ogre Magi thread, the addition back of a domination/charm ability restores the "boss" ability of the OM for purposes of story construction, while not impacting on the difficulty of running the monster in combat.

The primary use of a monster in D&D is in combat. Monsters should be designed so that they're effective in combat (per the level for which their intended). They should also be desinged so they don't suffer from coin-flip and glass jaw syndrome.

Consider a 1 HD monster with a death attack. If you look at it, you must make a Fortitude save or die. The problem with this monster is that it has a glass jaw. There's no interest in the actual combat - it's just a coin-flip. Heads, you win. Tails, you die. That's bad design.

The Ogre Mage in 3e/3.5e suffers from that syndrome. The combat is over in one or two rounds. It's a forgettable creature. If you send it against a party to which its AC and HP are comparable, the cone of cold causes instant death for at least one party member (probably the wizard).

(Ogre Mage: AC 18, HP 37 vs. Ogre: AC 16, HP 29. Not much of a difference. CR difference, 8. Oh dear).

Is the CR system flawed? Well, yes. However, in the Ogre Mage's case, it's not the CR system that creates the flaw, it's the design of the monster itself. Glass Jaw and Coin Flip syndrome. (The OM has a CR that allows the party to survive it, but not for it to put up a fight against the party!)

There needs to be a balance between the CR and the effectiveness of the monster: it is able to participate in combat for a few rounds, and it needs to give the players something they have to work to defeat. One or two signature abilities that distinguish it from other monsters are also essential.

The other aspect of monster design to consider is this: does the monster appear alone or with other monsters. Most interesting fights require more than one opponent, but in such cases, the monsters must be simple enough so that the DM can handle each of them.

Cheers!


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 25, 2006)

But the hard part isn't running the Vrocks.  It's keeping track of all the player character crap, and the inordinate amount of time that can (and some say needs to) be spent tweaking out NPCs with gear, class levels, whatever.

Of all the things to put effort into simplifying, oddball monsters is about the last thing to worry about.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 25, 2006)

pogre said:
			
		

> I think the design philosophy reflects a broader general demand for the game. You can poo-poo the thing as just trying to get video gamers, but that's akin to saying they are just trying to appeal to highschoolers, and well, yeah - they are. And should.
> 
> The designers should be relativewly unconcerned with the needs of a sophisticated DM - we're all different and we can adjust. They need to be most concerned with two groups - folks getting into the game and having fun right away and those with limited time who want maximum fun in the time they have. Consideration for hardcores like us has to be secondary at best.
> 
> ...




QFT

RI - Why are you keeping track of the player crap?  That's what players are for.  If the cleric has ten buffs on him, it's up to the player to keep track of what does what and tell me if I try something and it doesn't work because he has X counterspell up.  Fair enough.  I know, that means I have to (shock!) trust that my players aren't cheating and actually know the rules for their characters, but, then, by the time they can have umpteen buffs, they should have been playing that character for at least a few months.

I tend to assume that my players are reasonably intelligent and can read a page of text over the course of a few months.  

As far as tweaking out NPC's.  Well, the easy answer is, don't.  Use standard packages of equipment and away you go.  You don't need to min/max your NPC's to make them effective.  Those tables in the DMG with higher level NPC's is your friend.  

And, as a point, just because something has character levels does not mean it gets NPC wealth.  A dragon with one level of wizard is NOT a first level NPC.  Use the CR treasure tables for equipment.

A lot of the complaints about complexity stem from two reasons.  One, bloat of abilities from creatures.  Two:  a lack of willingness to simplify the game.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 25, 2006)

I'm not the one complaining about complexity.  I have a long track record of saying 'close enough is good enough' for NPCs.  I have the computer tools to do it right when I feel the need to.  I have the experience and tricks of the trade to run complicated fights.  I'm not the target of what we're talking about.  Sheesh, compared to 1st edition Shadowrun or Cyberpunk 2020, or Aftermath, d20 is a walk in the park.  Hell, I used to run 'Powers and Perils' games   

What I and others have a problem with is the perceptions that seem to be influencing future design decisions:

* The perception that everyone else is complaining about the complexity, that it's too hard for new players and new DMs, and that we have to simplify creatures to remove extraneous abilities because its too much to keep track of.

* The perception that 'OMG Players will cry and go home' if their gear gets whacked, cause you know its just too hard for the DM to, you know, plan ahead and resupply the party at the appropraite time.

There's no doubt that d20 could use a nip and tuck here and there.  But stripping monsters down to the bare minimum, or removing save-or-die spells, or eliminating niche monsters that might hurt the players feelings isn't the right direction, IMO.

The "bloat" of abilities of creatures is non-existant compared to the complexity added by class levels, or high-level NPCs, or a variety of other things.  If running an ogre-mage is problematic, how the hell would you run a ogre with six sorceror levels, where there are even more things to deal with?


----------



## Campbell (Jul 25, 2006)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> But the hard part isn't running the Vrocks.  It's keeping track of all the player character crap, and the inordinate amount of time that can (and some say needs to) be spent tweaking out NPCs with gear, class levels, whatever.
> 
> Of all the things to put effort into simplifying, oddball monsters is about the last thing to worry about.




I've seen WotC address these issues recently. The PHB II gives a remarkable amount of guidance for statting out NPCs and includes equipment profiles, suggested spell choices and feat progressions that vastly reduce the time involved in statting out NPCs.


----------



## Pants (Jul 25, 2006)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> And I maintain it's not reactionary.  I have zero desire to return to the days where every 9th level fighter was the same, or where only elves could be fighter/mages.  I *like* 3e.  I like having new classes to monkey with, new spells to try out.  I'm a crunch-junkie.  I just don't think the long-term interests of the game are served by removing all the quirks, or by reducing it to a spreadsheet.



Dude I'm not arguing with you about that. 

All I'm saying is 'Chill out, stop the doom and gloom, because it's just a what-if article.' Mearls has pretty explicitly stated that these are designed to start discussion on these topics.

I agree with everything else, just saying 'Chill' is all.


----------



## hong (Jul 25, 2006)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> But the hard part isn't running the Vrocks.




Yes it is.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 25, 2006)

hong said:
			
		

> Yes it is.




Indeed. Vrocks are a pain to run.

My groups use a *bunch* of optional material for their characters. In just the Ulek campaign, we have a Druid/Wizard/Arcane Hierophant with a large bear as his familiar/companion, a Bard/Rogue/Druid, an Incarnate, a Knight, a Dwarf Soulknife and a Elf Soulborn. 

There's a bunch of interacting abilities there, but the players have it all in hand. I just have to worry about the monsters.

Vrocks? Ugh. One vrock is a fine opponent. Multiple vrocks? Not so good.

Cheers!


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 25, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The primary use of a monster in D&D is in combat.



The primary use of a monster in _D&D_ is to present a challenge to the players and their characters. Challenges should be about more than how many rounds a monster can go toe-to-toe with the adventurers.

IMO.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 25, 2006)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> I just don't think the long-term interests of the game are served by removing all the quirks, or by reducing it to a spreadsheet.




I agree.  However, I'm all for removing most or all of the "bad" quirks.  If non-human level limits were retained because the developers were afraid of removing the quirks, I likely wouldn't be playing D&D right now (the rule I hated the most in D&D).

One thing to note about these articles is Mike has pointed out that usually he would have to run things buy the other developers, and they'd debate the various points.  I'm sure they have different points of view, and probably express more POV than they have ("there are a group of players that won't like this, is that a reason not to do this).  Remember, Mike is the guy who  trashed the _Keep on the Borderlands_ as a bad module


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 25, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> The logic of this new philosophy is lost on me.  Since some creatures, like the ogre mage, were essentially gutted by the revision of certain spells during the switch to 3.x and as they are now ineffectual because their CR is too high for them to be combat threats, the plan is to individually revise each creature based on what can transpire during a five or six round combat?  I would have thought it better to address the perpetually enigmatic CR system.  Or to bulk up the abilities that are used in and out of combat to keep the creature special and not turn it into a large fighting creature with class levels.  I like the idea of leveling spells so that they do more than simply increase in range/duration/etc. when cast by more powerful casters.  If I wanted to just throw an enlarged Fighter/Sorcerer toe-to-toe with an adventuring group can't I already do that using an enlarged Fighter/Sorcerer (and wouldn't it be a better challenge anyway)?




I'm going to disagree with you, at least on the specific ogre mage issue. The thing had the ability to Charm Person and acted as a "mastermind" for ogres and other such creatures. Charm Person doesn't work on ogres!

I like the new ogre mage, I just think it could use Charm Monster as a spell-like ability so it could continue to be a mastermind (retain concept). IIRC Charm Person didn't work on ogres in 2e.

Furthermore, ogre mages didn't have a "CR" in 2e. The 3e ogre mage were designed with the 3e spells in mind. I don't blame the change in spells for the ogre mage being a wimp.

Right now, only two monsters have been re-created. It's been my experience that DMs just don't use monsters like the ogre mage anyway because it didn't fit its concept, nor did it pose a challenge.

Edit/PS: I don't recall the new OM having a Charm or Domination ability, but if it does, that would remove my only objection to the re-design.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 25, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> The primary use of a monster in _D&D_ is to present a challenge to the players and their characters. Challenges should be about more than how many rounds a monster can go toe-to-toe with the adventurers.




Consider which part is a challenge because of the monster and which part is a challenge because of adventure design. You don't need Charm Person to create an adventure where a town lives in fear of a Big Bad Evil Guy. 

The CR of a monster directly relates to how difficult it is to defeat in combat. Any further challenges it has created as part of the adventure are dealt with by their own challenge ratings.

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!


----------



## Rothe (Jul 25, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> ...
> The primary use of a monster in D&D is in combat. Monsters should be designed so that they're effective in combat (per the level for which their intended). They should also be desinged so they don't suffer from coin-flip and glass jaw syndrome.
> 
> ....
> ...




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.

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.  

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.


----------



## Rothe (Jul 25, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> ....
> 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!




I'd have to disagree.  This is a good boss encounter.  The PCs should be prepared and know that death could result if they are not very careful about facing this guy.  A nice fear of loss for tension.  On the other hand, if they can get the drop on him he goes down and they get the rewards.  A calculated risk or gamble some might say.  Many people like to gamble especially when they can do things to alter the odds in their favor.  If they are good, luck should have little to do with it.  

In the end, not everyone is going down.  If only one, and the treasure is enough, get them raised. 

Finally, why can't we view the OM as just a min/maxed creature?  He traded good AC and HP for his level for one very powerful spell.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 25, 2006)

Rothe said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> 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




You can't surprise it if you didn't see it first. Who is likely to be surprised, you or the creature that can change its appearance? How do you know it's coming? How do you know it's hostile?



> attack from range




Is melee not valid? Wow, that fencer concept gets trashed.



> trick it into burning that cone of cold




Without metagaming, you don't know its abilities. Even if you make your Knowledge check, it has a wide range of abilities, so you might not know it can cast Cone of Cold. (And it can move up on you invisible and then blast you with a Cone of Cold.)



> get some protection against that cold




Ditto.



> have healing ready




That always happens.



> make sure only your toughest fighter type faces it




So if your party has a rogue, they're not allowed to go near it? Wow, that sounds like a lot of fun.



> 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.




A monster is supposed to be _easy_ for an equal CR fight, regardless of how it's defeated. I would give the PCs bonus XP if they beat it "smart", though. This is in addition to other advantages (eg taking less damage, using up less healing, etc).

If your players never use cool tactics, this is a problem with the players and DMs, not a problem with the monster.



> 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.




Isn't that called a mage? I think an *ogre* mage should be tougher than that. Otherwise, why bother making it an ogre?


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 25, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Consider which part is a challenge because of the monster and which part is a challenge because of adventure design. You don't need Charm Person to create an adventure where a town lives in fear of a Big Bad Evil Guy.



By that same logic you don't need monsters, either.







			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> The CR of a monster directly relates to how difficult it is to defeat in combat. Any further challenges it has created as part of the adventure are dealt with by their own challenge ratings.



As Mark already said earlier, that's a weakness in the CR system.







			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> 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.



Why not? Why does every encounter have to be about diminishing resources? Why can't some encounters just be plain deadly on the luck of the dice?


----------



## MerricB (Jul 25, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> By that same logic you don't need monsters, either.




Rubbish. Monsters are required for interesting combats. However, you don't really need the big bad guy to have a special ability saying "has minions". Minions can be assumed by good adventure design.



> As Mark already said earlier, that's a weakness in the CR system.




Huh? Something that the CR system already covers is a weakness in the CR system? I really don't understand.



> Why not? Why does every encounter have to be about diminishing resources? Why can't some encounters just be plain deadly on the luck of the dice?




Flip-a-coin encounters are rarely fun. 

IME, D&D combats are fun when the players need to work to overcome the challenges. The attritional nature of D&D combat is great because they can see they're in danger as their HP and spells are expended. 

Cheers!


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 25, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Rubbish. Monsters are required for interesting combats. However, you don't really need the big bad guy to have a special ability saying "has minions". Minions can be assumed by good adventure design.



Piffle. Magic is as part and parcel to fantasy as monsters.

Using _charm person_ instead of 'minions' adds two wholly different elements to an encounter. First, it rewards spellcasters who invest in divination magic (and players smart enough to use it to identify where magical compulsion may be in play). Second, it creates a situation where the adventurers may want to prevent harm to the compelled but otherwise unwitting character, as opposed to hacking their way through minions.







			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Huh? Something that the CR system already covers is a weakness in the CR system? I really don't understand.



If a monster's CR doesn't reflect the whole of its abilities, then that's a weakness in the system.







			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Flip-a-coin encounters are rarely fun.
> 
> IME, D&D combats are fun when the players need to work to overcome the challenges. The attritional nature of D&D combat is great because they can see they're in danger as their HP and spells are expended.



When every encounter becomes about managing resources without ever facing an immediate, serious threat, that is a recipe for boredom.

IMO.


----------



## monboesen (Jul 25, 2006)

> As Mark already said earlier, that's a weakness in the CR system.




No. That is an ADVANTAGE of the CR system. That way your piddly mastermind can create more encounters for the players. They then get rewarded (including with XP) for handling along the way, but don't get an undue amount of XP when they finally corner and defeat the relatively weak mastermind in combat.


As to the toe to toe vs. the clever tactical fight. CR needs to assume toe to toe fights, that is the only way of making them even halfway accurate.

Does that mean you as a DM have to play the monster dumb and rush it into melee. No, it means you need to remember that when a monster getting the drop on a group you should increase it's CR by 1 or 2 for that encounter to reflect that advantage.

Same thing goes for other advantages in combat, like prior knowledge of player tactics and abilities (or adjusting down if players have prior knowledge of the same things), some kind of environmental advantage (monster with swim speed encountered in chest high water) and so on.




> Why not? Why does every encounter have to be about diminishing resources? Why can't some encounters just be plain deadly on the luck of the dice?




Because it is pretty dull to watch your PC of 3 years playing experience die from a freak bad roll?

I vastly prefer PC dying due to bad decisions rather than to an untimely rolled 1 on a d20.


----------



## monboesen (Jul 25, 2006)

> If a monster's CR doesn't reflect the whole of its abilities, then that's a weakness in the system.





Are you reading what we are posting?

Those "mastermind" abilities will create obstacles that will be resolved by themselves, without the mastermind being present, being of their own CR, giving their own XP.

There is absolutely no need for that kind of ability to be accounted into the "masterminds" CR, because they don't make it more dangerous when you finally fight it.


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 25, 2006)

monboesen said:
			
		

> Are you reading what we are posting?



Yes, and I also read these:







			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> The logic of this new philosophy is lost on me.  Since some creatures, like the ogre mage, were essentially gutted by the revision of certain spells during the switch to 3.x and as they are now ineffectual because their CR is too high for them to be combat threats, the plan is to individually revise each creature based on what can transpire during a five or six round combat?  I would have thought it better to address the perpetually enigmatic CR system.





			
				Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> I don't understand the belief that the CR system can be or should be anything other than approximate guideline to help inexperienced DMs judge the difficulty of generic encounters.  This forcing of CRs into discrete electron-like conformity is misguided and doomed to disappointment.
> 
> And I also find disagreeable the philisophy of making a couple rounds of combat the sole arbiter of a critters utlity.



I'll leave it to you to figure out with whom I agree.


----------



## monboesen (Jul 25, 2006)

Ok. Guess we will have to disagree completely about what CR is/should be and how it is applied by the dm.


Could you explain to me please how you would judge the CR of a creature like the Ogre mage or Vampire taking into account their non-combat ability.

Or is your position that CR shouldn't be used at all?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 25, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> When every encounter becomes about managing resources without ever facing an immediate, serious threat, that is a recipe for boredom..




He's not talking about threat level. He's talking about glass death stars, thus the 1 HD creature with the death attack.

This is, of course, what high level D&D can turn into. If you go first, you win. If he goes first, you lose. Witness an enemy wizard with _disintegrate_ or _finger of death_ vs an equally prepared wizard. It's a initiative off.


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 25, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> He's not talking about threat level. He's talking about glass death stars, thus the 1 HD creature with the death attack.



So am I.







			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> This is, of course, what high level D&D can turn into. If you go first, you win. If he goes first, you lose. Witness an enemy wizard with _disintegrate_ or _finger of death_ vs an equally prepared wizard. It's a initiative off.



Yep - no problem as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 25, 2006)

Well... you can have a high threat level without the glass tiger. The Ogre Mage in question is an example.

It's worth noting that I remember Mike as being against the extreme glass tiger syndrome.

Seeing as how I killed a PC last sessin in a surprise round without him getting to roll anything, I'd be a hypocrite to say I'm against quick kills as a possibility.


----------



## hong (Jul 25, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Yep - no problem as far as I'm concerned.




Play more high-level D&D.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 25, 2006)

You guys make me so glad I don't DM 3E anymore.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 25, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Vrocks? Ugh. One vrock is a fine opponent. Multiple vrocks? Not so good.




Hey, how are you going to get to use the awesome 'dance of ruin' if you don't have multiple vrocks? Plus multiple spores eating away at everyone?

Multiple vrocks are far more fun to DM for me than a singleton!

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 25, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Consider a 1 HD monster with a death attack. If you look at it, you must make a Fortitude save or die. The problem with this monster is that it has a glass jaw. There's no interest in the actual combat - it's just a coin-flip. Heads, you win. Tails, you die. That's bad design.




If this is true, do you anticipate that Mike will attempt a redesign of the Remorhaz, which has often been found to be an 'oops I killed a party member' style monster?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 25, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> A monster is supposed to be easy for an equal CR fight, regardless of how it's defeated. I would give the PCs bonus XP if they beat it "smart", though. This is in addition to other advantages (eg taking less damage, using up less healing, etc).




I think that 'easy' is supposed to be for lower-than-your-level fights. 

A fight where CR = party level is 'supposed' to use up about 20% of resources, and if the suprise attack means that all those 'resources' happen to go from one PC, he can be in a pretty bad way.

20% resources isn't really 'easy' IMO.

Cheers


----------



## FireLance (Jul 25, 2006)

I am firmly on the side of any design philosophy that aligns a creature's CR more closely to its actual performance in combat.

That said, I do recognize that an interesting game needs more than just combat challenges, so perhaps what is needed is a system to determine the CR of non-combat challenges as well.

Such a system exists for traps and hazards, where the challenge is not so much to defeat the trap in combat (although combat-like mechanics in the form of skill checks, attack rolls, saving throws, hit point and ability damage, etc. are used), but to survive it. This is where I would place challenges like the 1 HD creature with the death attack, and I would probably peg it higher than CR 1.

A fiendish hawk is not much of a threat in combat. However, if part of the challenge is for you to find it (Hide +11) before you can fight it, it could be worth CR 1/2.

Mediating a dispute between a 1st-level druid and a 2nd-level expert shouldn't require you to defeat either of them in combat (unless negotiations go badly wrong), but could still be considered a CR 1 challenge.

Finding a well-hidden troglodyte lair could be considered a separate challenge from defeating them in combat, and should probably earn you a separate experience award.

If a creature uses its abilities to lure you into a trap, you should earn experience for surviving the trap. If you subsequently defeat the creature, you should get experience for that as well.

So, let a creature's CR be determined by its combat performance. If you need to unravel its lies, reverse its influence on innocent villagers, or neutralize its supporters, that should be a separate challenge, with a separate CR, and a separate experience award.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 25, 2006)

But, on the other hand, 20% isn't exactly a knock down, drag out fight.  It's a couple of hit points and spells.  I would hazard to say that a difficult fight should be into the 50% range or possibly better.  I wouldn't think that after a hard fight, I blow off a couple of cure spells and keep going.  For me, a hard fight means that I want to rest RIGHT NOW.  

The problem with niche creatures is that unless the DM specifically creates situations to use them in, they aren't all that useful.  I violently detest Aha Gotcha creatures.  I always have.  The cone of cold from the old OM was exactly that - an Aha Gotcha.  It doesn't take any great tactical genius to have the OM turn invisible and get into position then blast away with a cone of cold.  I mean, come on, this is pretty basic stuff.  Even if I don't worry about the turning invisible stuff, using the cone of cold is a no brainer.

Only problem is, once I've use it, there's nothing else.  The creature has absolutely no depth.  It pops up, alpha strikes and then dies.

In other words, it's a trap.  It doesn't have the hp or the AC to last more than a round or two against the party and, even if it does, it can't do any significant damage anyway.  It's basically a mobile cone of cold trap.  

This was the same problem with the Rust Monster.  It's not a creature, it's a trap.  It pops up, maybe whacks an item or two then dies.  

Why bother making these into monsters?  Trap stat blocks are five lines long.  Strip out these one hit wonder creatures and put in stuff that's actually useful in the game and put them in with Green Slime in the DMG.  If a creature has no real use beyond a single action, it's not a useful creature IMO.  Creatures should be standing up for at least the five rounds of an average fight, not going down halfway into round two.  

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?

I shouldn't *have to* engineer entire scenarios around a given creature to make it useful.  If I want to, that's fine, I can.  But, a well designed creature shouldn't require the DM to completely engineer the encounter to its advantage in order to meet it's CR.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 25, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Hey, how are you going to get to use the awesome 'dance of ruin' if you don't have multiple vrocks? Plus multiple spores eating away at everyone?
> 
> Multiple vrocks are far more fun to DM for me than a singleton!




Hey, I like vrocks (single or multiple), but they could stand to lose a couple of abilities that would allow them to concentrate on things like the spores that make them cool and distinctive.

Cheers!


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 25, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, on the other hand, 20% isn't exactly a knock down, drag out fight.  It's a couple of hit points and spells.  I would hazard to say that a difficult fight should be into the 50% range or possibly better.  I wouldn't think that after a hard fight, I blow off a couple of cure spells and keep going.  For me, a hard fight means that I want to rest RIGHT NOW.
> 
> The problem with niche creatures is that unless the DM specifically creates situations to use them in, they aren't all that useful.  I violently detest Aha Gotcha creatures.  I always have.  The cone of cold from the old OM was exactly that - an Aha Gotcha.  It doesn't take any great tactical genius to have the OM turn invisible and get into position then blast away with a cone of cold.  I mean, come on, this is pretty basic stuff.  Even if I don't worry about the turning invisible stuff, using the cone of cold is a no brainer.
> 
> ...




Weird, huh? That goes for roughly 30% of the monsters in the MM1...they all are creatures that, if used correctly, are not just dungeon fodder that you meet while turning a corner or entering a room, and that _would_ go "Aha, gotcha!" with some ability and then try to vanish to either reach their mooks, or to simply run for their lives instead of duking it out with a group of heavily armed adventurers with magical firepower.

And sorry, if you as a DM don't use the powers of the monster to its utmost advantage in an encounter...why are you awarding full XP for it again? Or does that just go for powers with direct combat applicability? If I have a monster with some kind of charming ability (vampire, mind flayer, ogre mage), I damn well will have mooks around it...if I have a monster with a summoning ability, it will call for help, too, after all. And no necromancer will be met without a few undead around to defend him.


----------



## Belen (Jul 25, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I shouldn't *have to* engineer entire scenarios around a given creature to make it useful.  If I want to, that's fine, I can.  But, a well designed creature shouldn't require the DM to completely engineer the encounter to its advantage in order to meet it's CR.




This is the problem with your argument.  If you want an effective combat monkey, then you have plenty of monsters that you can use.  The good thing about an Ogre Mage or Rust Monster is that they deviate from the norm.  These are monsters that require the DM to plan something special.  If you force them into a single "mold" then you're taking away a tool that helps a DM learn how to manage different encounters.  Some monsters should force DM and players to think outside the box.

The development philosophy at WOTC seems to believe that everything should be in the box, relate to the box, and sleep in the box.

What we're seeing now is a redesign of creatures that were more effective when the box did not exist.  In older editions, when wealth was not so tied into party CR, a rust monster (while painful) was less of an issue.  The spells used by the Ogre Mage were also more effective.  For instance, sleep was far more effective in 1/2e.  It is a joke in 3.5 and I have yet to see a mage take sleep over other first level spells that can remain effective for a longer period of game time.

Personally, I detest the homogenization that is occuring with 3e.  I love the better rules, but I do not see why monsters cannot have special abilities that the PCs cannot have, or why spells cannot be cool and maybe take a few rounds to cast or have an RP negative effect to them.

Hell, even identify went from 8 hours to cast to 1 hour from 3e to 3.5.  I guess WOTC thought that was an undue burden too!?

Monsters, spells, and abilities that are outside the box is fun.  The new development philosophy is not fun.


----------



## Mad Mac (Jul 25, 2006)

Yeah. The Ogre Mage should have lots of minions with his ability to attempt to charm one person (Who is not an Ogre) for a couple of hours, once a day. And his ability to transform for a few minutes a day. It's full of unbridled depth and unrealized power....

  Sorry, but I still say it's a wimpy monster that is vastly over CR'd simply because of the Cone of Cold attack being completely out of line with it's other abilities. And all this talk about awesome Mastermindry is just silly. There's a bazillion other creatures who can out-mastermind the Ogre Mage in their sleep, including really exotic stuff like humans with class levels. 

  There's no implied Mastermind theme in the fluff text for the creature over different editions, and playing it that way goes against the Oni concept as well. The Ogre Mage is just a badly designed creature. That said, I don't have any objection to giving the redesigned version a Charm Monster ability.


----------



## Garnfellow (Jul 25, 2006)

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.

But I am really starting to wonder. 

Just because D&D is less complex than Aftermath (and what the heck isn’t) doesn’t mean the game is as simple as it could or should be.

I’m thinking of a couple of specific examples that might demonstrate this point:

The continuing inability of WotC to get its monster stat blocks right – even in the wake of the MMIII fiasco. Pull out any three John Cooper reviews at random from the last year and you’ll see what I mean. Although I still think _Hordes of the Abyss_ is a fantastic book, the numerous stat block errors are a big annoyance.
The unreliability of the “official” FAQ. I think there are at least a couple of threads going on right now detailing the many contradictions, inconsistencies, and just out-and-out blunders that have appeared in the FAQ.
Up until fairly recently, I’ve pretty much blamed these problems on shoddy quality control back at WotC. And I’m not ready to completely let them off the hook.

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?

In this light, I think simplifying the game isn’t a goal that will only benefit the poor, hypothetical “beginning DM.” It seems like all DMs, veterans and newbies alike, could use some help. In isolation, one or two oddball monsters don’t seem like much of a burden on DMs. But in aggregate? This is a game currently bursting at the seams with oddball monsters, despite all the attempts to standardize and codify the rules.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jul 25, 2006)

I think I like the ogre mage redesign overall, but I do think that the game should have some monsters with a glass jaw, for dungeon design reasons.

Sometimes, it's good to have a known bad guy that the PCs have a strong reason to sneak up on, rather than confronting openly.  Giving that creature a strong offensive power, but weak defense, is a good way of accomplishing that.

In the very first 3E game I ever played in, we were fighting a village of goblinoids ruled by a trio of ogre mages (this fact was well known to our characters).   We knew that we had to avoid the ogre mages until we were confident that we could get the drop on them, because there was no way we were going to survive 30d6 of cone of cold at mid levels.  So we were forced to be subtle in our goals, and use stealth.

Ken



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> What's interesting is that the monsters are being designed with the goal of greater simplicity to run in combat - something directly counter to Kormydigar's point.
> 
> I think this is an admirable goal. (Try running 4 Vrocks in an encounter one day, and you'll see what an overcomplex creature is.) What is important is that the monsters do not lose the hooks that can give them roles in an adventure. As is pointed out in the Ogre Magi thread, the addition back of a domination/charm ability restores the "boss" ability of the OM for purposes of story construction, while not impacting on the difficulty of running the monster in combat.
> 
> ...


----------



## el-remmen (Jul 25, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The combat is over in one or two rounds.




Don't mean to single out MerricB, because quite a few people have made this statement - and while it is totally possible I don't see that being the norm in an encounter with an ogre magi (as written) unless the DM is having it just jump in and fight toe-to-toe. 

Also, it is a matter of whether you only count the fighting as the encounter, not the discovery of a monster in human (or whatever guise), the various charmed folks it might have helping it, etc. . .

I know I am beyond the average in terms of combat length in 3.xE - but I think making changes based on what happens in one or three rounds of combat is ill-advised.


----------



## satori01 (Jul 25, 2006)

I'm not agreeing with the cry and the contention here.  Focus in monsters is a good thing in my opinion.  First off, the online web articles are Mike being allowed to play, they are not official.

I like the changes to the Rust Monster.  Mike nailed it right on the head, the Rust Monster is supposed to be an encounter and NOT THE GAME STOPPING THING THAT IT IS.  I doubt the point of an adventure is to stop the terrible Rust Monster from eating Home Depot...but to stop the evil priest before completing the Ritual of Doom and so forth.  A Rust Monster's power to destroy Ferrous items, including Magic Items, means it is more a menance to high level groups than low.  If I as 2nd level character lose my Longsword and my Banded Mail to the Rust Monster...it sucks, it is inconvienet....but the next humanoid we kill will probably yield replacements,(and it the wildly different dungeon design build of many 1e monsters entirely likely).  However as an 8th level character, how upset as a player am I going to be when a bad save results in the Mithral Large Spiked shield the player used Armor Smithing skills to create, and had his Druid partymate enchanct with Craft Arms/and Armor.  As a DM, I am loath to destroy cherised magic items on a monster that is nothing more than an encounter, and not likely to be a plot point...especially as in my campaign at least 1/3 of the players loot is self created, and I do not throw a lot or "replacement" or "upgrade" items randomly into treasure hordes.  Items are important in any game, but the damage a Rust Monster does  in destroying magic items is incalculably more destructive than mere hit points to high level players.  Lets face it many players would rather die and be raised than lose a magic item.

The Ogre Magi is poorely designed.  I have used the MM1 Ogre Magi as a CR 5 creature, that is what it's HP really peg it at, and let me tell you, using the Cone of Cold was scary, TPK with a good roll scary, it is realisticaly too much against a 5th level party.  The creature can use some tweaking.  Mearls, made a nice Ogre Ninja, and I would use that creature, but it needs some charming power.

The CR system I think is fine for non combat abilities as well, just keep the the abilities in line.  CR becomes a measure of what "the roll needs to be".  A Diplomat adversary might only have 4 HP, but Might have a Bluff Modifier +10 against a 3rd level party for a CR 3 encounter...as challenging as an Ogre but in a different way.


----------



## painandgreed (Jul 25, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Consider a 1 HD monster with a death attack. If you look at it, you must make a Fortitude save or die. The problem with this monster is that it has a glass jaw. There's no interest in the actual combat - it's just a coin-flip. Heads, you win. Tails, you die. That's bad design.




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. A little poking with a stick and some fire and the threat was usually avoided. It may be have been a coin toss but the toss was easy to weight heavily in your favor if you were prepared and had some wits. Reducing all challenges to "actual combat" is bad design for an RPG. It makes for a boring, uninspired RPG even if its a good miniatures wargame.

The design philosophy I seem to be detecting that I have issues with is the desire to make "balance" the overriding factor. Things are being designed for CR rather than designed and having an appropriate CR assigned to them. Balance and CR are nice tools to have, but they should not be primary design criteria. They might be design primary design criteria for some or even most monsters, but others also need to be provided to keep things interesting, keep characters thinking, and provide the one trick ponies to keep things from becoming a neverending grind of losing CR appropriate levels of resources, healing, repeat.


----------



## Mad Mac (Jul 25, 2006)

> Also, it is a matter of whether you only count the fighting as the encounter, not the discovery of a monster in human (or whatever guise), the various charmed folks it might have helping it, etc. . .




Charmed...person. Sorry, but this just seems to keep popping up. As written, the Ogre Mage can only charm a single person for a few hours for a single day, and can only disguise itself for a few minutes each day. If you go back to the 3.0 version, it's charm abilities are just as limited, though it can keep up a disguise for longer. 

(Keep in mind though, that the Ogre Mage isn't a doppleganger. He's no genius with mind-reading skills or domination spamming Vampire or even any social skills that are going to create an effective disguise. He can only change his form)

  Incidently, I've got no grude with the rot grub. It is basically an organic trap though, like green slime.


----------



## el-remmen (Jul 25, 2006)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Charmed...person. Sorry, but this just seems to keep popping up. As written, the Ogre Mage can only charm a single person for a few hours for a single day,




Yeah, you're right - the specific example is a bad one - though if I were gonna change the ogre mage (which I would/will if/when I included one) i would make charm person into charm monster.

Also, your social skills don't need to be so great if you are just assuming a generic form as opposed to someone specific, in terms of fooling the average person.

Hmm, that is another issue - should every monster's abilities be assumed to have to be useful against equivalent CR group it might face?  Is it enough that a monster might be good at tricking and bilking the townsfolk, but not as good (in terms of that strategy) against adventurers?


----------



## satori01 (Jul 25, 2006)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Don't mean to single out MerricB, because quite a few people have made this statement - and while it is totally possible I don't see that being the norm in an encounter with an ogre magi (as written) unless the DM is having it just jump in and fight toe-to-toe.
> 
> Also, it is a matter of whether you only count the fighting as the encounter, not the discovery of a monster in human (or whatever guise), the various charmed folks it might have helping it, etc. . .
> 
> I know I am beyond the average in terms of combat length in 3.xE - but I think making changes based on what happens in one or three rounds of combat is ill-advised.




You make good points, the Ogre Mage as written is a good infliltrator and hit and run artist....unortunately the flavor text of the creature and it's skill points do not support that.  A Vampire can fullfill much the same role as  Ogre Magi, and I think is a bit hardier in combat to boot.


----------



## Rothe (Jul 25, 2006)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Rothe
> 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.
> 
> 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






> You can't surprise it if you didn't see it first. Who is likely to be surprised, you or the creature that can change its appearance? How do you know it's coming? How do you know it's hostile?



So its tough is that the problem?  There are no ways to counter invisibility to give you an edge besides magic?  Yes you are going to need to prepare, use intelligence gathering, where is it, who is it disguising itself as.  You will need to investigate and not just rush in.  Are these things easy, no.  Do they take planning and care, yes.  Is it something men have been doing for millenia, certainly.  Read Sun Tzu, advanced knowledge is everything.  Fighting on ground of your choosing or prepared ground is everything.  These are the things the OM requires, not brute force.  My point was there is nothing wrong with having a monster where brute force is not the best option, not that brute force does not have a place in a D&D adventure.




> Quote:
> attack from range






> Is melee not valid? Wow, that fencer concept gets trashed.



You know I didn't say that.  These are the many options to brute force melee.  The counter snarky remark: is ranged attack not valid?  Wow, that archer just got trashed.  The assumption in the design philosophy that every encounter should be amenable to straight up melee is exactly what raises concerns.  Maybe this is bad if the whole idea of combined arms and a balanced party, able to attack by ranged, melee or magic gets thrown out the window.  



> Quote:
> trick it into burning that cone of cold






> Without metagaming, you don't know its abilities. Even if you make your Knowledge check, it has a wide range of abilities, so you might not know it can cast Cone of Cold. (And it can move up on you invisible and then blast you with a Cone of Cold.)



What an assupmtion.  Maybe in the setting the characters don't know about OM.  But if they are fairly common there should be at least tales about what they can do.  Again, maybe this encounter takes brains, advanced knowledge.  If you recall, I said the OM makes a nice boss guy, he's not going to be the first encounter when you walk in the room, but set up so their is time for the party to get information if they decided.



> Quote:
> get some protection against that cold






> Ditto.



Ditto.



> Quote:
> have healing ready






> That always happens.



Well then if you have enough, getting wacked by a cone of cold is no problem.  The assumption seems to be the OM cone of cold is too powerful.  Implicit in that view is that he is too powerful for the healing that is normally carried.  Carry more then if your going to face this guy.



> Quote:
> make sure only your toughest fighter type faces it






> So if your party has a rogue, they're not allowed to go near it? Wow, that sounds like a lot of fun.



Again you know I didn't say that nor is it the logical consequence of what I said.  I listed one of many non-brute force strategies.  One is that your fighter might be able to take the full brunt of the cone of cold while others may not.  A logical tactic is then to try to get the OM to burn their one cone of cold on that guy.  Meanwhile the rogue is sneaking up from behind.  

But if your looking for the snarky reply:  Your right, wow, if not every class is equally adept at toe-to-toe combat and they all don't have the same hit points that's not fun.  I guess the whole class system is not fun where some classes are better at sneaking, others at magic and yet others at toe-to-toe melee and taking larger amounts of damage. 



> Quote:
> 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.






> A monster is supposed to be easy for an equal CR fight, regardless of how it's defeated. I would give the PCs bonus XP if they beat it "smart", though. This is in addition to other advantages (eg taking less damage, using up less healing, etc).



You just stated the assumption: easy no matter how defeated even if just by walk in the room and start swinging.  Thus, it should always be easy to defeat by brute force with little or no advanced knowledge.  Yet it can be defeated by brute force, it is just going to really hurt your party requiring extra healing.  Again, I position him as the BBEG for the party.  Are not the end encounters supposed to be more difficult?  But that gets off what my posts are about, its not about appropriate CR, EL etc., it was about a design philosophy that might say there is no place for a glass-jawed monster with a one use death attack. 



> If your players never use cool tactics, this is a problem with the players and DMs, not a problem with the monster.




Ahhh then end with the thinly disguised insult.  Man, we've never exchanged posts before and you end with this?  You somehow think that becasue I like the idea of a monster that requires a little more than brute force to take down easily I must be missing the use of non-brute force this from my game or players?  Quite the opposite, that's why we've never had a problem with one shot death dealing monsters. 

Did I say I had a problem with the monster?  I recall I said I like the new OM.  It's the problem with the design philosophy.  Admittedly we only have two samples from WotC, but I think there is a place for a glass-jawed monster and explained where and why.  My concern is that the philosophy presented becomes the only design philosophy.  I agree that the new OM is a better toe-to-toe foe and feel that a majority of the encounters should have toe-to-toe as a good option.  




> Quote:
> 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.






> Isn't that called a mage? I think an ogre mage should be tougher than that. Otherwise, why bother making it an ogre?



If the use of an original OM as I describe is already filled by another creature, well maybe it is a duplicative creature and needs to be redefined to expand the list of options.  No problem.  But that other creature then just fills the glass-jawed one shot killer spell role I discussed.  I can always say it's called an ogre mage with emphasis on the mage and the view that mages have a limited number of deadly spells but if you can close in with them they go down easy.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 25, 2006)

satori01 said:
			
		

> I doubt the point of an adventure is to stop the terrible Rust Monster from eating Home Depot...




haha... that sounds like a bizarely awesome plot for a X-Filesesque Modern adventure...


----------



## Rothe (Jul 25, 2006)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> I think I like the ogre mage redesign overall, but I do think that the game should have some monsters with a glass jaw, for dungeon design reasons.
> 
> Sometimes, it's good to have a known bad guy that the PCs have a strong reason to sneak up on, rather than confronting openly.  Giving that creature a strong offensive power, but weak defense, is a good way of accomplishing that.
> 
> ...



Quoted because this is all I'm trying to say, just not so well.


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 25, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 25, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 25, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> 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.







			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 25, 2006)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## Talath (Jul 25, 2006)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 25, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 25, 2006)

Talath said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 25, 2006)

Rothe said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 25, 2006)

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 (Jul 25, 2006)

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


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 25, 2006)

BluSponge said:
			
		

> 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....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.



QFT.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 25, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> 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.



Because there are enough situations where the monster can no longer control wether it fights to the death or not. Since you can't use Diplomacy against PCs, all the talk in the walk and all your hidden knowledge cannot avoid that the PCs want to kill you and can ensure that you can't get away, unless you beat them to death. 

That doesn't mean that a monster generally can't try to escape its death, and that a DM shouldn't use that option. But if CR is supposed to have a meaning, you have to measure it to a standard baseline. If you change the parameters of the fight to something unusual, you might want to change the Encounter Level and modify the XP award accordingly. 

Maybe the next edition will have multiple challenge ratings listed, depending on "purpose": Combat CR, Social CR, Mastermind CR and so on. But, honestly, I doubt it.


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 25, 2006)

BluSponge said:
			
		

> 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?
> 
> ...
> 
> 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.




Well said. 

-The Gneech


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 25, 2006)

What we really need are Grim Tales-like skull ratings for complicated mobs.  One-skull = 10d6, save for none; Two-skull, 10d6, save for half, Three-skull, save-or-die, etc.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jul 25, 2006)

I don't know what the best method for a CR system is.

But I'd dislike it if all monsters were built for Kick-in-the-Door style play.  One of the best things about monsters is that they can be used to teach new players different tactics.  The old "learning by example", so players aren't bowled over with superior play by smarter monsters.  This is especially true at high levels when creatures have multiple options effective against the PCs.  Maybe foes like the Ogre Magi, Dragons, and Mindflayers could have Strategies written in their MM entry in place of the round-by-round Tactics?

This holds doubly true for spells and spell-likes.  I agree with Belen above that most have lost their utility outside the 30-second combat.  Instead of fun play with long durations (a spur for creative strategy), each has been relegated to round-by-round play only.


----------



## eyebeams (Jul 25, 2006)

The only problem I see is that most of these developments are based on the needs of single encounters instead of multiple encounters or game sessions. The Orge Mage redesign was great for a single tactical encounter, but it didn't cover abilities meant to lead people to ambushes and the like. The classic ogre mage encounter is really where the disguised O-M charms a party member and leads everyone into a trap set by their dumb, standard ogre cousins.

Unfortunately, there's a tendency to favour single encounters because it's easier to judge a design based on that than any other criterion. Other considerations are "soft" development skills that were deemphasized in favour of balance based on hard mathematical and design principles. We now know, of course, that many of these "fact-based" designs involved a wee bit more guesstimation that previously thought.

I think that the best solution might be to go the other way around. Design monsters, items and so forth for raw single-encounter qualities *first*, then elaborate the design to include other factors. Certainly, I like the Ogre Mage redesign as a starting piont better than the original.


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 25, 2006)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Maybe foes like the Ogre Magi, Dragons, and Mindflayers could have Strategies written in their MM entry in place of the round-by-round Tactics?



Good idea.

*Mark CMG* suggested that educating game masters was a better approach than simplifying monsters as combat engines, and I concur.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 25, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> 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?




Nah, but how about a properly leveled character?

Lets have a look at Sorcerer X. Sorcerer X has a great Charisma (18/+4), a good Dexterity (16/+3), a mediocre Strength (11/0) and an above-average Constitution (12/+1). His spells known are (without 0 level spells) 4/2/1, and his spells per day are 7/6/4. He has 6d4+6 hit points, which averages out to 21 hit points. For some reason, he also has taken the necessary feat to handle a Greatsword. His spells known are
_1st: Mage Armor, Charm Person, Sleep, Enlarge
2nd: Darkness, Alter Self
3rd: Lightning Bolt_
We'll be nice and hand him a _Ring of Invisibility_ (which is roughly 7000 gp above his recommended wealth by level, but we're in a generous mood  ).

Now this is a CR 6 encounter. Of course, it's just the bare bones, there are 3 feats missing, one attribute raise, a familiar, and a handful of skills. Feel free to stat him out as you wish. But it still is a valid CR 6 encounter. Of course, also feel free to point out any errors I made by pulling this out of thin air.  

Now add to that Regeneration 2, Spell Resistance 18, 10 points of Strength, Flight ability and 16 hit points, +4 melee attack bonus. On the other hand, change the _Charm, Darkness & Sleep_ to once per day, as well as the 6d6x4 _Lightning Bolt_ to a 9d6x1 _Cone of Cold_, the _Alter Self_ to a _Polymorph Self_ 1/day, and dump _Magic Armor & Enlarge_ because they are not needed, and you will arrive *roughly* where the 3E Ogre Mage is.

Now, the question is, do the changes make the Ogre Mage only a CR 6 encounter, comparable to Sorcerer X, or do the additions make it a higher-CR encounter?

And yeah, a CR 1 creature with _Power Word Death_ would be silly...except if it's a cleric with the _Death_ domain, who at first level can walk around killing the average commoner simply by touching him.  

And the overarching point in all this? How well is the CR system really balanced, then, and should all design center around a CR fitting to a few-rounds long combat, or maybe try to incorporate more factors than "how well does it measure up to a standard adventurer group in physical combat"?


----------



## Treebore (Jul 25, 2006)

I viewed the CR system as tool to use until I figured out 3E well enough to balance the encounters myself.

Besides it isn't as if the CR system can account for every variation of party size, composition, and magic items possessed. Its always going to need the DM to figure out how to balance things eventually.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jul 25, 2006)

Balance defined from a combat-centric perspective is not exactly new.  A number of peculiarities of 1e magic balance go away if you assume that PCs spend most of their time kicking in dungeon doors.  For example, 1e long duration Invisibility is campaign-world bending if played to the hilt (Wizard/Thieves would be swimming in ill-gotten lucre!) but is a reasonable 2nd level spell in a combat heavy game because it is primarily defensive.


----------



## Vanye (Jul 25, 2006)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Hell, even identify went from 8 hours to cast to 1 hour from 3e to 3.5.  I guess WOTC thought that was an undue burden too!?




Identify is one of those spells where everyone wants to benefit from it, but it's such a resource hog (that resource being time) that it sucks.  2nd Ed did best with the long duration (8 hrs casting time, but you could identify 1 property/level, as I recall), but lots of parties don't want to sit in the big baddies lair for three days while you try and identify all the items as worth the time.

A 1 hr casting time is much more manageable.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 25, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

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




I cut my teeth on those same monsters... And even then I thought that was kind of wonky. I just didn't think Run from Spiders was that great of a game.  I agree with the "nerf." it allows low level characters to have a chance to do those heroic things without waiting for a lucky lotto pc that manages to survive... 

In any case yeah, it IS what the monster does with it's abilities that is important. But I'm not going to let myself or my adventure ideas be locked into whatever is written in the MM! 

Really, the only time I need the stats from that book is when the monster is in combat. Why the heck else would I need a collection of numbers and math problems???  

If I wanted my BBEG to be a base Kobold that somehow managed to gain a crud load of followers that he uses to thwart the PC's attempts to find and defeat him, it doesn't make the Kobold a higher CR.  It's only a problem with the CR system if you for some reason fail to give the PCs credit for the rest of the things they did to get there. The adventure may have been super tough, but the Kobold himself is a wuss, and a low CR. He  surrounds himself with tough things to account for it sure, but he's still a wuss. The adventure as a whole, however, makes up for it.


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 25, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> I cut my teeth on those same monsters... And even then I thought that was kind of wonky. I just didn't think Run from Spiders was that great of a game.  I agree with the "nerf." it allows low level characters to have a chance to do those heroic things without waiting for a lucky lotto pc that manages to survive...



And I think the danger that even a large spider presented offered an opportunity for the players to use creative tactics instead of expecting to go toe-to-toe with everything.







			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> In any case yeah, it IS what the monster does with it's abilities that is important. But I'm not going to let myself or my adventure ideas be locked into whatever is written in the MM!
> 
> Really, the only time I need the stats from that book is when the monster is in combat. Why the heck else would I need a collection of numbers and math problems???
> 
> If I wanted my BBEG to be a base Kobold that somehow managed to gain a crud load of followers that he uses to thwart the PC's attempts to find and defeat him, it doesn't make the Kobold a higher CR.  It's only a problem with the CR system if you for some reason fail to give the PCs credit for the rest of the things they did to get there. The adventure may have been super tough, but the Kobold himself is a wuss, and a low CR. He  surrounds himself with tough things to account for it sure, but he's still a wuss. The adventure as a whole, however, makes up for it.



See, I find this a bit wonky - a base kobold gathering a collection of mininons strains my credulity. A kobold with a few bard levels and maxed Diplomacy ranks on the other hand...

Then again, I actually take the time to stat monsters and NPCs for just this reason. I like to have a handle on how the adversaries stack up against the adventurers mechanically, instead of waving my hands and shouting, "Plot device!"


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 25, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> And I think the danger that even a large spider presented offered an opportunity for the players to use creative tactics instead of expecting to go toe-to-toe with everything.




It also allowed the characters/players to experience some sense of growth and accomplishment.   The 'Lol -- remember when we had to run from an orc!' comments after wiping out your first giant were a lot of fun, I thought.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jul 25, 2006)

The old-style poison rules were on their own neither intrisically good nor bad.   The wonkiness came in by tacking a very random death-dealing mechanic on top of a system for which it is practically a defining characteristic that a butterknife-wielding naked hero trapped in a blind alley could plausibly fight his way through 20 1st level thugs armed with crossbows and swords.

Adding a layer of phoney-baloney "realism" on top of a system intended to be unrealistic is just sloppy design.  5% chance of death from a gerbil-sized spider is not macho.  It is laughable.

I am always game for playing with realistic mortality rates.  But if that is desirable, then why are we even discussing D&D?  There are plenty of other game systems better suited for the purpose.

When I play D&D, I am at the table to enjoy for what the D&D game system is good at.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 25, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



Agreed all round, here.

One or two points, from reading the thread:

Identify was designed as a time-consuming spell with the intent, I think, that it *not* be cast in the field...you wait till you're back in town sorting out your treasury, and cast it then.  I also dislike the 3e nerfing where you only get one basic property of an item, and need a *6th-level* spell to do the job right (3.5 might have changed this again, I've no idea).

The idea of players preferring death over item loss reminds me of days of old when players preferred death over level loss...so level loss in 3e was greatly watered down.  So was item loss, come to that, at least to some extent...  For my part, I see items as a transient thing...you find 'em, you break 'em (sometimes with dire consequences), you find some more, and on you go. 

Lanefan


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 25, 2006)

A defining characteristic of the game (up until 3.5) had always been 'high level characters are gods among men, but there is still that possibility of getting your ass handed to you by certain things'.  'Certain things' could be a mage with 'disintegrate', a mindflayer that sucks your brain, etc.

In 1.x or 3.x, a 20th level butterknife wielding fighter  still going to mow through the mooks.  The question is, in the future will he have *anything* to fear?


----------



## Scribble (Jul 25, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> And I think the danger that even a large spider presented offered an opportunity for the players to use creative tactics instead of expecting to go toe-to-toe with everything.See, I find this a bit wonky - a base kobold gathering a collection of mininons strains my credulity. A kobold with a few bard levels and maxed Diplomacy ranks on the other hand...  Then again, I actually take the time to stat monsters and NPCs for just this reason. I like to have a handle on how the adversaries stack up against the adventurers mechanically, instead of waving my hands and shouting, "Plot device!"




I have no problem with using creative tactics to get around it. But if something is an instant kill it should reward you as such...

As for the Kobold, I probably would too. I'm simply saying that just because in the MM the Kobold doesn't have Diplomacy or Bard powers, doesn't mean it can only ever be used to hold a short spear.

Monsters in the MM aren't real. They obviously exist in our imagination. The stats from the book are there simply for when your imagined thing needs to interact with the PCs imagined things. Aside from direct interaction that a monster is limited only by what your imagined concept wants it to do.

Hell maybe said Kobold just somehow managed to gain access to the right horde of gold, bought a few henchmen to deal with the everyday world, and no one knows it's a Kobold to begin with!


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 25, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> The idea of players preferring death over item loss reminds me of days of old when players preferred death over level loss...so level loss in 3e was greatly watered down.  So was item loss, come to that, at least to some extent...




The thing (IME) that players hated about level-loss wasn't the lost XP, per se, since XP (like items) are an infinite resource.  The thing that hurt was losing levels *relative to the rest of the party*.

I think for most things, permanent stat-drain could serve the same purpose that level-drain used to.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 25, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Hell maybe said Kobold just somehow managed to gain access to the right horde of gold, bought a few henchmen to deal with the everyday world, and no one knows it's a Kobold to begin with!



You do realize that kobold has been prophesized as leading the kobold tribe to the promised land?  Of course, they follow him, even though he's a complete do-nothing (what the tribe doesn't know is that he'll lead them to their deaths, thus the "promised land").


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 25, 2006)

Mercule said:
			
		

> What I don't like are some of the odd decisions that seem to be made on some things.  Monsters is a wonderful example.  I've complained about it elsewhere, but I loathe the notion that monsters (demons, esp.) should have some of their redundant or extraneous special abilities culled, just because they're not useful or convenient in combat.  :vomit:




Bingo....that's a major problem I have with the new philosophy.  It's so focused on the "run into the dungeon, walk, fight, walk, fight, walk, fight, rest, repeat" type scenario, that everything extraneous to that is excised.

Look at Eladrins...in 2nd. Ed. they had all that stuff about Veil.  It was a cultural explanation for having a spell-like ability, Alter Self, that was 2nd lvl.  But in 3E, Alter Self isn't much use in a fight and AFAIK, it was removed from most of the breeds of Eladrin, which in turn causes the entire nature of the race to be changed.

The "Forget" spell....great spell, very flavourful, and useful...but it doesn't involve blowing things up, or tactical advantage on a battlefield, and as a result, we no longer have it.

Paladins have the presto-horse....."get your instant mount, just add water!" because, well, a horse is difficult to bring into a dungeon.  Well, now you have the prospect of the horse "expiring" while the paladin is riding him, because the duration expires...or the paladin uses him in the morning to get to the dungeon, dismisses him, then leaves the dungeon later that day, and can't summon the horse a second time, so has to walk back to town.  Or what happens if his camping gear, or some other important item was in the mount's saddle-bags. The paladin dismisses him, and now needs the item....he's stuck waiting until tomorrow.  In addition, it causes other quirks....the paladin no longer needs a squire, or someone to guard his horse, and watch the campsite outside of the dungeon....a central role of followers and hirelings.  No longer needed.

Hold Person.....now opponents get one save every round.  So your third level spell, which takes an action to cast,  might hold your opponent for one round.....because it's "no fun" for a player to have to wait through multiple rounds with his character helpless.  Sure, that sucks....but that's one reason that clerics and mages in the party would have to justify memorizing Freedom, Dispel Magic, etc. 

There are a tonne of changes that this whole mentality to design cause with respect to how the game "feels" that have really been bothering me.

I could keep going, but I'm a little disturbed.  The more I've been running 3E games, the more I'm realizing that I'm preferring alternate D20 or OGL rules....like Conan, A Game of Thrones, BCCS, etc. that get rid of a lot of the "cheese" factor/dungeon mentality that's been creeping into the game, especially since the arrival of 3.5.

Banshee


----------



## Scribble (Jul 25, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> You do realize that kobold has been prophesized as leading the kobold tribe to the promised land?  Of course, they follow him, even though he's a complete do-nothing (what the tribe doesn't know is that he'll lead them to their deaths, thus the "promised land").





Grrr yip yip growlll gryaaarrrip ip ip! - Neo you are the one!

Grrr yi yip yiiiiir grri ri ri yyip yip- whoa.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 25, 2006)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> But the hard part isn't running the Vrocks.  It's keeping track of all the player character crap, and the inordinate amount of time that can (and some say needs to) be spent tweaking out NPCs with gear, class levels, whatever.
> 
> Of all the things to put effort into simplifying, oddball monsters is about the last thing to worry about.




I find making encounters with monsters easy.....balancing and creating NPCs with character races and classes?  That's where my time gets taken up.....there are so many options, all the tracking and calculating of skill points, synergy bonuses, feat ability requirements etc.

In my swashbuckling campaign, 90% of the opponents are humans of varying stripes....and it just takes so long, because the opponents all have character levels, etc.

Banshee


----------



## Kerrick (Jul 25, 2006)

> And the overarching point in all this? How well is the CR system really balanced, then, and should all design center around a CR fitting to a few-rounds long combat, or maybe try to incorporate more factors than "how well does it measure up to a standard adventurer group in physical combat"?




See, that's the problem - monsters are being balanced against a party of iconics, and that's the wrong way to do it. Does _anyone_ play that party? No - they play a wide range of classes, stat-generation systems (I find it amusing that the iconics use arrays and point-buy, but the standard generation is 4d6, drop the low die), and variant rulesets. You can't possibly hope to balance a creature if you're working against that. Monsters should be balanced against themselves - their stats should be rated on their own merits, and a straight-up CR given. The DM can then adjust it on the fly for the difficulty of the encounter - a rust monster vs. a fighter in an arena is one thing, but a rust monster vs. a fighter in a 10 x 10 room with locked doors is another thing entirely.




> When I play D&D, I am at the table to enjoy for what the D&D game system is good at.




Which is...? (I'm not trying to be snarky here, just wondering what your opinion is).




> The idea of players preferring death over item loss reminds me of days of old when players preferred death over level loss...so level loss in 3e was greatly watered down. So was item loss, come to that, at least to some extent... For my part, I see items as a transient thing...you find 'em, you break 'em (sometimes with dire consequences), you find some more, and on you go.




I think level loss was so feared partly because it was permenent, and partly because restoration was a 7th-level spell - nigh unto inaccessible to the average party, or, if it was, it cost a fortune to get an NPC to cast it. Now that you can restore levels with a L4 spell, they should keep the "permanent level drain" thing - instead of nerfing just one part of that problem, they nerfed two, and made it so no one fears level drain anymore.



> In 1.x or 3.x, a 20th level butterknife wielding fighter still going to mow through the mooks. The question is, in the future will he have *anything* to fear?




Exactly. This is my big gripe with the new design philosophy - it's become too PC-friendly. We can't endanger the PCs too much, or the players won't have fun. While I agree - somewhat (getting rid of save or die poisons was a good move) - you can't get rid of every threat to the PCs, or the game becomes little more than the players mowing over everything and moving on to the next challenge.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 25, 2006)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> 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. A little poking with a stick and some fire and the threat was usually avoided. It may be have been a coin toss but the toss was easy to weight heavily in your favor if you were prepared and had some wits. Reducing all challenges to "actual combat" is bad design for an RPG. It makes for a boring, uninspired RPG even if its a good miniatures wargame.




Rot Grub isn't save or die. After infestation with the rot grub, you can apply flame to the wound and kill it. (Painful, but it works). I rather like them, myself.

Poisonous spiders aren't save or die either. They must (a) enter melee, (b) hit you and (c) you must fail a save. These are factors that allow good tactics.

An Ogre Mage flies in invisibly and casts cone of cold. For most parties, they won't be able to detect the invisibility at this point (if they can, the OM is dead). Against a party of the proper CR for what the OM's hp and AC imply - level 3 or 4 - then someone dies, possibly even if they make their save.

What's particularly bad about the OM is that it then can't do anything else. At all. 

Well, ok - they can _charm person_. Once. They have a pathetic melee attack bonus (+7? That's bad). They have a useless ranged attack bonus (+2!) Whee.

From the text: "Ogre mages rely on their spell-like abilities, resorting to physical combat only when necessary." 

Huh? Like, after the first round?

I've never found it difficult to kill PCs in 3e. I've done it again, and again, and again. Melee against giants and similar high-strength monsters can be brutal. A dragonspawn arcaniss hitting the party with three fireballs in a row tends to show who has a good Reflex save and who is charcoal. Anyone who thinks 3e isn't dangerous has had a very kind DM.

If I were to use a ogre magi for the BBEG of an adventure (much like I'd use a mind flayer, or an evil wizard), the final combat would involve a lot of charmed minions throwing themselves in front of the PCs, allowing the ogre magi to sit back and taunt the PCs and use its abilities on them...

Oh wait. It doesn't have any after the ice storm. A mind flayer creates a memorable last encounter as it actually does something against the PCs. So does the evil wizard. The Ogre Mage, despite looking scary, just runs away.

Cheers!


----------



## Scribble (Jul 25, 2006)

Kerrick said:
			
		

> See, that's the problem - monsters are being balanced against a party of iconics, and that's the wrong way to do it. Does _anyone_ play that party? No - they play a wide range of classes, stat-generation systems (I find it amusing that the iconics use arrays and point-buy, but the standard generation is 4d6, drop the low die), and variant rulesets. You can't possibly hope to balance a creature if you're working against that. Monsters should be balanced against themselves - their stats should be rated on their own merits, and a straight-up CR given. The DM can then adjust it on the fly for the difficulty of the encounter - a rust monster vs. a fighter in an arena is one thing, but a rust monster vs. a fighter in a 10 x 10 room with locked doors is another thing entirely.




The CR system isn't a set in stone use this number or WOTC will come get you... The CR rules already do this. It already tells you to adjust for situational modifiers. 

What do you mean rated on their own merrits? How do you judge what a power level is unless you have something to balance it against? That would be like telling somone it's 4 inches long without ever showing them a ruler.

The CR systems says this Monster is this powerfull against the classes and powers offered in the core rules. The core party becomes your ruler.  If you decide to change the party to something not balanced to the core, you can, but you will need to adjust CR to match. 





> Exactly. This is my big gripe with the new design philosophy - it's become too PC-friendly. We can't endanger the PCs too much, or the players won't have fun. While I agree - somewhat (getting rid of save or die poisons was a good move) - you can't get rid of every threat to the PCs, or the game becomes little more than the players mowing over everything and moving on to the next challenge.





I don't really agree with this. There are plenty of challenges in the game. People still die from fireballs and swords and poisons and arrows and dragons and all sortsa stuff.

They're just cutting back on the number of things that are based soley on luck of the drawl and not the power or strategy of your character.


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 25, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Rot Grub isn't save or die. After infestation with the rot grub, you can apply flame to the wound and kill it. (Painful, but it works). I rather like them, myself.
> 
> Poisonous spiders aren't save or die either. They must (a) enter melee, (b) hit you and (c) you must fail a save. These are factors that allow good tactics.



Well, if we're going to parse this closely, the ogre mage's _cone of cold_ isn't save or die either - the ogre mage must target the adventurers within the _cone_ and the adventurers get a save. Depending on hit points, they may survive the _cone of cold_ without or without making their save, though it may be fairly punishing.

How is this different from a 5th level wizard casting _fireball_?

And since we're getting particularly persnickety, what about the party members with magic or class abilities that provide protection from cold?







			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> A mind flayer creates a memorable last encounter as it actually does something against the PCs. So does the evil wizard. The Ogre Mage, despite looking scary, just runs away.



And comes back again with new minions, and in a different guise...again...and again...until the adventurers reach a point where they can stop him...at which point he says, "Before you kill me, remember the maguffin you've been searching for? I know where it is...."

Yeah, *MerricB*, you're right - what a boring monster... :\


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jul 25, 2006)

Kerrick said:
			
		

> Exactly. This is my big gripe with the new design philosophy - it's become too PC-friendly. We can't endanger the PCs too much, or the players won't have fun. While I agree - somewhat (getting rid of save or die poisons was a good move) - you can't get rid of every threat to the PCs, or the game becomes little more than the players mowing over everything and moving on to the next challenge.




The assertion, raised again and again, that the new design philosophy intends to eliminate all danger is a red herring.  As I see it the goal is to make the risks inherent to a particular challenge understandable and more predictable to the DM.  The DM always has control over the level of danger _if_ the designers give him the tools with which to do so.

I concede there is some degree of loss of variability and flavor from streamlining a monster that is not unambiguously a good thing, even if I support the approach overall.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 25, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Yeah, *MerricB*, you're right - what a boring monster... :\




I think a lot of the flavor you see, you're injecting yourself. That macguffin thing, for instance, can be done by anybody.


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 25, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I think a lot of the flavor you see, you're injecting yourself. That macguffin thing, for instance, can be done by anybody.



It could also be done without magic and without monsters at all.

Flavor matters.


----------



## Brian Gibbons (Jul 25, 2006)

Kerrick said:
			
		

> See, that's the problem - monsters are being balanced against a party of iconics, and that's the wrong way to do it.



I'm perplexed as to what the other options would be.  Are you saying you would prefer that creatures be balanced against some random undisclosed non-standard party?

Telling me that a creature is perfectly balanced for a group that, say, doesn't have any divine casters or is fighter-heavy is worthless.

If I'm running a group that deviates significantly from the baseline, the baseline information is still useful.  It gives me a starting point that I can use to determine how I need to modify the creature or the encounter.  If I don't know what the baseline is, then the information tells me nothing.  Saying that a creature is a good challenge for a group of four random character classes that the designer happened to be thinking about (but probably won't tell me) is worse than useless.


----------



## painandgreed (Jul 25, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> What's particularly bad about the OM is that it then can't do anything else. At all.




Right, but what they should have done is given it Charm Monster (perhaps at will) or Mass Charm Monster (once per day). Plus maybe a Suggestion per day. The Polymorph stuff was already fixed in the errata.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 26, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> It could also be done without magic and without monsters at all.
> 
> Flavor matters.




Flavor matters. The revised Ogre Mage has more flavor than the 3.5 Ogre Mage. I'm failing to see the problem.

EDIT: Personally, I wouldn't have taken it this way (I would have gone the BBEG route), but its still better than what's in the 3.5 MM, so I can't fault him. In the end, he imroved the monster.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 26, 2006)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> Right, but what they should have done is given it Charm Monster (perhaps at will) or Mass Charm Monster (once per day). Plus maybe a Suggestion per day. The Polymorph stuff was already fixed in the errata.




That wouldn't be a bad idea, actually, and I support the addition of such magic.

One of the reasons I like the redesign is this Ogre Mage, with a +10 bonus to Strength, actually now has a melee presence. What I _don't_ like is that its magical abilities seem too reduced - adding a charm, suggestion or dominate power would go a long way to mitigating that.

Cheers!


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jul 26, 2006)

To my mind, there are two morally equal methods of revising what I considered a problematic monster -- pare it down to a lower CR critter with better focus, or beef it up to make it a meaty CR ~8 critter.

Mearls chose the first, and did a good job IMO.  I have nothing against someone attempting the second option.  

Suggestion and Charm Monster are a very promising start.  I tend to think that CoC once per day is a bit hokey, and probably should be traded in.  I would put forward Glitterdust 3/day as a fey feeling spell which would make a battle with the O-M's minions more challenging.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 26, 2006)

Ok, I'm interjecting now.

Mearl's two monster redux so far have taken a monster with a unique power (rust) and a non-unique niche (oni ogre) and tried to make them both "fairer" to players. I'll address each seperately.

Rusty: I actually agree with Mearls here. There are some monsters (Bodak, Rust Monster, basilisk) that are one-trick ponies. They make there super attack (death gaze, _dispel full plate_) then they get walloped until death by the surviving members. Its kinda like attrition; we won at the cost of Bob's armor or Bob's life. 

Rustly suffers for all the reason's Mearl's pointed out. You put one in a room as an encounter. The fighter charges in. BAMO! No more +1 full plate. Now the fighter spends the rest of the dungeon naked or in some back-up chainmail taken from orcs in the next room OR you leave the dungeon to buy new armor cuz its alot cheaper to buy full plate than it is to ressurect the fighter after the orc barbarian crit-power attacks his naked butt. 

It REALLY hurts when the mage just spent how much XP to enchant that +1 full plate?

We used to use rust monsters to remove unwanted (read too powerful) magical gear from the game. If the Dm used a RM, we knew SOMEONE's sword was too powerful... Now, we could use them without stopping game to re-armor the fighter.

OGRE MAGE: Not so sure on this. I agree the OM is kinda weak and hodge-podge, but I don't like the remake. I'd rather they took him back to his asian mythic roots rather than the "ogre .2" method. That said, the monster Mearls made is nice and not a bad beastie, just not what I'd want in an OM.


----------



## painandgreed (Jul 26, 2006)

If our DM used a rust monster to teach us something it was not to leap without looking and attack everything we ran across without preparation. Otherwise it was usually being used by intelligent creatures as a guard dog for either a place or non-metal dependant caster. I could agree that it could be re-written, but I just don't like what was done by Mr Mearls. He created brand new monsters and then gave them old names.

Far bigger problem is the ease that magical weapons are destroyed in D&D. I'd sooner beef up the amount of punishment that a +5 weapon could take before worrying about specific attacks it might suffer.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 26, 2006)

I don't think I've seen a group actually fight a rust monster in a decade. They just run away in terror.


----------



## Melan (Jul 26, 2006)

-------


----------



## monboesen (Jul 26, 2006)

> Hold Person.....now opponents get one save every round. So your third level spell, which takes an action to cast, might hold your opponent for one round.....because it's "no fun" for a player to have to wait through multiple rounds with his character helpless. Sure, that sucks....but that's one reason that clerics and mages in the party would have to justify memorizing Freedom, Dispel Magic, etc.




Are you serious?. Hold person was a 2nd level Cleric spell that essentially was a Save or Die spell. At the level it entered the game there was no counter against it, 3rd level casters can't cast Freedom or Dispel magic. And in a chaotic shifting melee it is not even sure your friendly spellcaster will even notice someone being held. That is one reason to change it (and characters with low will saves are likely to stay held for several rounds anyway). 

The other reason to change it is the exactly the fun factor. In our games combat takes time to play out. To be hit by a Hold person used to mean you might as well go stare at the wall for an hour or so, hoping something did not Coup de Grace you in the meantime. If you have shown up to an evenings (about 4 hours) of play, spending 1 of those hours doing nothing is really really unfun.

The third reason is that actions are the second most valuable currency in combat (the most valuable being HP). A low level spell stripping you of many rounds of action is exceedingly powerful.




> The "Forget" spell....great spell, very flavourful, and useful...but it doesn't involve blowing things up, or tactical advantage on a battlefield, and as a result, we no longer have it.




The Forget spell has been rolled into the Modify memory spell.



> I think level loss was so feared partly because it was permenent, and partly because restoration was a 7th-level spell - nigh unto inaccessible to the average party, or, if it was, it cost a fortune to get an NPC to cast it. Now that you can restore levels with a L4 spell, they should keep the "permanent level drain" thing - instead of nerfing just one part of that problem, they nerfed two, and made it so no one fears level drain anymore.




Again I'm compelled to ask if you are serious? Level drain is frigging deadly. Get hit by a Spectre, bam you take 10 hp damage (in addition to whatever damage the attack caused) and a -2 penalty to all important rolls (and incidently the Spectre gains 10 hp) at level 7 (where it is a standard challenge) your dead if it touches you 4 times. There is no save and few ways of getting resistance to level drain. All they did was changing focus from level drain being dangerous on the longer time scale and keeping it deadly on a short time scale.

As for it being less flavorful, in my game I decided that the save to determine whether the levels where lost permanently (you do realise you roll fortitude saves later to check that) happened exactly at midnight the following the day when the God of Death powers where the strongest. This lead players to desperately seek out churches , praying fervently to the God of Life and taking any possible measure to increase Fortitude saves. That was plenty flavorful to me.




> And comes back again with new minions, and in a different guise...again...and again...until the adventurers reach a point where they can stop him...at which point he says, "Before you kill me, remember the maguffin you've been searching for? I know where it is...."




This is simply good dm'ing and has nothing to do with the monster or it's CR. I don't think anyone here has suggested you shouldn't use such tactics, all we are saying is that the former OM CR is to high, because it was forced to flee due to it's inability to actually challenge the characters in combat (which is what CR is a measure of). 

I fail to see how changing a few powers and making it a better meleer (I actually think Mearl underestimated the revised OM CR) changes the way you run it. It can still do ecxactly what you described and if played like an intelligent (and maybe a bit cowardly foe) it would be it's natural way of operating.  

What I don't understand is where you think all these allies and minions of the OM come from. The monster has (or had) no social skills at all, a single use of charm person and the ability to change shape (but very little abiity to impersonate anyone).

Let's assume for a second that it somehow had the ability to repeatedly gain minions and use the to weaken the party. Would that change the CR. Yes for each ENCOUNTER, it would not change the OM CR at all. But as you calculate the CR of an encounter by including all the creatures opposed to the characters in that encounter, the total CR would be higher. 




> Exactly. This is my big gripe with the new design philosophy - it's become too PC-friendly. We can't endanger the PCs too much, or the players won't have fun. While I agree - somewhat (getting rid of save or die poisons was a good move) - you can't get rid of every threat to the PCs, or the game becomes little more than the players mowing over everything and moving on to the next challenge.




If you have a problem with challenging player (or even killing them) you are doing something wrong. D&D is plenty deadly still. It is just less random deadly, less chance of freak bad rolls killing you outright (until you hit high levels and high level spells). D&D today is more about winning by good tactics and team coorporation than it used to be. 

That is of course a direction you may or may not agree with. If you don't I think you will be better of with another game system.  




> If I'm running a group that deviates significantly from the baseline, the baseline information is still useful. It gives me a starting point that I can use to determine how I need to modify the creature or the encounter. If I don't know what the baseline is, then the information tells me nothing. Saying that a creature is a good challenge for a group of four random character classes that the designer happened to be thinking about (but probably won't tell me) is worse than useless.




QFT


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 26, 2006)

monboesen said:
			
		

> This is simply good dm'ing and has nothing to do with the monster or it's CR. I don't think anyone here has suggested you shouldn't use such tactics, all we are saying is that the former OM CR is to high, because it was forced to flee due to it's inability to actually challenge the characters in combat (which is what CR is a measure of).



Yes, you've made that point several times now - and you have my reply to it above. Shall we move on now?







			
				monboesen said:
			
		

> I fail to see how changing a few powers and making it a better meleer (I actually think Mearl underestimated the revised OM CR) changes the way you run it. It can still do ecxactly what you described and if played like an intelligent (and maybe a bit cowardly foe) it would be it's natural way of operating.



Really? Is that what Mike Mearls did?

Lessee...







			
				Monster Makeover: The Ogre Mage said:
			
		

> Given its link to ogres, it would serve well as a leader for those creatures.



The original ogre mage was not a "leader for ogres" - funny, there's no mention of that in the 1e _AD&D Monster Manual_, in either the entries for ogres or ogre magi. The only apparent connection between the two is that ogre magi speak their own language and that of ogres.

It's already been mentioned several times in one or the other thread that ogre magi are a representative example of oni, before a more detailed treatment was introduced to the game. "Boss Ogre" had nothing to do with the ogre mage.







			
				Monster Makeover: The Ogre Mage said:
			
		

> Now comes the ogre mage's offensive spell-like abilities. Sleep still has a HD limit, making it a poor choice against many parties. Charm person just clutters the list. The ogre mage rules by intimidation, not by magic.



The ogre mage's spell-like abilities aren't about offense at all - they are about guile and manipulation, about luring the unwitting or the careless to their doom. It has one truly offensive spell-like ability with which to effect a fair chunk of damage in a pinch - that's it.







			
				Monster Makeover: The Ogre Mage said:
			
		

> The ogre mage now has a clear place in the game. It leads ogres and other big, tough creatures, both as a mastermind and as a war leader in combat. Its abilities work best when it has allies around, and it is a shifty, difficulty to pin down target.



The ogre mage had a niche in the game - as a mid-level mastermind with a suite of cohesive abilities ideal for stealth, subtlety and surprise. It's too bad that Mike Mearls never got that - a monster makeover to restore the ogre mage's abilities nerfed by the edition change might've been really cool. Instead he strips away the abilities that made the ogre mage what it was and replaced them with more combat stuff, leaving us with a creature that is nothing like its forebears.







			
				monboesen said:
			
		

> What I don't understand is where you think all these allies and minions of the OM come from. The monster has (or had) no social skills at all, a single use of charm person and the ability to change shape (but very little abiity to impersonate anyone).



Unfortunately the ogre mage conversion to 3e was slipshod, its abilities watered down along with the magic system - I understand why you have the impression you do. As I said, making the 3e ogre mage more like its 1e forebear and its original oni brethren would have been a much better use of Mike Mearls' time.







			
				monboesen said:
			
		

> Let's assume for a second that it somehow had the ability to repeatedly gain minions and use the to weaken the party. Would that change the CR. Yes for each ENCOUNTER...



I've covered this ground as far as I care to upthread, *monboesen* - I'll stand by my earlier comments.


----------



## tzor (Jul 26, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I don't think I've seen a group actually fight a rust monster in a decade. They just run away in terror.



As the fighter jumps into the arms of a very confused wizard.  Oh how I loved those old original (1st edition) AD&D edition illustrations.


----------



## Belen (Jul 26, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> Interesting. This has been on my mind for a looong time - that for the sake of balance, the game designers at Wizards are sacrificing imagination and the whimsical attitude that once permeated the game. I call it *slotted game design*: the designers aim to mold gameplay into a highly standardised experience, where you encounter a given problem (the „slot”) and respond to it with an appropriate strategy (the „keycard”). This does not take into account the myriad ways a group of adventurers may respond to this same situation – it is a standard problem with a standard solution. The problems started when the Wizards designers, listening to the complaints of a few „fans”, identified unorthodox responses as a problem. Their solution was highly destructive to the game: removing „dangerous” free choice from the hands of both the player and the DM. It used to be, for example, that you would use the _command_ spell to give your opponents a simple order and they would fulfil it to the best of their ability. In 3.5, this was replaced with a set of five commands you can give the same opponents. In essence, all other choices have been stripped from the participants! To avoid a nitpicky debate, here is the text of the spell from the 3.0 and the 3.5 SRD:
> 
> 3.0
> 
> ...





QFT


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 26, 2006)

Just a quick moderately reminder that even if you disagree with someones position, you must remember to be polite to one another, OK?

If by some chance you think that somebody else is flogging a horse which you cut up and buried a couple of pages ago, don't feel that it is important that you have the final word. Other people reading the thread will read all the arguments and come to their own conclusions.

Thanks!


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 26, 2006)

Excellent post, Melan.  I agree 100%.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 26, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Lessee...The original ogre mage was not a "leader for ogres" - funny, there's no mention of that in the 1e _AD&D Monster Manual_, in either the entries for ogres or ogre magi. The only apparent connection between the two is that ogre magi speak their own language and that of ogres.
> 
> It's already been mentioned several times in one or the other thread that ogre magi are a representative example of oni, before a more detailed treatment was introduced to the game. "Boss Ogre" had nothing to do with the ogre mage.





I read over my 1e MM to get a better idea of the OM in earlier editions. It mentions that the OM will most likely be found in a cave or other remote abandoned area with some slaves and a few other Ogres.  So I think the original was somewhat intended to be a leader, if only for a smaller band of Ogres.

It says Japanese Ogre, "far more powerfull then it's western cousins!" So maybe it was inspired when designed by Oni, but it wasn't listed as an example of an Oni... And at this point, there are rules for Oni already in the game, so the OM doesn't really need to fill this roll...

As for it's manipulative abilities... I still never really saw it as this crazy mastermind people say... The real thing I see it doing, is slipping into a town unnoticed with it's polymorph then stealing a few women and children to keep as slaves, charming them so they don't run away, and other more... hedonistic... reasons. 

Then the PCs show up, get into a brawl with its lesser ogre thugs, and to get away it blows it's cone of cold wad and gasses off somewhere.

So perhaps the new remake lost that bit of flavor? But it doesn't make the new monster bad, and it doesn't spell the "end of D&D!!!" as some people seem to want it to... Especially since Mr Mearls then went on to suggest a new charm type ability which would give it that former charming slaver ability AND the ability to put up a fight if it had to! (remember the thing wasn't playtested save for ONCE!)


----------



## Hussar (Jul 26, 2006)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> A defining characteristic of the game (up until 3.5) had always been 'high level characters are gods among men, but there is still that possibility of getting your ass handed to you by certain things'.  'Certain things' could be a mage with 'disintegrate', a mindflayer that sucks your brain, etc.
> 
> In 1.x or 3.x, a 20th level butterknife wielding fighter  still going to mow through the mooks.  The question is, in the future will he have *anything* to fear?




Considering that 3e combat is by FAR more lethal than previous editions, I'd say yes, there is lots for that 20th level character to worry about.

Who needs save or die effects when a creature of a given CR is capable of killing PC's in a single round from straight up melee damage?

I do agree with TheShaman.  It was the mooks that made that encounter memorable.  However, that is my entire point.  The Ogre Mage didn't make that encounter memorable.  Any creature capable of similar things - doppleganger, demon, vampire come to mind - would have served AND been a heck of a lot better fight to boot.

It's not like the game is lacking in creature that can shape change and charm.  The OM was just another one with a weak chin and a BFG.  Well, now he's got a slightly smaller gun, but a heck of a lot more chin.


----------



## painandgreed (Jul 26, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I don't think I've seen a group actually fight a rust monster in a decade. They just run away in terror.




Fought one a few months ago. Our thief beat it to death with a fishbat (which he had actually bought earlier that game to go fishing with) as everybody else ran away.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Jul 26, 2006)

I'll add my voice to those who agree with *Melan*.
I won't quote his whole post, but one sentence that struck me in particular?



> The idea went wrong long ago and it shows no signs of getting better. When dealing with game philosophy, Wizards R&D doesn’t concentrate on thinking up stuff that makes playing fun anymore.




Q.F.T.
The amount of books I buy has been rapidly decreasing of late, and most of the books I _do_ buy are setting-specific (Midnight, some Eberron), or fluff-centric, as that's what I tend to need in my campaign.

And, as time passes, I find myself become more controlling as a DM in terms of the books and supplements I allow in my games. The prevailing attitude that I see more and more is "Everything but the Kitchen Sink", where, due to the sheer volume of material out there, players have access to umpteen books and supplements to choose from, and they expect to be allowed to play them, even if it's antithetical to the DM's view of the game.  And that's all part of the new D+D  "Options, not restrictions".  What relief is there for the DM, and where does the DM draw the line?  (Why should I feel guilty if I don't want a player playing a Kobold Ninja in my low-fantasy urban campaign?)

I work very hard to craft a good, engaging session, and not everything fits into my view of the game.  At this point, I'm allowing stuff from the Core Books and the "Complete" books, with other requests looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Personally, I enjoy a balanced mix of combat, NPC interaction, puzzles, etc.  (In short, a little bit of everything).  And, since we're talking about design philosophy, I'll comment that I've never gibed with the idea that XP is primarily gained by defeating monsters, though I have little hope of that changing in the future.

In my current campaign, I'm fairly liberal with the XP actually, offering rewards for playing alignment well, using class abilities, coming up with a clever (or sometimes just funny) plan, avoiding an enemy when needed, and a HOST of other things.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 26, 2006)

ShadowDenizen said:
			
		

> The amount of books I buy has been rapidly decreasing of late, and most of the books I _do_ buy are setting-specific (Midnight, some Eberron), or fluff-centric, as that's what I tend to need in my campaign.
> 
> And, as time passes, I find myself become more controlling as a DM in terms of the books and supplements I allow in my games. The prevailing attitude that I see more and more is "Everything but the Kitchen Sink", where, due to the sheer volume of material out there, players have access to umpteen books and supplements to choose from, and they expect to be allowed to play them, even if it's antithetical to the DM's view of the game.  And that's all part of the new D+D  "Options, not restrictions".  What relief is there for the DM, and where does the DM draw the line?  (Why should I feel guilty if I don't want a player playing a Kobold Ninja in my low-fantasy urban campaign?)
> 
> I work very hard to craft a good, engaging session, and not everything fits into my view of the game.  At this point, I'm allowing stuff from the Core Books and the "Complete" books, with other requests looked at on a case-by-case basis.




I dissagree that that is in any way a fault of the system. There are three "core" books in the game. PHB, DMG, and MM. All others are Optional accessories. It's always even in other editions of the game, been the DM's job to make the final call on what books and rules were allowed.

The difference now is there are several choices that the DM has when using rules in his game. In prior editions, there was what TSR (or authors in Dragon) came up with, or what you hosue ruled in. (everyone else was sued...)

Now, instead of having to make your own rules, you can see if anyone else has a better idea first. (which is great for time strapped DM's like me!)

But that doesn't mean you HAVE to use every rule out there in your home game!

To me, that's the best idea behind options not restrictions.



			
				ShadowDenizen said:
			
		

> Personally, I enjoy a balanced mix of combat, NPC interaction, puzzles, etc.  (In short, a little bit of everything).  And, since we're talking about design philosophy, I'll comment that I've never gibed with the idea that XP is primarily gained by defeating monsters, though I have little hope of that changing in the future.
> 
> In my current campaign, I'm fairly liberal with the XP actually, offering rewards for playing alignment well, using class abilities, coming up with a clever (or sometimes just funny) plan, avoiding an enemy when needed, and a HOST of other things.




Defeating a monsters doesn't have to mean killing it. Defeating it simply means you've deallt with it in some way.


----------



## Henry (Jul 26, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> I dissagree that that is in any way a fault of the system. There are three "core" books in the game. PHB, DMG, and MM. All others are Optional accessories. It's always even in other editions of the game, been the DM's job to make the final call on what books and rules were allowed...
> 
> ...Now, instead of having to make your own rules, you can see if anyone else has a better idea first. (which is great for time strapped DM's like me!)
> 
> But that doesn't mean you HAVE to use every rule out there in your home game!




In theory, I agree. In practice, however, there is a rather strong movement within the D&D gaming community that

(A) if it's in a WotC book, there's no reason a DM SHOULDN'T allow it, and 
(B) if it's NOT in a WotC book, it can't possibly have been playtested well, and is automatically suspect.

I see it here, to a lesser extent, I see it on RPG.Net, to an even lesser extent, but still perceived, and on the WotC forums I see it even stronger. It's a movement I wish I could do something about, but there's really nothing anyone can do -- it's like trying to make something "cool" or "uncool" by committee, rather than by example, which is impossible.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 26, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> In theory, I agree. In practice, however, there is a rather strong movement within the D&D gaming community that
> 
> (A) if it's in a WotC book, there's no reason a DM SHOULDN'T allow it, and
> (B) if it's NOT in a WotC book, it can't possibly have been playtested well, and is automatically suspect.
> ...




Interesting... I've seen that as well. I guess I just don't believe it myself. I use options from all over the place.

I kind of wondered in a thread once that if Wizards had released more of the "behind the scenes" sort of info on how certain rules were created, or made things more clear, would there have been so many of the "un balanced" products that came out in the begining?

Would that have maybe culled the "if it ain't wizards it's broke..." attitude?


----------



## Delta (Jul 26, 2006)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> When I read WOTC material these days, I am bored to tears.  All of the items are functional, but they often lack any flavor.  This has been the trend throughout 3e and I do not see it changing anytime soon.
> 
> WOTC wants to deal with mechanics.  Flavor seems to be a dirty word with them.  They want everything to fit a specific niche and utilize standard effects.




I totally agree with that. I think part of it is the "Magic"-ification of D&D, which I see as accelerating. 3.0 made some significant changes that were pretty well received. That's given a green-light to the WOTC designers that everything about D&D is fair game for overhauling.

I used to work at a computer-based CCG company. What's really easy for the CCG designers is to start slamming together mechanics without any thought to flavor, and there comes a point when they see that as their job. (They are the most hard-core players, and they spend all their free time analyzing the game that pure-mechanical way, so it's how they think.)

I would much prefer a design philosophy that asked this: "How can we best simulate all the classic fantasy books and mythology in D&D?" That wouldn't be a mechanical question, it would involve stripping out rules and abilities and spells that conflict with how new players perceive of a fantasy adventure when they sit at the table. Difficult and hard to pull off, but I'd rather see D&D walk in that direction that the current CCG-mechanics-uber-alles.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 26, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> This begs the question: why does the Wizards of the Coast R&D team strive for so strict a balance and why does it intend to strip away out-of-box options from you?



I put it to you that there is nothing that WotC R&D can do to strip away out-of-the-box options from anyone who wants it. That is, by definition, what out-of-the-box means, no? Not actually following the rules and/or interpreting them creatively?

All you need are players that think out-of-the-box, and have no problems with DMs that do the same, and DMs who think out-of-the-box and have no problems with players who do the same. The mutual lack of problems with thinking out-of-the-box is necessary, otherwise you end up with rules lawyers and control freaks.

What I find strange is the assertion that standardizing the rules so that their effects can be better understood and anticipated is seen as removing edge and color from the game. Perhaps it does reduce some types of "fun" - the fun of using the rules to create effects that were unanticipated, for example. However, it doesn't reduce the types of fun I find in the game - the fun of solving problems, the fun of tactical combat, the fun of pretending to be braver, nobler, kinder, more capable and more heroic than I am in real life.

This whole debate reminds me of a passage in Madeline L'Engle's Wrinkle in Time, where life was compared to a sonnet. I haven't got the exact quote, and the best I could find with Google is as follows:

"It is a very strict form of poetry is it not?
There are fourteen lines, I believe, all in iambic pentameter. That's a very strict rhythm or meter, yes?
And each line has to end with a rigid rhyme pattern. And if the poet does not do it exactly this way, it is not a sonnet, is it?"
"You mean you're comparing our lives to a sonnet? A strict form, but freedom within it?"
"Yes. You're given the form, but you have to write the sonnet yourself. What you say is completely up to you."​
The same goes for games.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 26, 2006)

I don't mind have a huge amount of crunch available, but to me its a cooking-like approach.  Just because I have 48 spices on the rack doesn't mean that I have to use every one in a dish.  More options *for the DM* can make for a more thematic, focused campaign when used appropriately.  

DMs that allow everything plus the kitchen sink are asking for trouble.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Jul 26, 2006)

> In theory, I agree. In practice, however, there is a rather strong movement within the D&D gaming community that
> 
> (A) if it's in a WotC book, there's no reason a DM SHOULDN'T allow it, and
> (B) if it's NOT in a WotC book, it can't possibly have been playtested well, and is automatically suspect.




I think *Henry* just succintly encapsulated how I feel with that, and summing up a growing part of my frustration.

IRL, I see far more of (A) than (B), and it's getting tougher and tougher to stand firm.


----------



## Victim (Jul 26, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> I would much prefer a design philosophy that asked this: "How can we best simulate all the classic fantasy books and mythology in D&D?" That wouldn't be a mechanical question, it would involve stripping out rules and abilities and spells that conflict with how new players perceive of a fantasy adventure when they sit at the table. Difficult and hard to pull off, but I'd rather see D&D walk in that direction that the current CCG-mechanics-uber-alles.




Wow, that wouldn't suck.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 26, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> I would much prefer a design philosophy that asked this: "How can we best simulate all the classic fantasy books and mythology in D&D?" That wouldn't be a mechanical question, it would involve stripping out rules and abilities and spells that conflict with how new players perceive of a fantasy adventure when they sit at the table. Difficult and hard to pull off, but I'd rather see D&D walk in that direction that the current CCG-mechanics-uber-alles.





My imagination has to conform to a strict set of "what is fantasy" guidelines?


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 26, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> I read over my 1e MM to get a better idea of the OM in earlier editions. It mentions that the OM will most likely be found in a cave or other remote abandoned area with some slaves and a few other Ogres.



Um, where do you see a reference to other ogres in the 1e _MM_?

Lives in a fortified dwelling or secure cavern complex...forays to capture treasure and humans for slaves and food...if encountered in their lair they will be lead by a chief of great size and possess 2-12 slaves/prisoners.

No, no ogres in the 4th printing (1979). What are you looking at?


----------



## Scribble (Jul 26, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Um, where do you see a reference to other ogres in the 1e _MM_?
> 
> Lives in a fortified dwelling or secure cavern complex...forays to capture treasure and humans for slaves and food...if encountered in their lair they will be lead by a chief of great size and possess 2-12 slaves/prisoners.
> 
> No, no ogres in the 4th printing (1979). What are you looking at?




I'll admit I don't have it in front of me, and I read it yesterday while getting ready for work, so I might have misread the part about other ogres? I'll check tonight.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 26, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> I would much prefer a design philosophy that asked this: "How can we best simulate all the classic fantasy books and mythology in D&D?"




The problem is that this is by no means a simple task.  The genre is extremely broad, in terms of flavor and power levels represented.  

It also dodges the question - do new players really want to emulate "classic fantasy"?  This is an important question, in a business sense.  Back in the 1970s, it was reasonable plan.  But today, is it true?  How many of the prospective new players have even read classic fantasy?  Compare that to the number of them who have played CCG and computer games...


----------



## DeadlyUematsu (Jul 26, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> My imagination has to conform to a strict set of "what is fantasy" guidelines?




Err, you're already playing a game (if you're playing D&D, that is) that has a strict set of "what is fantasy" guidelines. Kind of funny that you called him on this.


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 26, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> I'll admit I don't have it in front of me, and I read it yesterday while getting ready for work, so I might have misread the part about other ogres? I'll check tonight.



I also didn't see the line about "more powerful than their occidental cousins" - could you be looking at the 2e _MM_ by chance?

Re-reading your earlier post, I noticed something else:







			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> As for [the ogre mage]'s manipulative abilities... I still never really saw it as this crazy mastermind people say... The real thing I see it doing, is slipping into a town unnoticed with it's polymorph then stealing a few women and children to keep as slaves, charming them so they don't run away, and other more... hedonistic... reasons.
> 
> Then the PCs show up, get into a brawl with its lesser ogre thugs, and to get away it blows it's cone of cold wad and gasses off somewhere.



My personal opinion is that many gamers saw the word "ogre" in the name and assumed dumb brute, or perhaps slightly less dumb brute. In fact its intelligence ranges from eight to sixteen (average to exceptional), and as noted its abilities are not geared toward combat but toward infiltration and manipulation.

I agree that some ogre magi would definitely use their abilities as you describe, particularly toward the lower end of the intelligence spectrum - on the other hand, I preferred to run the monster toward the higher end of the range, much like a less refined rakshasa.

That brings up another point, raised by *Hussar* and *ThirdWizard* - other monsters fit the same niche. That's true, but I disagree with Mike Mearls (and by extension *Hussar* and *ThirdWizard*) that this is necessarily a bad thing. For me, the ogre mage reflected a oriental sensibility drawn from its oni roots, and so that's how I tended to play the monster, as distinct from more occidental monsters.

I think there is too much focus on the stats, and not enough on how to play the monster so that it is distinctive from the other critters with similar abilities.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 26, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I also didn't see the line about "more powerful than their occidental cousins" - could you be looking at the 2e _MM_ by chance?



No, that's the line from _Greyhawk_, the initial appearance of Ogre Magi in D&D.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 26, 2006)

DeadlyUematsu said:
			
		

> Err, you're already playing a game (if you're playing D&D, that is) that has a strict set of "what is fantasy" guidelines. Kind of funny that you called him on this.





I dissagree. I don't think it really has a strict set of "what is fantasy" guidelines at all. It has options and options and the ability to be customized.  I'd prefer not to be pigeon holed into fantasy has to equal fat little halflings and elf hating dwarves.


----------



## Kerrick (Jul 26, 2006)

> What do you mean rated on their own merrits? How do you judge what a power level is unless you have something to balance it against? That would be like telling somone it's 4 inches long without ever showing them a ruler.




Upper Krust's CR system. A guy named UK (over on the House Rules forum, some of you may have heard of him) came up with a system whereby you can rate monsters based on their abilities, in discrete numbers. Now, to be fair, I don't know how he came up with those numbers in the first place - he may well have rated them against PC abilities, in which case I just stuck my foot in my mouth - but I can say this - his ratings are _very_ accurate, a lot moreso than WotC's "Well, we'll add +1 for this ability, and +1/2 for that one," or "An ambusher's CR should be from 1/2 its HD to its HD." (that second quote is from the MM, p 302).



> I don't really agree with this. There are plenty of challenges in the game. People still die from fireballs and swords and poisons and arrows and dragons and all sortsa stuff.




But where's the FUN stuff? Where are the rust monsters, the save-or-die poisons, the deadly level drain? Granted, such things should be used sparingly, but the game's become so watered down that things like fireballs and swords and such are just "ho-hum" dangers that every adventurer faces.



> I concede there is some degree of loss of variability and flavor from streamlining a monster that is not unambiguously a good thing, even if I support the approach overall.




That was the point I was trying to make, but I didn't quite get it right. :/



> We used to use rust monsters to remove unwanted (read too powerful) magical gear from the game. If the Dm used a RM, we knew SOMEONE's sword was too powerful... Now, we could use them without stopping game to re-armor the fighter.




But it still has no reason for being besides "Take away the party's gear." And really, d20 characters are far too reliant on their gear - I've seen it again and again on various forums, the complaint that "the gear defines the character," not the other way around. This isn't to say that I don't agree with the rust monster needing an overhaul - its rusting ability was far too powerful - but now it's a slightly less powerful creature with no niche beyond DM fiat.



> Again I'm compelled to ask if you are serious? Level drain is frigging deadly. Get hit by a Spectre, bam you take 10 hp damage (in addition to whatever damage the attack caused) and a -2 penalty to all important rolls (and incidently the Spectre gains 10 hp) at level 7 (where it is a standard challenge) your dead if it touches you 4 times. There is no save and few ways of getting resistance to level drain.




Death ward, a 4th level cleric spell. Which, incidentally, you get at 7th level. 


To the person who told me that if I didn't like the changes to the system, I should go find another game (I can't find the quote - it might have gotten edited):

I've been playing D&D for 17 years, through all three (or four, or whatever) editions. I've been designing new material for almost that long, so if I find something I don't agree with, I change it. I'm not going to turn my back on a game that I've been playing for more than half my life just because I don't agree with a few rules changes. Hell, if I thought that, I wouldn't even be posting here - I would have dumped my books and moved on to something else.

And that, IMO, is a big problem with gamers these days - if they find something they don't like, that they think is "broken" (whether or not it really is), they don't change it - they piss and moan about it on various boards. And the designers give in to them without considering whether or not it really IS broken, simply because they're more interested in the fanbase and the bottom line than good design, and because of the "vocal minority". The rest of us, who think that the rule in question works just fine, aren't going to speak up, because we have no reason to. 

90% of the time, the fault lies either with the players, who browbeat their DMs into allowing every book they can lay their hands on into the game, whether or not the material is balanced for that type of campaign, or the DMs, who are either incompetent to start with, or simply inexperienced or ignorant of the rules and allow the players to get away with things that they shouldn't (and then THEY go to the forums and say that their players are taking advantage of them). It goes to the point Henry made - if it's WotC, it's official and it should be allowed in the game, regardless of the DM's say-so. And the DMs apparently feel that they can't say no to their players - I've seen it time and again, especially on the WotC boards. "My player took XXX broken combo - what do I do?" Or "My player wants to make XXX broken spell - should I allow it?" They don't know how to put their foot down and say, "No, you can't do that," or don't want to for fear of offending their players, or simply believe in the philosophy of "If it's WotC, it's official, and it should be allowed in the game."


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 26, 2006)

CAUTION: Unapologetic Snark Below

I would abandon this game in a heartbeat if I had to emulate fantasy literature. What kind of boring old fart wants to do that? No, I want to emulate flashy graphics and stirring quests of videogames, where heroes can be shown and not just described on the page! And since I'm the one with the disposable income, no family, no rent, all my food provided for me....guess who is voting more often with their gaming dollar? Guess who WotC is going to court? Cheap old farts who "know the value of a dollar" so well they refuse to spend it, or punk kids like me who like spikey hair and pierced paladins and pokemon and who spend more to get it? Kids with soccer practice and play practice and part-time jobs and hours of homework who don't have time to sit around alone in a room reading the monster manual like some sort of cloistered nerd-child. The question isn't "which design philosophy should WotC have?" It's "Which design philosophy are they being PAID to MAKE?" You want your precious purple unicorns and mysogynist barbarians to be the wave of the future? The moment some old Conan novel sells more than the latest manga from _Shonen Jump_, or can bring in more income than a month's subscription to WoW, you'll get it. 'Till then, you're just angry penniless hobos, missing an arm from the War, who refuse to accept that the past is dead and never coming back and the future of gaming belongs to adventure stories, not dungeon crawls, and that doesn't mean it's dumb or juvenile or simplistic.

Now that the snark has passed, I'll merely chip in with my 100% support of FireLance's post:



> What I find strange is the assertion that standardizing the rules so that their effects can be better understood and anticipated is seen as removing edge and color from the game. Perhaps it does reduce some types of "fun" - the fun of using the rules to create effects that were unanticipated, for example. However, it doesn't reduce the types of fun I find in the game - the fun of solving problems, the fun of tactical combat, the fun of pretending to be braver, nobler, kinder, more capable and more heroic than I am in real life.
> 
> This whole debate reminds me of a passage in Madeline L'Engle's Wrinkle in Time, where life was compared to a sonnet. I haven't got the exact quote, and the best I could find with Google is as follows:
> 
> ...




The Sonnet Philosophy is a golden one. I'd love to tweak a system that works infinately more than I'd love to force a malfunctioning, random, gimped system into some semblance of coherence. d20, 3.x, and the future of the game, definately should adhere to the idea that focus on what makes D&D fun is good. Breaking my treasure and ignoring half of a monster's write up as nonsensical or too complex is pretty much wasting space without making me have fun. 

(it should probably also be said that I'm NOT the kid in the snarky section, just that such a beast might very well be the one telling WotC what to do)


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 26, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I would abandon this game in a heartbeat if I had to emulate fantasy literature.



I'll note Gary had a Sorcerer's Scroll column on just this topic, stating that novels and games have different goals and you need to take that into consideration.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 26, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I also didn't see the line about "more powerful than their occidental cousins" - could you be looking at the 2e _MM_ by chance?




Definitely not the 2e book. I will look again tonight.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> Re-reading your earlier post, I noticed something else:My personal opinion is that many gamers saw the word "ogre" in the name and assumed dumb brute, or perhaps slightly less dumb brute. In fact its intelligence ranges from eight to sixteen (average to exceptional), and as noted its abilities are not geared toward combat but toward infiltration and manipulation
> 
> I agree that some ogre magi would definitely use their abilities as you describe, particularly toward the lower end of the intelligence spectrum - on the other hand, I preferred to run the monster toward the higher end of the range, much like a less refined rakshasa. .




They might have? I was never a huge fan of the OM to begin with. Just never fit in with my games I guess. 

My point about the lair filled with slaves was that since the MM mentioned you'd find them in remote areas... it makes me think of this OM living in a cave decked out in elegence stolen from humans with drugged up (charmed) slave women around him at his beck and call... (almost like that scene at the begining of The Shadow... But replace Alec Baldwin (what HE done lately???) with an Ogre Mage...)

But that's what *I* saw... which is the thing about flavor text... it can be wildly different from one person to the next, which is why I can't dissagree with a redesign based on my visualization of a monster.  (Kind of like when I see a movie based on a book I've read.)

The New (unofficial) OM doesn't really match the flavor I had in my head either but that's the point. That doesn't invalidate the new monster at all. Mr Mearls was showing us what an OM would look like if he designed it today. Maybe HE always envisioned the thing as a leader among Ogres, and therefore that's why intimidation made more sense then Charm... 

Which brings me to...



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> That brings up another point, raised by *Hussar* and *ThirdWizard* - other monsters fit the same niche. That's true, but I disagree with Mike Mearls (and by extension *Hussar* and *ThirdWizard*) that this is necessarily a bad thing. For me, the ogre mage reflected a oriental sensibility drawn from its oni roots, and so that's how I tended to play the monster, as distinct from more occidental monsters.
> 
> I think there is too much focus on the stats, and not enough on how to play the monster so that it is distinctive from the other critters with similar abilities.




I can agree that a discussion of how to play the monster distinctive from other similar monsters is a good idea. To a degree. I'd rather not see people feel as if they're being forced into a particular concept of flavor, but a suggested role would be cool...

As for the stats, I think there definitely SHOULD be a big focus on the stats. The numbers and math problems are the essesnce of the "game" aspect of the game. The flavor is what everyone else adds to it. 

I'm not a fan of removing all fluff at all. I love it, and pull ideas from it, but again, since flavor is so wildly different from one person to the next, the thing I need the deigners doing is tinkering with the actual math and rules to make sure things work fairly, and cut down on all the silly "That doesn't make sense!" arguments in the game...


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 26, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> What I find strange is the assertion that standardizing the rules so that their effects can be better understood and anticipated is seen as removing edge and color from the game. Perhaps it does reduce some types of "fun" - the fun of using the rules to create effects that were unanticipated, for example.



Exactly the problem, and well put. 


> "It is a very strict form of poetry is it not?
> There are fourteen lines, I believe, all in iambic pentameter. That's a very strict rhythm or meter, yes?
> And each line has to end with a rigid rhyme pattern. And if the poet does not do it exactly this way, it is not a sonnet, is it?"
> "You mean you're comparing our lives to a sonnet? A strict form, but freedom within it?"
> ...



Disagree.  One person's game might write a sonnet, another an epic, a third some free verse.  As long as it's poetry, the rules should be flexible enough to allow it to be written.

Lane-"my game writes limericks"-fan


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 26, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> I was never a huge fan of the OM to begin with. Just never fit in with my games I guess.



I didn't have a truly "Asian" part of my 1e HB setting, so ogre magi, rakshasas, and hobgoblins became a part of my "Arabian" lands, where I set many of our adventures. I liked them as antagonists.







			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> My point about the lair filled with slaves was that since the MM mentioned you'd find them in remote areas... it makes me think of this OM living in a cave decked out in elegence stolen from humans with drugged up (charmed) slave women around him at his beck and call... (almost like that scene at the begining of The Shadow... But replace Alec Baldwin (what HE done lately???) with an Ogre Mage...)



I agree - the brighter members of their kind would use their abilities to waylay adventurers (who usually had the best loot, of course) by luring them into traps using their plethora of abilities, to enslave them and take their stuff.







			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> But that's what *I* saw... which is the thing about flavor text... it can be wildly different from one person to the next, which is why I can't dissagree with a redesign based on my visualization of a monster.  (Kind of like when I see a movie based on a book I've read.)...I can agree that a discussion of how to play the monster distinctive from other similar monsters is a good idea. To a degree. I'd rather not see people feel as if they're being forced into a particular concept of flavor, but a suggested role would be cool...



I agree that each dungeon master's distinctive take is preferable to rote presentations straight from the monster books - a monster than a dungeon master likes and has a feel for will make for a much better encounter or adventure, IMO.

One the other hand, with a little guidance such as showing how its abilities work together, a dungeon master might discover that a monster is much cooler than s/he originally envisioned.







			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> As for the stats, I think there definitely SHOULD be a big focus on the stats. The numbers and math problems are the essesnce of the "game" aspect of the game. The flavor is what everyone else adds to it.



I don't necessarily disagree - it makes me a bit sad though when really cool stuff gets overlooked because of the emphasis on getting the stat block right.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 26, 2006)

> As long as it's poetry, the rules should be flexible enough to allow it to be written.




But where does "poetry" end and "literature"  begin? How about Shakespeare's plays, were they poetry? Can an act be poetry? How about graffitti, or bathroom stall word art? Does poetry need words?

If you don't define the limits of what you're doing, then it can become hopelessly vague, so much so that a book like "How To Write Poetry" becomes functionally useless because it boils down to "Do something and call it poetry and if people agree, then that's what it is."

With regards to game design, unless the qualities of the game are defined, the game becomes hopelessly vague make-believe, and a Player's Guide on make-believe is pretty useless because it is whatever you believe it to be. 

There is no debate about what is and is not a sonnet, where it bleeds into something else entirely. That doesn't mean one can't be creative in a sonnet, or even twist and manipulate the rules of a sonnet to entirely new creative ends, but that does mean that it's a useful, precise word with a definate meaning and can have definate organization. 

D&D doesn't need to liberate anyone's imagination. The imaginations are already pretty inventive if they find D&D at all appealing ("every rpg player is an amateur rpg designer"). What it does need to do is define it's goals and how it's going ot achieve those goals so that people who want different goals can clearly see what points will add to it and what points will not. 

I may break the format of a sonnet in half and twist it into some sort of Frankenstein's monster of wordplay like I do with my D&D games. But that doesn't mean that I think the goal of "defining a sonnet" would destroy anything.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 26, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> One the other hand, with a little guidance such as showing how its abilities work together, a dungeon master might discover that a monster is much cooler than s/he originally envisioned.I don't necessarily disagree - it makes me a bit sad though when really cool stuff gets overlooked because of the emphasis on getting the stat block right.





Yeah, but one guy's really cool is another guys lame... Check out the discussion of MMIV and whether or not Spawn are "dorky..."  So maybe with the stat change you can't play the OM as infiltrator extrordinaire... But just because you might not envision playing THAT story, doesn't mean the new idea won't inspire a new story that is just as cool to someone...


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 26, 2006)

Re: games as poetry:


			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> With regards to game design, unless the qualities of the game are defined, the game becomes hopelessly vague make-believe, and a Player's Guide on make-believe is pretty useless because it is whatever you believe it to be.



Absolutely.  Define the overall qualities, by all means...that it has to use words, probably ought to make at least a bit of sense, and so on.  But don't micro-manage by forcing it into the pigeonhole of being a sonnet...you can *suggest* a length of 14 lines, for example (WotC did this with their so-called market research saying campaigns lasted 1-2 years), but if I want to write an 85+ line poem with my game (have a campaign that runs 10+ years) then so be it.

Another way of looking at it from a design perspective would be to say that macro-management is the province of the game designers, while micro-management should be the province of the individual DM's.  Of late, though, there seems to be a trend toward design micro-management through ever-more-restrictive rules and rulings (example: someone posted earlier the differences between 3.0 and 3.5 Command spell), and I suspect that's what's spawning threads like this.



> D&D doesn't need to liberate anyone's imagination. The imaginations are already pretty inventive if they find D&D at all appealing ("every rpg player is an amateur rpg designer").



Often, this is true.  Often, however, it is not...people come to the game *to* get their imaginations going, or out of curiosity.

Lanefan


----------



## tetsujin28 (Jul 26, 2006)

pogre said:
			
		

> I think the design philosophy reflects a broader general demand for the game. You can poo-poo the thing as just trying to get video gamers, but that's akin to saying they are just trying to appeal to highschoolers, and well, yeah - they are. And should.
> 
> The designers should be relativewly unconcerned with the needs of a sophisticated DM - we're all different and we can adjust. They need to be most concerned with two groups - folks getting into the game and having fun right away and those with limited time who want maximum fun in the time they have. Consideration for hardcores like us has to be secondary at best.
> 
> ...



You win the thread. It's hard for us to swallow, but folks like us _do not matter_ in the big scheme of things. The vast majority of D&D players have never visited ENWorld (or any other rpg-oriented web site) and have constantly asked for one thing: simplification. We can complicate the game up as much as we like. Complication is easy, as you said -- all anyone has to do is dig up their house rules from 1978 to prove that.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 26, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Of late, though, there seems to be a trend toward design micro-management through ever-more-restrictive rules and rulings (example: someone posted earlier the differences between 3.0 and 3.5 Command spell), and I suspect that's what's spawning threads like this.



Or it could be design trying to fix things that people complain about by having better definitions.

I don't know of too many spells throughout the various editions that have had more complaints than Command.  It was long considered a "munchkin's dream" because of the vague wording and attempts to make it more powerful than it should be for a first level spell.  I remember an early Sage Advice column about someone trying to command "Suicide" for example.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 26, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Or it could be design trying to fix things that people complain about by having better definitions.
> 
> I don't know of too many spells throughout the various editions that have had more complaints than Command.  It was long considered a "munchkin's dream" because of the vague wording and attempts to make it more powerful than it should be for a first level spell.  I remember an early Sage Advice column about someone trying to command "Suicide" for example.



I also remember "suicide" being ruled as invalid...but "die" was always in play until 3.5; the target essentially feigned death for a round on a failed save, then got up and carried on.  But why limit people's options to just 5 rather bland things?  What's wrong with using a Command to make someone "jump", for example, or "fly" (if target has an active flight effect, they'd use it, otherwise just stand and foolishly flap their arms like wings), or "dance", or "disrobe", or whatever?  This is what I mean by micro-management; it should be up to each DM whether to allow an outside-the-box Command attempt to work or not, as what's fine with one might not be fine with another.

I've had players in my games trying to "break" spells for many years; Command has existed throughout, and has never been a problem.

Lanefan


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 26, 2006)

> Absolutely. Define the overall qualities, by all means...that it has to use words, probably ought to make at least a bit of sense, and so on. But don't micro-manage by forcing it into the pigeonhole of being a sonnet...you can *suggest* a length of 14 lines, for example (WotC did this with their so-called market research saying campaigns lasted 1-2 years), but if I want to write an 85+ line poem with my game (have a campaign that runs 10+ years) then so be it.




I don't think I've ever seen any Game Police stopping anyone from doing that.  People will take D&D and contort it into their own designs, and WotC is sympathetic to that (the constant mantra of it being YOUR game is quite prominent, and I don't see them saying much to the contrary).

The problem is, I shouldn't have to contort it in order to make it do something in the first place. Controting it will happen regardless -- but it should have an initial composition that can be reasonably baseline. Specificity isn't limiting, it's exemplifying. Just because there are only four actions listed doesn't mean that's the only possibility, it just means that those four actions are standard and if you want something different, it's up to your own creativity and impetus to come up with it, and WotC will help you as much as they can, but they're not going to do it for you.



> Another way of looking at it from a design perspective would be to say that macro-management is the province of the game designers, while micro-management should be the province of the individual DM's. Of late, though, there seems to be a trend toward design micro-management through ever-more-restrictive rules and rulings (example: someone posted earlier the differences between 3.0 and 3.5 Command spell), and I suspect that's what's spawning threads like this.




I don't see the 3.5 spell as more restricting at all. I see it as more specific, giving more examples of what could possibly be done, more recommendations for it. I see it as exemplifying what a spell like Command should be able to do, giving me a hook on which to hang all sorts of spells that are variations on it, all sorts of spells that are power-ups of it, all sorts of different tweaks on it.

Some people will limit themselves to what is listed. Some people will be creative and use it as a launching point for variance. Some people will use what is listed to new and creative tactical ends, not changing the spell but using it in unexpected ways. Nothing about the spell states that the world is limited by it.

I don't have time to micromanage my campaign, nor do I have the interest to do so. I'd much rather make a campaign setting than rules for a non-specific spell. I'd much rather invent a new spell than try to figure out an old one. I'd much rather use a rule than ignore it. I'd much rather make a story than try to figure out how to tell it. I'd much rather macromanage -- develop big ideas, ongoing plots, motives, villains, memorable encounters, amazing scenery, and epic battles -- than micromanage -- fiddle with rules, get skill points right, invent uses for pointless abilities, worry about miniature's placement, drawing the map to accurate scale, etc. Mircomanaging is dull and boring and I'll gladly pay someone else to do it for me. But a monster's HD is not memorable to me. What's memorable is if that monster kidnapped an important member of royalty and is holding him for ransom. 

I don't remember that an OM has _charm person_. I remember that he can get people to cooperate. That could be an SLA, or it could be a high Intimidate skill or an impressive Diplomacy skill or a Bardic Music ability, or a magical helmet, or any one of a million different variations on how to get the same effect. I want to worry about the effect, and the designers can worry about how, excactly, that effect is achieved.



> Often, this is true. Often, however, it is not...people come to the game *to* get their imaginations going, or out of curiosity.




Games aren't there to be inspirations, and they shouldn't try to be (beause they won't be good ones and still be good games). Inspirations can come from movies, music, books, TV, videogames, poetry, art, epics....not from the rules themselves. That makes D&D "too much like D&D," gets obssessed with the pointless minutae that has little reason for exisiting in the first place. 

When given an ability that doesn't make sense for a monster, I don't bother to think "Ooooh, what can I do with this neat talent?" I just wonder why it's there and then never use it. Because I already HAVE an idea for the monster, otherwise I wouldn't be bothering to use it in the first place.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 26, 2006)

Re: Command spell


			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I don't see the 3.5 spell as more restricting at all. I see it as more specific, giving more examples of what could possibly be done, more recommendations for it.



3.0 and earlier, yes. 3.5 as written limits the caster to the 5 options presented.



> I don't have time to micromanage my campaign, nor do I have the interest to do so. I'd much rather make a campaign setting than rules for a non-specific spell. I'd much rather invent a new spell than try to figure out an old one. I'd much rather use a rule than ignore it. I'd much rather make a story than try to figure out how to tell it. I'd much rather macromanage -- develop big ideas, ongoing plots, motives, villains, memorable encounters, amazing scenery, and epic battles -- than micromanage -- fiddle with rules, get skill points right, invent uses for pointless abilities, worry about miniature's placement, drawing the map to accurate scale, etc. Mircomanaging is dull and boring and I'll gladly pay someone else to do it for me.



I think like that as a player...I detest having to micromanage encumbrance, arrows remaining, and so on.  But as a DM I see it as my job to do the micromanaging you describe above (other than inventing uses for pointless abilities).



> Games aren't there to be inspirations, and they shouldn't try to be (beause they won't be good ones and still be good games). Inspirations can come from movies, music, books, TV, videogames, poetry, art, epics....not from the rules themselves. That makes D&D "too much like D&D," gets obssessed with the pointless minutae that has little reason for exisiting in the first place.



Hmmm...the vagueness of the 1e rules inspired me and many others to some pretty good ideas (and some very bad ones, but hey) in game design...and I'm glad of it. 

Lanefan


----------



## SWBaxter (Jul 26, 2006)

When I first picked up the 3.0 PHB and MM, I saw that monsters were being given class levels and said to myself "cool, now all those goofy critters with a bunch of random spell-like abilities will be rewritten to have spellcasting levels instead." I turned to Ogre Mage, and was immediately disappointed. So I ignored the official Ogre Mage and just used Ogres with sorceror levels in the same role. Worked fine, and captured a heck of a lot more "flavor" than any random suite of abilities held over from 1E or earlier since I could customize my Ogre Magi via spell selection to make them sneaky or charming or warrior-leaders or whatever. Worked well.

Nowadays, though, I'm not as happy with that method, since adding class levels to critters can become a lot of work. What I'd really like to see is a much greater use of templates to customize creatures - take a basic Ogre, apply a "War Leader" template of combat stuff to make it a better fighter, then some kind of magic template to match whatever magical role I have in mind. IMHO this is a much better idea than having a bunch of different monster statblocks and figuring out which one is best.

So IMHO, the "new design philosophy" is just a more rational version of what's been going on for thirty years, the endless process of churning out critters to fill monster supplements. Nothing particularly new about it, it's just a more coherent process now. The new philosophy I'd like to see is still pretty far off - it'd focus more on making it relatively easy for DMs to put together unique critters rather than making them buy even more monster books.

That said, Mearls' redesigned Ogre Mage works better than the traditional version IMHO, so even though WOTC are on the wrong track, at least they're paying more attention to turning out quality material than in the past. So give 'em one thumb up from me.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 26, 2006)

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> The vast majority of D&D players have never visited ENWorld (or any other rpg-oriented web site) and have constantly asked for one thing: simplification.




But that's not the point.  No one has said that simplifying the game is wrong, but removing a couple abilities here or there isn't doing jack to simplify the game.  The re-designed rust monster actually complicated things.  Adding class levels to monsters is much more complicated than giving them a couple specific abilities.  Adding umpteen base classes, some with brand new mechanics, isn't simplifying.

No, what some are objecting to is not simplifying some aspects of the game (which can be done, although it would probably affect WotC bottom-line as they'd have to reign in the crunch-products), it's the seeming intent to narrow the focus down to a purely combat oriented game.   If anything, it's in WotCs interest to make the game more complicated (and what happened to Magic certainly bears that out).  Crunch sells to players, fluff to DMs, and there are a lot more players than DMs.

Look at the still-prominent place of AoOs, arguably the factor of the game that causes the most trouble for players.  Look at the emphasis on items.  Look at the expansion of base classes, the proliferation of bonus types, feat types, action types, etc.  The trend is towards more complexity, not less.

You can simplify the problematic parts of the game without robbing it of its flavor and personality and versatility.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 26, 2006)

> 3.0 and earlier, yes. 3.5 as written limits the caster to the 5 options presented.




Those specific options help me to better understand what kinds of power the PC's have available. If someone wants to make a similar spell to allow "disrobe" or "fly" or etc., I now have some rules to judge at what power level it could be. I have the rules for designing new spells to use, and I have a player who likes a specific effect enough to make a spell around it -- this makes sure the creativity of my team fits the game in a manner that doesn't make it too powerful. 

I have many options for adding more options if I want them. Rule 0, New Spells, etc. And if I don't want them, I don't have to worry about how some dragon is going to interpret "fly" if he fails his save against Command. 



> I think like that as a player...I detest having to micromanage encumbrance, arrows remaining, and so on. But as a DM I see it as my job to do the micromanaging you describe above (other than inventing uses for pointless abilities).




As a player, I don't think like that, either. My players have never managed copper or silver pieces, arrows, food, or encumbrance because none of that is very exciting or adventurous, and it annoys me to do so. 

I see my JOB as a DM as having fun running the game. If I have to do little detailed obnoxious work, I may as well just go play a videogame that'll do it all for me. And now that I can play it over the internet with my friends, what does D&D have to offer?



> Hmmm...the vagueness of the 1e rules inspired me and many others to some pretty good ideas (and some very bad ones, but hey) in game design...and I'm glad of it.




But the 1e rules were poor rules because they forced you to do that. They made a bad game. You can have fun with a bad game, but more people can usually have more fun with a good one. 

The 3e rules are good rules because they give you a standard way to do that, and tell you that you can tweak it (and, in many cases, tell you what the effect of tweaking it will be). You can still use the good house rules you had, but now your way isn't the only way you know of, you can choose between two competing systems, allowing the one that's most fun for you to flourish.


----------



## eyebeams (Jul 26, 2006)

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> You win the thread. It's hard for us to swallow, but folks like us _do not matter_ in the big scheme of things. The vast majority of D&D players have never visited ENWorld (or any other rpg-oriented web site) and have constantly asked for one thing: simplification. We can complicate the game up as much as we like. Complication is easy, as you said -- all anyone has to do is dig up their house rules from 1978 to prove that.




Well no, they haven't asked for simplification. The entire thrust of 3e's design was based on research that apparently showed that the idea of a simple "friendly" game was a crock and didn't enhance playability at all (in terms of optimizing the minutes of fun in hours of play). If anything the widespread use of house rules to add bells and whistles to D&D is the most representative example of that and 3e is the most complex iteration of the line. Other editions didn't have one task resolution system but they were far less complex in terms of character design and tactics. That ability to take control of your character's abilities and think of ways to exploit them within the system *is* something familiar to MMO players and the like.

I'm not sure I agree with the rationale, but that's it.

That said, individual encounters as the sole benchmark of a creature's design isn't a good idea -- but it's a good first step to developing a creature. Once you know what a creature's profile should be with respect to a single encounter you can add "what if" scenarios to flesh it out for a campaign. Same thing for spells and class abilities.

Development can handle this in two ways. They can either remove as many of the "soft" elements as possible (such as abilities that only work when the DM gives you a specific encounter and things amenable to lots of interpretation at the table) to render it down to a tactical game with character advancement, or they can clearly delineate places where the tactical benchmark has been ignored to allow for campaign and session-scale choices. In this case DMs will need support on how to deal with NPCs, scenario-driven abilities like turning undead and so on.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 26, 2006)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> Look at the still-prominent place of AoOs, arguably the factor of the game that causes the most trouble for players.  Look at the emphasis on items.  Look at the expansion of base classes, the proliferation of bonus types, feat types, action types, etc.  The trend is towards more complexity, not less.
> 
> You can simplify the problematic parts of the game without robbing it of its flavor and personality and versatility.




Of course you can. But by that token just because something isn't simple doesn't mean it lacks personality.

AOO can be confusing sure. And yeah there are lots of bonus types and rules. BUT that doesn't make it "complex." All of those rules are built off of a sort of singular idea. (d20 system.) The rules make sense when proped up next to other rules, and similar ideas.

Like theif skills. Now, they are just normal skills, whereas in previous editions, they were percentages, while other skills were basically just stat checks... 

Simplifying doesn't mean less options and rules. It means making sure those rules all work together in a coherent way that "makes sense."


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 26, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Simplifying doesn't mean less options and rules. It means making sure those rules all work together in a coherent way that "makes sense."




I beg to differ.  Complexity is the result of numerous interactions of simple functions.  Chess has relatively few functions, yet can be incredibly complex.  At a certain level, all biological processes can be boiled down to the interaction of a relatively few elements.  

The 'Roll a 20-sided die to beat a target number' is a simple function.  The interaction of that function with the myriad exceptions, additions, modifiers, not to mention the human element, is complex.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 26, 2006)

This was with regard to the 1+1 HD spider with deadly poison:



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> I have no problem with using creative tactics to get around it. But if something is an instant kill it should reward you as such...




In the DM, the xp value of the large spider (1+1 HD) was 65+2/hp. That was your reward. The hobgoblin (also 1+1 HD) was only worth 20+2/hp. At 1+1 to 2 HD, exceptional abilities were worth an extra 45 xp (according to the chart on page 85).* Also, note that large spider appears on the Monster Level III encounter chart. Not on the first level chart. This means you shouldn't encounter them until you are strong enough to also deal with bugbears, ghouls, ogres, gelatinous cubes and even rot grubs to name a few monsters on that chart. Hobgoblins appear on the Monster Level I chart.

The difference is now the CR is in the open. But even in 1e, the large spider with deadly poison was not a 1st level party encounter. Based on the other monsters, the party should be around 4th to 5th level when they first start encountering such monsters.

* Wow, haven't really opened the 1e DMG in ages but my sense of where stuff is located was still excellent. Must be because it imprinted on my brain when it was young.


----------



## luke_twigger (Jul 27, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Lessee...The original ogre mage was not a "leader for ogres" - funny, there's no mention of that in the 1e _AD&D Monster Manual_, in either the entries for ogres or ogre magi. The only apparent connection between the two is that ogre magi speak their own language and that of ogres.



A common language is not the *only* apparent connection between the two - there's the small fact that an Ogre Mage has the word Ogre in its name! I'm not being facetious. I've been playing since 2E days but it was only reading this thread that made me realise that the two monsters weren't originally connected. I think it's a reasonable assumption that an Ogre Mage is a more powerful relative of a regular Ogre.


----------



## Delta (Jul 27, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> How many of the prospective new players have even read classic fantasy?  Compare that to the number of them who have played CCG and computer games...




Including having seen a _Lord of the Rings_ movie? Or read a Harry Potter novel?


----------



## MerricB (Jul 27, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> Including having seen a _Lord of the Rings_ movie? Or read a Harry Potter novel?




Both those sources are closer to modern fantasy than classic fantasy, actually.

Witness the feats of Legolas in the LotR movies, and the prominence of magic in Harry Potter.

Cheers!


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Jul 27, 2006)

My question is:

Why is everything being redesigned?

I hear: "Many people want it simplified."

I read: "We need to lure away WoW players!"

But what is up with the new simplifications? To me, it looks like it's to improve PC's odds of survival. Since higher level play the PC's live or die by magic items, if something can damage those items, it is "adjusted."

People complain about save or die spells, saying it's unfair. Some people say it is.

So why all this redesign? I don't by the "OH NOES! 4E IS BEING PLAYTESTED!" outcry.

I just wonder: "If ain't broke, why are you fixing it?"


----------



## MerricB (Jul 27, 2006)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Why is everything being redesigned?




To emphasize player skill over random luck.

To allow the ongoing participation of the players throughout the game.

I think those are two very important factors. Consider the 1e magic-user at 1st level. One spell. (If it wasn't _sleep_, you needed a new character). If the group had four encounters in a session, you could meaningfully participate in one of them. That's a lot of time hanging around and being bored.

This also applies to the DM side of thing, interestingly. The ogre mage redesign is much more interesting from a DM's perspective, because the combat doesn't have to be "cone of cold, run away".

Cheers!


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 27, 2006)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> My question is:
> 
> Why is everything being redesigned?
> 
> ...




I think it's none of the above.  Mike didn't say "we are redesigning everything."  He said "if we were to redesign these creatures today, here is how we'd do it."  

Mike is giving us examples of the sort of things that the development team considers when designing monsters.  Rather than using a brand new monster (which has already been done in this article series), he's using classic creatures and showing us what the developers consider in the process.

Personally, I think this is probably best, but it does bring a lot of baggage.  A lot of people won't be willing to listen to what he says because they consider the changes to be attacks on the monsters nostalgia factor.  Many of the comments along the lines of "stripping the creature of its flavor" wouldn't come up if he had created perhaps an "Ogre Leader" creature (instead we'd have comments like "Why do we need another Ogre, just use templates and classes on the classic Ogre).


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 27, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> To emphasize player skill over random luck.
> 
> To allow the ongoing participation of the players throughout the game.
> 
> ...




Not to be snippy, but usually, if a 1st level group had 4 encounters, and healing potions around, they had 2 dead characters on their hands. By the encounters, that is. Or the trap inbetween the encounters.   

And I just have to disagree that the DM is much more interesting from a DM's point of view...it may have become a better combat encounter, but on the whole, I don't see it as more interesting. The old version is actually more interesting in my eyes...the one before 3E, that is.

And emphasizing *character* skill over random dice rolls might be a viable game...as long as they don't take it out completely, as luck always has been a factor in heroic fantasy tales. Player skill actually _is_ challenged by weird, off-the-track, non-standard situations that force them to think outside the usual "can we hack it to bits somehow" pathways. And that simply isn't encouraged by melding everything into variations of one "baseline". But that might as well just be me...as a friend of mine said last night to me while talking about the topic..."You're simply not in the target group of whom WotC wants to sell D&D to anymore at the moment." I guess he's more right than I'd like to admit. :\


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 27, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> To emphasize player skill over random luck.




If they really wanted to emphasize player skill over random luck, they could just get rid of the skill system. 

In 1e (pre 'xxx survival guide') searching for things, spotting things, looking in the right places, bluffing the opponents was all a matter of _player skill_.

The skill system has introduced random luck to what used to be player skill, although it has done it in a way which enables those with less player skill to run a character who is supposed to be good at searching, bluffing, whatever.

It is an interesting example of levelling the player playing field by introducing systemised randomness into the game.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 27, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> If they really wanted to emphasize player skill over random luck, they could just get rid of the skill system.
> 
> In 1e (pre 'xxx survival guide') searching for things, spotting things, looking in the right places, bluffing the opponents was all a matter of _player skill_.




That is not, in actual fact, true.

Oh, it applies to diplomacy - somewhat, depending on how seriously your DM took the reaction table. (Mind you, given that the DC of a Bluff check depends on how well the _player_ constructs the Bluff, even that isn't a given).

However...
Spot checks are the 3e version of the Surprise roll.
Search checks are the 3e version of the "find secret door 1 in 6" or "34% chance to find traps"

Indeed, knowing when to Take 20 on a Search check (for, in any fair dungeon, a rogue will be able to find anything hidden if they look in the right place) is a major indicator of player skill.

What makes this even more interesting is that the ability of the player to construct their character (rather than have set chances for everything) allows another aspect of player skill to come into it.

Cheers!


----------



## Melan (Jul 27, 2006)

From d20srd.org (bolding mine):


> Poison Needle Trap
> CR 1; mechanical; touch trigger; manual reset; Atk +8 ranged (1 plus greenblood oil poison); Search DC 22; Disable Device DC 20. Market Price: *1,300 gp*.





> Greenblood oil Injury DC 13 1 Con 1d2 Con 100 gp



What, exactly, are you protecting your treasure from with your greenblood oil? Angry mice? Slightly agressive gnats? And for 1,300 gp?

Game balance. Serious business.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 27, 2006)

THe problem I see with many of these kinds of discussions is that people confuse simplicity with elegance.  Not that simple can't be elegant, however, the reverse does not have to be true.  A clock is very elegant, however, I don't think anyone would argue that it's simple.  

An excellent example of this is the difference between older version of energy drain and 3e's version.

Prior to 3e, an energy draining creature hit you and you lost x levels.  You can't really get much simpler than that.  Hit, drop levels, go to half way through the level, press on.  That's much simpler than 3e's gain a negative level with its encumbent penalties, followed by a saving throw the next day for a permanent level loss.

However, it is far less elegant.  The game comes to a grinding halt because of a simple attack by a spectre for example.  Say I toss a spectre into an encounter in an adventure in 2e for 6th level characters.  The spectre hits the fighter twice and then dies.  The fighter is now 2nd level adventuring with a group of 6th level characters.

Now, because restoration was pretty much beyond the grasp of a party of that level, either for price or whatever reason, the campaign comes to a grinding halt.  You have two choices.  Either the party babysits the 2nd level fighter until such time as he becomes useful again, if he ever does, or the character is retired.  This means that a minor encounter with a creature throws a huge wrench into my entire campaign.  Bob, the fighter player, doesn't want to sit on his hands for the next five sessions until he gains enough xp to pull a little bit more weight and I'm fairly sure the rest of the group isn't too thrilled with having this albatross around their neck.

Compare that to 3e mechanics.  Same fighter gets whacked for 4 negative levels.  A sixth level party has access to lesser restoration most likely, so, while those negative levels are dangerous (since a third hit means dead PC), the effects aren't particularly far reaching, nor do I have to rewrite my entire session (or more) because of a single creature.

To me, the 3e mechanics for level drain are far more elegant.  Level draining undead are still very dangerous.  A small number of hits and you have a dead PC.  However, they don't wipe out several weeks worth of gaming while we figure out how to get Bob useful again.  

An elegant mechanic works very well and doesn't screw up other things.  Simple mechanics might be elegant.  OTOH, they might be extremely inelegant.  The rust monster was another example of this.  A throw away monster that could have huge effects far beyond a single encounter.  It's not like a rust monster is going to lead to lots of plot or interaction.  It's a bloody big lump.  It doesn't talk, it doesn't scheme, it doesn't do anything that a trap doesn't do.  Yet, using a rust monster can radically alter my campaign.

So, I don't use rust monsters.  Before 3e I could probably count on one hand the number of times I used level draining undead.  Both for the exact same reason.  They are mechanics that, while very simple, caused far too many compexities in my game.


----------



## Belen (Jul 27, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> THe problem I see with many of these kinds of discussions is that people confuse simplicity with elegance.  Not that simple can't be elegant, however, the reverse does not have to be true.  A clock is very elegant, however, I don't think anyone would argue that it's simple.
> 
> An excellent example of this is the difference between older version of energy drain and 3e's version.
> 
> ...




Your argument makes no sense.  The character who fails their save 24 hours later still loses a level.  It was just delayed until after the combat.  In your world, that would still stop the entire game because a PC one level lower than the party just cannot survive!?

The only thing the recent changes and this philosophy does is take away real threats and consequences for the players and replace them with temporary pains that go away after a short period.

So instead we have a situation where the game changes from

"Oh my god, that creature just drained the very life from my body.  I cannot believe we made it."

to

"Whew.  I just took -1 to everything and my hitpoints when down by 5 for 24 hours.  Wizards, prepare that buff spell to help my save in 24 hours.  We should rest now guys because I am not going forward with a -1."

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how level loss was such a huge deal in previous editions.  You lost some hitpoints, maybe had lower saves and maybe a lost point of ThAC0.  However, it did not take that long for a PC to catch up.

The problems that you illiuminate are ONLY problems if you are rushing through a dungeon with 3 encounters per day.  However, that is one specific style of gaming and I do not think that D&D needs to emphasize that one single style.

The new rules are not elegant game design.  They are gamist design meant to minimize any threats that cannot be solved with a cure light wounds.

Stopping progress through a dungeon crawl is not a big deal.  Hell, if you do happen to be on a time-dependent mission and persevere despite setbacks, then that is damn heroic.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 27, 2006)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> But what is up with the new simplifications? To me, it looks like it's to improve PC's odds of survival. Since higher level play the PC's live or die by magic items, if something can damage those items, it is "adjusted."
> 
> I just wonder: "If ain't broke, why are you fixing it?"




I've never heard of the term Flavor lawyer... But I have heard of a Rules lawyer. Seriously, the things that ground my game sessions in the past to a halt where the rules, and really only the rules.

The rules (the numbers and skill checks and such) are the only things that have any direct effect on a character. Flavor and backstory are great, one of my favorite parts of D&D.... But they don't directly effect the characters.  Only the numbers do.

If the rules are not logical in their build then people have an argument against certain effects. 

If suddenly the game grinds to a halt because the DM and a player get into a heated debate about just why only the party theif can climb a wall, or attempt to hide, that's one more chance for that group to say "screw it lets do something else." 

It doesn't matter if a creative DM can give others a chance to climb and hide. What matters is the game lost those players, and thats one less group of people buying the game and keeping it alive.

The rules need to be TIGHT, so that people spend less time arguing, and more time inventing the flavor.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 27, 2006)

To be honest.. I don't like the new way things are going... flavour is being stripped out of the game to make it bland and more tactical.  Fly used to be the ultimate getaway spell... now it's relatively useless in this context as the duration is so short that whoever you're fleeing from can easily follow you, wait until the spell expires and then take you down.  Same with invisibility.  Hell, same with most spells now.. the durations have been reduced so that they're *only* good in combat, and practically useless elsewhere.  

I know the old editions of the game were even more focused on "Go into the dungeon, walk around, kill stuff, walk around some more, rinse & repeat" than 3/3.5 is, but still.. I agree with whoever said that slowly all the choices and freeoms are being stripped out of the game, to make it easier for newbies to pick up and not strain their minds creatively coming up with solutions.  I see it's benefit from a business standpoint (easier to learn and play == more people willing to buy == more $$$$), but I liked my choices.  It's something that's easily rectified via houserules, but I'm the sort of person who feels "dirty" whenever I house rule something; it feels like I'm not playing the same game.


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 27, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> I also remember "suicide" being ruled as invalid...but "die" was always in play until 3.5; the target essentially feigned death for a round on a failed save, then got up and carried on.  But why limit people's options to just 5 rather bland things?  What's wrong with using a Command to make someone "jump", for example, or "fly" (if target has an active flight effect, they'd use it, otherwise just stand and foolishly flap their arms like wings), or "dance", or "disrobe", or whatever?  This is what I mean by micro-management; it should be up to each DM whether to allow an outside-the-box Command attempt to work or not, as what's fine with one might not be fine with another.
> 
> I've had players in my games trying to "break" spells for many years; Command has existed throughout, and has never been a problem.




I remember hearing stories of a CE cleric whose favorite pastime was to cast _command_ on paladins to do salacious things in taverns. I'll spare you the details, but most of them involved cruder bodily functions.

-The Gneech


----------



## MerricB (Jul 27, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> From d20srd.org (bolding mine):
> 
> 
> What, exactly, are you protecting your treasure from with your greenblood oil? Angry mice? Slightly agressive gnats? And for 1,300 gp?




No way. Angry Mice are much more tough than that.

Most Poisons in 3e are a complete joke. You'll have no argument from me on that. The mechanic is great, and some poisons are worth it (Wyvern poison ), but the costs are badly inflated.

Cheers!


----------



## FireLance (Jul 27, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> flavour is being stripped out of the game to make it bland and more tactical.



Flavor is being stripped out of the game? Tactical == bland? I can understand complaints that the flavor is different, or that you don't like the new flavor, but complaining that the flavor is absent seems somewhat unfair.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 27, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Flavor is being stripped out of the game? Tactical == bland? I can understand complaints that the flavor is different, or that you don't like the new flavor, but complaining that the flavor is absent seems somewhat unfair.



 Sorry, that is just my opinion.. all the options being spelled out and the focus on tactics (read: combat) seems to drain the flavour out of the game.  

Maybe it's just my group.. but it seems like we have two different "modes" as it were:  "Normal" mode when we are interacting with people and roleplaying, and "Tactical" that happens when we enter combat, bust out the grid and miniatures, and start to play D&D Minis for 30 minutes to an hour because all we're doing is moving figs around a board without any flavour whatsoever because the combat rules are all spelled out in tactical terms.  It's not "I draw my sword and advance 30 feet" its "I'm moving five squares up and attack him"


----------



## PhantomNarrator (Jul 27, 2006)

*Yeah, but is it D&D?*



			
				pogre said:
			
		

> The task then for D&D designers is two-fold:
> 
> 1. Simplify.
> 2. Greater ease of use.





This can be taken too far. If all I wanted was simplicity and ease of use, I'd play tic-tac-toe all day.

I think the real debate is where the line will be drawn on what makes D&D "D&D."

If WotC grows more concerned with attracting the lowest common denominator than satisfying their traditional purchase base, they risk ruining the brand. Pen & Paper RPG's will never be able to match console games for ease of play - they may as well just forget about that and concentrate on the things that make tabletop gaming so unique and special.

A certain minimum level of intelligence and imagination distinguishes the true gamer from the casual game player. I believe gamers enjoy a little complexity to their games - it gives them something to obsess over and tinker with. Not every gamer appreciates the same level of crunch, of course, but let's not forget that D&D has evolved into a progressively more complex game because *the fans demanded it*.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 27, 2006)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The only thing the recent changes and this philosophy does is take away real threats and consequences for the players and replace them with temporary pains that go away after a short period.
> 
> ...
> 
> The new rules are not elegant game design.  They are gamist design meant to minimize any threats that cannot be solved with a cure light wounds.



You say that like it's a bad thing.  Okay, I'll be serious now. 



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The problems that you illiuminate are ONLY problems if you are rushing through a dungeon with 3 encounters per day.  However, that is one specific style of gaming and I do not think that D&D needs to emphasize that one single style.



You know, I do agree with you that D&D needs to accomodate more than one style of play. The problem is, some creatures (like the rust monster) seemed suited for one style of play only. That's why the revised rust monster, which was viewed as a horrible perversion of the spirit of the original creature by some, was welcomed by many others. It filled an empty niche in the "monster palette" of those that enjoy the "minimum permanent consequences" style of play: a monster that makes the PCs worry about their equipment without threatening quick and irrecoverable destruction.

In the same way that some restaurants (in my country, at least) put little fire icons next to the spicier dishes on their menu, and in the same way that your operating system (presumably) asks you to confirm before reformatting your hard disk drive, creatures that are suited for one style of play but not another ought to come with a warning label. It's not just a question of "the DM should be smart enough to know" or "the players shouldn't be coddled". It's simply good customer service to anticipate problems and work to minimize them so that people using your product enjoy it and want to keep using it, instead of having a bad experience and writing it off.

Hmm. I've just realized that while I've heard a lot of complaints about the new design philosophy, I haven't been hearing a lot of alternatives. How would you change the rules to be more in line with the style of game you'd like to play?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 27, 2006)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Your argument makes no sense.  The character who fails their save 24 hours later still loses a level.  It was just delayed until after the combat.  In your world, that would still stop the entire game because a PC one level lower than the party just cannot survive!?




Please reread what I wrote.  The fighter is FOUR levels below the party.  While what you are saying makes sense, it in no way actually relates to what I wrote.



> The only thing the recent changes and this philosophy does is take away real threats and consequences for the players and replace them with temporary pains that go away after a short period.
> 
> So instead we have a situation where the game changes from
> 
> ...




Catch up?  From FOUR levels down?  Note, the 2e fighter NEVER got a save throw at all, never mind any buffs to help him.  Considering I can only gain one level at a time and I have to train each time, how in the heck am I going to catch up a four level deficit?  Remember, this was from TWO hits.  That's it.  The creature hit me twice.



> The problems that you illiuminate are ONLY problems if you are rushing through a dungeon with 3 encounters per day.  However, that is one specific style of gaming and I do not think that D&D needs to emphasize that one single style.
> 
> The new rules are not elegant game design.  They are gamist design meant to minimize any threats that cannot be solved with a cure light wounds.
> 
> Stopping progress through a dungeon crawl is not a big deal.  Hell, if you do happen to be on a time-dependent mission and persevere despite setbacks, then that is damn heroic.




Three encounters a day is RUSHING?  I've been told time and again that in earlier editions, people went through far more than 3/day.

But, the problem isn't stopping progress in a dungeon crawl.  It's completely screwing over one player.  The character will never recover from this.  The character will spend the next several sessions being babysat by the rest of the party.  The rest of the party gets to have the added burden of not only being a man down, but having to cart around dead weight for the next four levels just to get our example fighter BACK to where he started from.

IME, it takes about 3-5 sessions to gain a level.  Hell, we'll say that they are rocketing and going 2/session.  That means it takes me TWO MONTHS to get back to where I started.  Not advance, but just get back.  Meanwhile, the rest of the group is one or two or three levels higher (depending on their class), so I'm still in the hole.

This is good game design?  Are you kidding?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 27, 2006)

> The only thing the recent changes and this philosophy does is take away real threats and consequences for the players and replace them with temporary pains that go away after a short period.



I don't see this as problematic. From a storytelling perspective, level drain or ability damage or item destruction or usually completely uninteresting. Their are very few instances where a character in a novel actually suffers from such consequences*. 
The "real threats" are usually related to the goals of these characters (they fail to accomplish their tasks) or their friends and family (they are kidnapped or killed). The only other permanent consequence in a story is death, and that (usually) marks the end of the story. 

*) Level Drain or Ability Damage in a story might be equivalent to permanent scars. Usually, such scars are character defining moments (and not seldomly happened in the past, not during the time of the story told). Item destruction is usually not done by a bizarre monster, but by an enemy that destroyed it. 
It's not uncommon in movies or books that characters are hurt or injured, but often enough, they are recovered a scene later.


----------



## tahsin (Jul 27, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Hrmm..
> I think it's a good thing they streamline the monsters. That way, if I just need a monster to fight the party for some reason they're there quick and easy. I don't know about you, but with a job, family, girlfriend, and other intrests I don't have hours and hours worth of D&D time. So easy monsters with sample treasures and lairs are really usefull. I can spend more time modifying whats there as opposed to making everything up from scratch...




Hear hear!


----------



## painandgreed (Jul 27, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Hmm. I've just realized that while I've heard a lot of complaints about the new design philosophy, I haven't been hearing a lot of alternatives. How would you change the rules to be more in line with the style of game you'd like to play?




Alternative woudl be to stop using the new theories and keep with the old ones. You want new, different monsters, create new and diferent monsters. Let each individual DM decide which ones to use, rather than making all monsters conform to a single design theory.

This is a bit different from how I would change the rules to be in line with the style of game I'd like to play. I like the idea of Unearthed Arcana being a set of optional or replacement rules to modify the game in such ways. I wouldn't mind seeing another one. My personal desired house rules run along the lines of a less shallow XP chart, crafting rules for magic items that involve risk as well as earning XP (old ones still apply if desired), codified XP rewards for social encounters and other things besides combat. I would probably also substitute stat damage instead of level loss for energy drainn (like I've been doing since 1E).

Little icons next to monsters like the spicy warning on menus would be good, but first the game would have to acknowledge that such things other than straight combat enoers exist.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 27, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Catch up?  From FOUR levels down?  Note, the 2e fighter NEVER got a save throw at all, never mind any buffs to help him.  Considering I can only gain one level at a time and I have to train each time, how in the heck am I going to catch up a four level deficit?  Remember, this was from TWO hits.  That's it.  The creature hit me twice.






Maybe you should learn to avoid spectres?  FEAR the undead, don't treat them like a lowly goblin.  3e undead are wimps.  Just another encounter, a minor hassle, nothing to be alarmed about.  Old school level draining rocks.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 27, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> I've never heard of the term Flavor lawyer...



Oh that's awesome. 

"Hey, what do you mean there isn't a fair maiden trapped in the tower? What kind of fantasy game are you running?"

"Paladins should have prestidigitation as an at will ability so that their armor is always gleaming."


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 27, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Prior to 3e, an energy draining creature hit you and you lost x levels.  You can't really get much simpler than that.  Hit, drop levels, go to half way through the level, press on.  That's much simpler than 3e's gain a negative level with its encumbent penalties, followed by a saving throw the next day for a permanent level loss.
> 
> However, it is far less elegant.  The game comes to a grinding halt because of a simple attack by a spectre for example.  Say I toss a spectre into an encounter in an adventure in 2e for 6th level characters.  The spectre hits the fighter twice and then dies.  The fighter is now 2nd level adventuring with a group of 6th level characters.
> 
> Now, because restoration was pretty much beyond the grasp of a party of that level, either for price or whatever reason, the campaign comes to a grinding halt.  You have two choices.  Either the party babysits the 2nd level fighter until such time as he becomes useful again, if he ever does, or the character is retired.  This means that a minor encounter with a creature throws a huge wrench into my entire campaign.  Bob, the fighter player, doesn't want to sit on his hands for the next five sessions until he gains enough xp to pull a little bit more weight and I'm fairly sure the rest of the group isn't too thrilled with having this albatross around their neck.



Or the now-2nd Fighter becomes someone else's hench (thus allowing it to stay around and regain ExP, slowly) and Bob rolls up a new character if he's not already running two.

Of course, if the Spectre hits the Fighter twice more Bob's got an even bigger problem...he's now playing a weak Spectre...  :\ 

And if the party can't pool their resources to fund a restoration, you're not giving out enough treasure.   That said, one change I made long ago to restoration was that one casting would get back all levels lost in a single encounter, but if you lost levels at different times you'd need one restoration for each level (or batch).

From another perspective, I usually try to make sure the campaign can survive the loss or incapacitation of one character...   



> So, I don't use rust monsters.  Before 3e I could probably count on one hand the number of times I used level draining undead.  Both for the exact same reason.  They are mechanics that, while very simple, caused far too many compexities in my game.



I use level-drainers on a regular, if infrequent, basis - and this in a 1e-based game - but I think I've only ever run one or two Rusties...must change this...soon....  

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 27, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Hmm. I've just realized that while I've heard a lot of complaints about the new design philosophy, I haven't been hearing a lot of alternatives. How would you change the rules to be more in line with the style of game you'd like to play?



To answer that would take far longer than I've time for here, but it's taken over 20 years to get the 1e rules close to what I (and our crew in general seem to) like.  It's not perfect, and there's always new ideas coming out, but it works for the most part, and that's what matters.

As for a redesign for a potential 4e, there's another thread or three (I don't know how to include the links) covering that.

Lanefan


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 27, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> That is not, in actual fact, true.
> 
> Oh, it applies to diplomacy - somewhat, depending on how seriously your DM took the reaction table. (Mind you, given that the DC of a Bluff check depends on how well the _player_ constructs the Bluff, even that isn't a given).
> 
> ...




Of course it is true.

The surprise roll was basically just a standard thing for all characters, except for those classes which had a specific benefit (rangers and monks primarily), apart from houserules. However, if the PLAYERS said "I watch the curtains carefully, to ensure that we can't get surprised by someone behind them", then you didn't get surprised.

I've never heard of nor experienced search checks done in the way you suggest. PLAYERS said "I search under the bed", "I look around the edge of the doorjamb for a secret switch" etc. etc. 

Maybe you didn't do this, but this was the way *everyone* that I ever saw or knew played the game back in the 70s and 80s.

Fact. It relied upon player skill. There were no dice that you could just roll to get an answer, you had to be skilled at describing what you wanted and the DM adjudicated on that.

You might not like it, but that is the way that it was for most tasks in the pre-skill days. I find your attempt to compare that with the 3e skill system laughable.

In 3e, your rogue with 5 ranks in search will NEVER be able to find the DC25 secret door, and will ALWAYS be able to find the DC 24 secret door, with no role-playing and precious little thought involved. In 1e and earlier it depended upon your skill as a player ("I knock for hollow spaces in the upper section of the wall" / DM: it sounds hollow / "I can't be bothered with searching for secret catches, break out the pickaxes lads!")

Sure, someone can flavour-text around the die rolls in 3e, but it doesn't *depend* upon their  descriptions, it depends upon a die roll and descriptions are just pasted on afterwards.

Cheers


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 27, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> I've had players in my games trying to "break" spells for many years; Command has existed throughout, and has never been a problem.




Our primary use of the Command spell in 1E was out-of-combat.

It lasted one round.  So once we'd finished a combat, and had one bandit/goblin/guard/whatever left alive, we'd cast Command, and the DM would hit his stopwatch, and for one minute, the prisoner would 'Cooperate'.  Which got us a lot of useful information over the years.

First time we tried it in 3E, the results were pretty lackluster.  We gave the Command: 'Cooperate!'  The DM hit his stopwatch.  We got halfway through the first question... and six seconds was up.

-Hyp.


----------



## Taraxia (Jul 27, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Of course it is true.
> 
> The surprise roll was basically just a standard thing for all characters, except for those classes which had a specific benefit (rangers and monks primarily), apart from houserules. However, if the PLAYERS said "I watch the curtains carefully, to ensure that we can't get surprised by someone behind them", then you didn't get surprised.
> 
> ...




Well, this is why the DMG says the circumstance bonus or penalty is the DM's best friend. If someone is really good at describing their actions, add bonuses, and take them away if they don't.

The thing is that it's often not fun for a player to be expected to either actually have the mindset and skills of a brilliant detective or to be good at expressing his ideas in brilliant prose in order to play a high-skill PC.


----------



## Taraxia (Jul 27, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Our primary use of the Command spell in 1E was out-of-combat.
> 
> It lasted one round.  So once we'd finished a combat, and had one bandit/goblin/guard/whatever left alive, we'd cast Command, and the DM would hit his stopwatch, and for one minute, the prisoner would 'Cooperate'.  Which got us a lot of useful information over the years.
> 
> ...




Refresh my memory, but you can't do this with _command_ in 3.5 at all (I don't know about 3e). You can command it to approach, drop its weapon, flee, or halt, which makes these things much easier to run.

Not that it matters, because what you were doing with _command_ is the exact same effect as a different 1st-level spell in 3e, _charm person_. (Which doesn't let you make it do absolutely anything at all the way 1e _charm_, IIRC, did, but that's what _dominate_ is for. And you weren't doing anything required by _dominate_ anyway -- as long as you're out of combat _charm_ should get a guard to answer all the questions you want.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 28, 2006)

Taraxia said:
			
		

> Refresh my memory, but you can't do this with _command_ in 3.5 at all (I don't know about 3e). You can command it to approach, drop its weapon, flee, or halt, which makes these things much easier to run.



And much less interesting to play, that's the problem; and why Command is being used here as an example.



> Not that it matters, because what you were doing with _command_ is the exact same effect as a different 1st-level spell in 3e, _charm person_.



We-ell, not quite, in that a Command lasts for 1 round during which there's only so much info you can hope to get, while a Charm can last for ages. (though it may have been cut back in 3 or 3.5, in 1e the target got a new save at a frequency based on intelligence, but a series of failed saves could keep someone average charmed for weeks)

Lanefan


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 28, 2006)

Taraxia said:
			
		

> Refresh my memory, but you can't do this with _command_ in 3.5 at all (I don't know about 3e). You can command it to approach, drop its weapon, flee, or halt, which makes these things much easier to run.




Right.  The *Command* menu is a 3.5 innovation; in 3E it was much the same single-word order as in 1E.

Although, from memory, the 1E version didn't allow a save... anyone confirm?

-Hyp.


----------



## Mark (Jul 28, 2006)

3.0 SRD said:
			
		

> Command
> Enchantment (Compulsion) [Language-Dependent, Mind-Affecting]
> Level: Clr 1
> Components: V
> ...







			
				3.5 SRD said:
			
		

> Command
> Enchantment (Compulsion) [Language-Dependent, Mind-Affecting]
> Level: Clr 1
> Components: V
> ...






Hope that helps!


----------



## Hussar (Jul 28, 2006)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> Alternative woudl be to stop using the new theories and keep with the old ones. You want new, different monsters, create new and diferent monsters. Let each individual DM decide which ones to use, rather than making all monsters conform to a single design theory.
> 
> This is a bit different from how I would change the rules to be in line with the style of game I'd like to play. I like the idea of Unearthed Arcana being a set of optional or replacement rules to modify the game in such ways. I wouldn't mind seeing another one. My personal desired house rules run along the lines of a less shallow XP chart, crafting rules for magic items that involve risk as well as earning XP (old ones still apply if desired), codified XP rewards for social encounters and other things besides combat. I would probably also substitute stat damage instead of level loss for energy drainn (like I've been doing since 1E).
> 
> Little icons next to monsters like the spicy warning on menus would be good, but first the game would have to acknowledge that such things other than straight combat enoers exist.




Yes, but that leads to the problem we have now.  Bazillions of monsters, the vast majority of which never see the light of day.  Someone recently posted a poll about what percentage of SRD monsters people had used.  The large majority had used less than half.  And that's just the SRD.  Never mind the MMII, III, IV, Fiend Folio, Tome of Horrors I, II and III, Creature Collections I, II, and III, Dragon, and a bazillion other sources.

Sorry, I'm tired of buying monster books and using less than a quarter of them because people design niche monsters.  I'd much MUCH rather have a general monster that I can tweak into a niche.



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> In 3e, your rogue with 5 ranks in search will NEVER be able to find the DC25 secret door, and will ALWAYS be able to find the DC 24 secret door, with no role-playing and precious little thought involved. In 1e and earlier it depended upon your skill as a player ("I knock for hollow spaces in the upper section of the wall" / DM: it sounds hollow / "I can't be bothered with searching for secret catches, break out the pickaxes lads!")




Yes, because Calvinball is a much more rewarding experience than standardized play.   :\   I so love the idea that I have to play verbal roulette with my DM in order to play a game and spend half an hour on trying to figure out how to open a secret door.  

Heck, even back in the day, the players and I simply said, "Search the room for secret doors", rolled a d6 for every player and away we went.  Pretty much identical to how 3e plays out.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 28, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Someone recently posted a poll about what percentage of SRD monsters people had used.  The large majority had used less than half.





_Ah, but did they use the same half_?


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 28, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Right.  The *Command* menu is a 3.5 innovation; in 3E it was much the same single-word order as in 1E.
> 
> Although, from memory, the 1E version didn't allow a save... anyone confirm?
> 
> -Hyp.



Here's the 2e version:


			
				phbBk.rtf from the 2nd edition AD&D core rules CDROM said:
			
		

> Command
> (Enchantment/Charm)
> 
> Sphere: Charm
> ...




What I find most interesting is the 3.5e "drop" menu item doesn't work in either the 3.0 or 2e version of the spell since drop could mean drop to the floor instead of drop what you are holding.

About the only benefit to the menu version is you don't have to put up with the non-grandmotherly safe commands like disrobe or the word for "pleasure oneself". Nothing is scarier than having to describe the naked kobold and what he is doing.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 28, 2006)

monboesen said:
			
		

> Are you serious?. Hold person was a 2nd level Cleric spell that essentially was a Save or Die spell. At the level it entered the game there was no counter against it, 3rd level casters can't cast Freedom or Dispel magic. And in a chaotic shifting melee it is not even sure your friendly spellcaster will even notice someone being held. That is one reason to change it (and characters with low will saves are likely to stay held for several rounds anyway).
> 
> The other reason to change it is the exactly the fun factor. In our games combat takes time to play out. To be hit by a Hold person used to mean you might as well go stare at the wall for an hour or so, hoping something did not Coup de Grace you in the meantime. If you have shown up to an evenings (about 4 hours) of play, spending 1 of those hours doing nothing is really really unfun.
> 
> The third reason is that actions are the second most valuable currency in combat (the most valuable being HP). A low level spell stripping you of many rounds of action is exceedingly powerful.




Yeah, I'm serious.  The chances of keeping an opponent nailed with the spell for more than a round or two statistically decrease every round.

Given the "instant-kill" attack, the coup de grace, which you use as an example of why it's an instant kill spell isn't so easy to use in the middle of a swirling melee, I'm not sure one can say the spell is instant kill.  Finger of Death or Power Word Kill..those are instant kill spells.

Spellcasters depend on spells like that in order to survive...split the opponents, give time to breath so other spells may be used.  What fun is it for a spellcaster to be butchered so easily by melee fighters who are so much more powerful than they were in 2nd Ed., now that their defense spells etc. have been pooched.  Even their offensive spells.  2nd Ed. instituted the 10d6 max rule for 3rd level area effect arcane spells, to keep out the 24d6 fireballs etc. from 1st Ed.  This was because spell damage was scaling faster than hp do.  Yet in 3E the rules changed so that characters gain full HD at every level all the way through their careers.  So they have significantly more hp than they did.  Yet the spells haven't been changed...except to make them even weaker.

Banshee


----------



## painandgreed (Jul 28, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Yes, but that leads to the problem we have now.  Bazillions of monsters, the vast majority of which never see the light of day.  Someone recently posted a poll about what percentage of SRD monsters people had used.  The large majority had used less than half.  And that's just the SRD.  Never mind the MMII, III, IV, Fiend Folio, Tome of Horrors I, II and III, Creature Collections I, II, and III, Dragon, and a bazillion other




I don't know if I'd call that a problem. People who want the more monsters can get them and those of us that don't, don't. Besides, no matter what design philosophy they follow, it's not like they aren't going to give you and endless array of monster books anyway. So, not only do I not think that is a problem, but I don't think it pertains the issue at hand.

Now, if they did something like magic and came up with classifications for various design philosophies and markets them as such. You'd have your Noob books that only had straight up and up melee combat monsters. Your Geek books that included weird magical powers, social manipulators, and other monsters that take thought to run and fight. Then you'd have your Grognard books where save or die and other strange effects like the Rust Monster were allowed.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 28, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> And if the party can't pool their resources to fund a restoration, you're not giving out enough treasure.   That said, one change I made long ago to restoration was that one casting would get back all levels lost in a single encounter, but if you lost levels at different times you'd need one restoration for each level (or batch).




Now, this confuses me.  I've been told time and time again that earlier edition campaigns didn't feature large numbers of high level NPC's.  Yet, here I'm being told that finding a 14th level cleric to cast restoration is no problem.  Never mind that he's going to be aged 12 years bringing Bob back up to scratch or the umpteen thousand gold its going to cost.  I can simply go out and find Father Generic without any problems.



> From another perspective, I usually try to make sure the campaign can survive the loss or incapacitation of one character...
> 
> I use level-drainers on a regular, if infrequent, basis - and this in a 1e-based game - but I think I've only ever run one or two Rusties...must change this...soon....
> 
> Lanefan




Agreed.  THe campaign won't die because one PC does.  But, that's the trick.  The PC didn't die.  If he died, things would be a whole lot simpler.  However, now Bob has a character that is effectively useless.  So, we'll make him a henchman and bring in a new 6th level character for Bob.  Am I the only one who has problems with this?  

"Uhh, yeah, sorry Bob, you got hit twice by that spectre.  You get to stay in the back and carry the torch.  THis other guy who we just met is going to get your share of the treasure from now on."


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 28, 2006)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Here's the 2e version:




The Int/hit dice for a save rings a 1E bell as well.

-Hyp.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 28, 2006)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> Now, if they did something like magic and came up with classifications for various design philosophies and markets them as such. You'd have your Noob books that only had straight up and up melee combat monsters. Your Geek books that included weird magical powers, social manipulators, and other monsters that take thought to run and fight. Then you'd have your Grognard books where save or die and other strange effects like the Rust Monster were allowed.



The same philosophy should apply to other aspects of the game as well. AOOs and other advanced combat rules might go into the Geek rules, for example.


----------



## painandgreed (Jul 28, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> The same philosophy should apply to other aspects of the game as well. AOOs and other advanced combat rules might go into the Geek rules, for example.




Which was my idea for 4E (which is what I thought they should have done for 3E). Have a "Basic" set with the four base classes, simple combat, and rules light for easy access to the game by the young and new to RPGs. Then you have the "Advanced" which is not a separate game but aditional rules which includes other classes, AoO, etc. Further, you could have the "Unearthed Arcana" which are optional modular rules for things like DR armor, spell point systems, mods to make the game low magic. Such design would also come with descriptions for things like "low magic"  so everybody knows what they are talking about. Somebody else mentioned (in another thread) giving monsters special iodentifiers like when food on a menu comes with one noting it is "spicy". You could have identifiers or ratings for melee, social and magic helping the DM to pick and choose the monsters to suit his campaign or adventure. Come to think of it, somebody could probably already do this in a website for the existing monsters.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 28, 2006)

PhantomNarrator said:
			
		

> If all I wanted was simplicity and ease of use, I'd play tic-tac-toe all day.



I think this misses what pogre left implicit: the goal is to make the game rules as simple and easy to use as possible, _without reducing the complexity they can model_.  The game of Go is famous for the simplicity of its rules -- not because they're as simple as, say, tic-tac-toe, but because Go's simple rules lead to an extraordinarily intricate game of strategy, very much unlike tic-tac-toe.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 28, 2006)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I think this misses what pogre left implicit: the goal is to make the game rules as simple and easy to use as possible, _without reducing the complexity they can model_.





Actually, that is _explicitedly_ what I have been saying.  It is my contention, however, that stripping away anything that can't be used in a brief combat scenario is the antithesis of that philosophy while others (and I got the feeling pogre was in this camp) seem to be arguing that stripping away anything that can't be used in a brief combat scenario is on the right track toward achieving that philosophy.  That's the core of the debate, from as near as I can tell.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 28, 2006)

I just noticed something about the 3.5 Command spell:



> You give the subject a single command, which it obeys to the best of its ability at its earliest opportunity. You may select from the following options.




Nowhere does it say that these are the only options, or that other options are prohibited. It doesn't say certain commands are disallowed or not applicable. All it does is describe the general effect (give a single command) and then give a few specific instances of that command.

People are interpreting limitations where there are none. Nothing says that other commands can't be used. So they can. They just require that all-famous DM judgement call. Which Command as a spell required in general anyway. 

As for the "If it ain't broke" crowd, I'll give you a few things to chew on:

1 - It is broke. D&D needs to compete with other things that sieze your gaming dollar. If nothing was changed, it would not survive, and that means it is malfunctioning.
2 - A rusty jalopy may run, but if you want a Ferrari, it's not going to satisfy you.
3 - Change is inevitable. D&D will adapt or die.



> It is my contention, however, that stripping away anything that can't be used in a brief combat scenario is the antithesis of that philosophy while others (and I got the feeling pogre was in this camp) seem to be arguing that stripping away anything that can't be used in a brief combat scenario is on the right track toward achieving that philosophy.




There are ways to model out-of-combat abilities that don't rely on spells, magic, or leet ninja super abilities. Heck, a bonus to Diplomacy or Intimidate can do the work of Charm Person more than half the time. In the case of the Ogre Mage, Charm would clutter the list, while giving it a high Intimidate bonus would make sense. 

There is also the idea that what a monster is capable in outside of combat is "whatever the DM wants it to be capable of." There don't nessecarily need to be mechanical abilities for monsters to turn the tide outside of combat, because the DM will set them up in any way that makes sense for their campaign.

SLA's are not the best place for out-of-combat monster abilities. How many charm SLA's does a Mind Flayer have? How many campaigns have been run where the Mind Flayer has loyal mental zombie-slaves?


----------



## painandgreed (Jul 28, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> As for the "If it ain't broke" crowd, I'll give you a few things to chew on:
> 
> 1 - It is broke. D&D needs to compete with other things that sieze your gaming dollar. If nothing was changed, it would not survive, and that means it is malfunctioning.
> 2 - A rusty jalopy may run, but if you want a Ferrari, it's not going to satisfy you.
> 3 - Change is inevitable. D&D will adapt or die.




Right but you want a Ferrari, somebody else wants a SUV, the other guy wants a small economical car, and I want something inbetween all of them. They can produce one model or they can produce several*. Current design philosophy seems to be towards making it one single model without any attention to the others. You are completly right that this does not satisfy us. Remember that is possible to adapt and die also as one can specialize to a niche that is too small or disappears.

*Car annolgy fails, but suffice to be said that I think it would be possible to build one game that would fit many different people's requirements, rather than specialize.


----------



## Vanye (Jul 28, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> Maybe it's just my group.. (snip)
> It's not "I draw my sword and advance 30 feet" its "I'm moving five squares up and attack him"




It's definitely a group issue.  There is no reason why the person couldnt' say "I press forward, keeping my defenses ready, and attempt to stab behind his shield" instead of "I move five squares and attack".

Not that either is bad, per se. I 've done both, depending on how tired or into gaming I'm feeling.  If you're the DM, try peppering your combat descriptions with something more interesting.  "The goblin attacks, and misses." is rather boring compared to "The goblin, hopping from foot to foot and excitedly gibbering, stabs at you with his spear, but his enthusiasm is more evident than his skill, as he misses."  Maybe the players will come up with their own.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 28, 2006)

I'm sorry, I was gonna stay quiet until I saw this...



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Fact. It relied upon player skill. There were no dice that you could just roll to get an answer, you had to be skilled at describing what you wanted and the DM adjudicated on that.
> 
> You might not like it, but that is the way that it was for most tasks in the pre-skill days. I find your attempt to compare that with the 3e skill system laughable.




True. And that was the WEAKNESS of pre-3e D&D. Anyone who wanted to play a character who was smarter, swifter or more charismatic than they personally were was SOL. Because ALL of those "personality" things depended on the player.

The character was like a suit of armor with combat abilities, a few task resolution abilities...and nothing else. Because all of the things that relied on the character's mental assets in fact depended on the players.

Now, I'm sure we'd all like to believe that we have 18 INT, 18 WIS, and 18 CHA, but in fact, I doubt most of us gamers have all those. Which means you're unfairly advantaging the character who puts a  low score in CHA, INT, or WIS because in those early rules, the disadvantage _never came up in play._

And it's fine if you want to play the game that way. But then take out the mental attribute scores. Replace them with Perception, Knowledge, and Willpower because all those force of personality, intuitiveness and memory things are going to come from the player. That may be a valid way to play, but you should be aware what it means.

However, 3e doesn't work that way. You are forced to play your character's ability. There's no cheating by playing Thog the low-INT 1st level fighter as if he were a veteran adventurer who knows where to look for secret doors and trip switches and traps and all that, simply because his PLAYER Bob has been at D&D for 20 years and IS a veteran at D&D adventure. Bob may be a veteran adventurer, but Thog isn't. The rules enforce that. As Thog gets better, his ability to succeed goes up.



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> In 3e, your rogue with 5 ranks in search will NEVER be able to find the DC25 secret door, and will ALWAYS be able to find the DC 24 secret door, with no role-playing and precious little thought involved. In 1e and earlier it depended upon your skill as a player




Let's see, 5 ranks in search? Unless the character has all the time in the world...(which is NEVER the case in most games I play).

Base: Search (5 ranks) - +5
Aid Another (3 other characters get DC 10) +6
Circumstance Bonus - +2 to +8 depending on where they tell me they're looking
Not trying to do it in combat - Take 10 - 10

That's DC 23+...

And all I needed for that were the PCs to work together (aid another) and to provide them a circumstance bonus for good search descriptions.

Yes, they can "tear the place apart" to find the door.

I don't see this as the death of roleplaying that some do. I see it as the rules preventing player ability from overwhelming character ability. Why should Thog the fighter find the secret door instead of Gareth the thief because Thog's player has been playing longer than Gareth's?

Circumstance bonuses are more than enough to reward veteran players. And aid another rewards good teamwork.

My two pence.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 28, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> However, 3e doesn't work that way. You are forced to play your character's ability. There's no cheating by playing Thog the low-INT 1st level fighter as if he were a veteran adventurer who knows where to look for secret doors and trip switches and traps and all that, simply because his PLAYER Bob has been at D&D for 20 years and IS a veteran at D&D adventure. Bob may be a veteran adventurer, but Thog isn't. The rules enforce that. As Thog gets better, his ability to succeed goes up.




When you say it like that.. I'm inclined to agree.  I think that theory is also the reason I see no problem "metagaming"; because it never came up in the rules before (and there was no such term to describe it).. in short I fell into exactly what you were describing above, not playing my character's ability.  That IS something that was changed in 3e, and rightly so.

I applaud you for your comments, sir, and while it's not relevant to the topic on hand I think that reading your post will make me a better player in the long run.  I thank you.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 28, 2006)

Re: restorations in 1e-like campaigns:


			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, this confuses me.  I've been told time and time again that earlier edition campaigns didn't feature large numbers of high level NPC's.  Yet, here I'm being told that finding a 14th level cleric to cast restoration is no problem.  Never mind that he's going to be aged 12 years bringing Bob back up to scratch or the umpteen thousand gold its going to cost.  I can simply go out and find Father Generic without any problems.



Easy one first: the PC or the party are paying the gold, so not an issue (*very* rare exception is if the casting Cleric is divinely directed to help out BobPeeCee because the deity has plans for BobPeeCee; has happened maybe once in 20+ years in my games).

My campaigns have always had *some* high-level NPC's, and it doesn't take the PC's all that long to find out where they are...to find a Cleric to cast Restoration, for example, just go to a large town, find a significant trustworthy temple, ask if they can do it and if not, who can.  I've also changed Restoration in my game to make it somewhat easier on the caster, as well as more useful; by the original rules, though, you'd have a point about it hosing the caster.

Re: a level-busted PC in a continuing party:


			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Agreed.  THe campaign won't die because one PC does.  But, that's the trick.  The PC didn't die.  If he died, things would be a whole lot simpler.  However, now Bob has a character that is effectively useless.  So, we'll make him a henchman and bring in a new 6th level character for Bob.  Am I the only one who has problems with this?
> 
> "Uhh, yeah, sorry Bob, you got hit twice by that spectre.  You get to stay in the back and carry the torch.  THis other guy who we just met is going to get your share of the treasure from now on."



Same holds true if BobPeeCee dies and Bob brings in BobPeeCeeTwo, though.  The only difference is that the drained BobPeeCee has the option of keeping going at low level (and probably stinking rich for his level, now), or of getting restored, or of retiring, or of becoming a hench...whatever.

Lane-"seventh-level three times and counting"-fan


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 28, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> (snip)





You lost me.  You seem to be saying that anything the rules don't expressly forbid is allowed?


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 28, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> From a storytelling perspective, level drain or ability damage or item destruction or usually completely uninteresting. Their are very few instances where a character in a novel actually suffers from such consequences.



It seems to come up regularly in Tolkien's works.  Aragorn's carrying a broken sword, Frodo is "drained" by a Nazgul blade, the Witchking's "negative energy" drains the heroic hobbit who wounds him, etc.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 29, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> _Ah, but did they use the same half_?





I used the upper half, otherwise no bite attack.  And the bottom half....well, I don't know about you, but I don't wanna get hit with that thing...


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 29, 2006)

Hussar
 Am I the only one who has problems with this?  

"Uhh said:


> I would have absolutely no problem with that, as long as you didn't have a problem with your throat being cut in your sleep.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 29, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> You lost me.  You seem to be saying that anything the rules don't expressly forbid is allowed?






I concur.  If I invite you over and tell you you MAY have a beer, and you MAY have some chips, that does not mean you MAY sleep with my daughter just because I didn't expressly forbid it.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 29, 2006)

Well.. that depends on how how hot your daughter is.  

... oh come on, you knew _someone_ was going to say it.  For what its worth, I agree completely.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 29, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I just noticed something about the 3.5 Command spell:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think that statement's correct.....it's not broke just because it has to adapt.

It might have to evolve.  It's broken if it's broken.  Which it's not.....though returning more elements of 3.0, like getting rid of the paladin's instant horse, and other cheese factors (IMO) might make it a better game.

As it stands, the rules actually work pretty well.  Change for change's sake is not a virtue.  Change for a specific reason (ie. something is broken, or no longer competes well against other games on the market) *is*.

Last I checked, D20/D&D 3.0/3.5 has a pretty thorough dominance of the RPG industry...and it's stronger now than it was 10 years ago.

To establish how quickly the game must evolve to compete against others, you'd likely have to determine whether D20/D&D has lost popularity against other alternative games in the industry....which is completely separate from whether it's selling as well as it was in 2003, for example, given that the entire industry is not selling as well.

Banshee


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 29, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> Well.. that depends on how how hot your daughter is.
> 
> ... oh come on, you knew _someone_ was going to say it.  For what its worth, I agree completely.





Heh, I don't even have a daughter, I was just speaking hypothetically.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 29, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I usd the upper half, otherwise no bite attack.  And the bottom half....well, I don't know about you, but I don't wanna get hit with that thing...





Yup.  That's gonna leave a mark . . .


----------



## FireLance (Jul 29, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I concur.  If I invite you over and tell you you MAY have a beer, and you MAY have some chips, that does not mean you MAY sleep with my daughter just because I didn't expressly forbid it.



Is that the extent of your hospitality?  If I invited someone over, and he asked for something that I didn't explicitly offer, but wasn't out of line with what I was prepared to, like a soda instead of a beer, I'd be quite happy to provide it to him.


----------



## Taraxia (Jul 29, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> We-ell, not quite, in that a Command lasts for 1 round during which there's only so much info you can hope to get, while a Charm can last for ages. (though it may have been cut back in 3 or 3.5, in 1e the target got a new save at a frequency based on intelligence, but a series of failed saves could keep someone average charmed for weeks)
> 
> Lanefan




What I mean is that what you were trying to do with Command you could do *better* with Charm Person, given that it would have actually worked (instead of cutting you off after six seconds).


----------



## Taraxia (Jul 29, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I just noticed something about the 3.5 Command spell:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere does it say that these are the only options, or that other options are prohibited. It doesn't say certain commands are disallowed or not applicable. All it does is describe the general effect (give a single command) and then give a few specific instances of that command.




This is the problem with shifts in the use of colloquial English. Nowadays people often say "may" to mean "can, possibly" -- i.e. "There may be a thunderstorm today", with the strong implication that the *other* possibilities are also quite likely. ("I may pass the test" implies I think I might not.)

On the other hand, the older definition of "may" is "are allowed to", with the implication that the other possibilities are not allowed. "You may have a cookie" doesn't mean "You could, possibly, have a cookie, but you could also have none, or thirty -- we'll just wait and see", it means "You are allowed to take one cookie if you want, but no more." This is the far more useful definition of "may" for rules.



> People are interpreting limitations where there are none. Nothing says that other commands can't be used. So they can. They just require that all-famous DM judgement call. Which Command as a spell required in general anyway.




I may polymorph into an aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin. It doesn't explicitly say I may not polymorph into something else. May I polymorph into undead?

Anyway, the menu encompasses basically everything useful you could command a monster to do in one round with one word anyway.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 29, 2006)

Taraxia said:
			
		

> This is the problem with shifts in the use of colloquial English. Nowadays people often say "may" to mean "can, possibly" -- i.e. "There may be a thunderstorm today", with the strong implication that the *other* possibilities are also quite likely. ("I may pass the test" implies I think I might not.)



The correct substitute for "may" here would be the subjunctive "might." 

"There might be a thunderstorm today."


----------



## Vanye (Jul 29, 2006)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> The correct substitute for "may" here would be the subjunctive "might."
> "There might be a thunderstomr today."




Correct, as far as I know, but colloquially (at least in my experience) the usage of "may" far outweighs it in American Spoken English.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 29, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Is that the extent of your hospitality?  If I invited someone over, and he asked for something that I didn't explicitly offer, but wasn't out of line with what I was prepared to, like a soda instead of a beer, I'd be quite happy to provide it to him.




Well, what if I have to go take a leak?  While I'm gone do you plunder the fridge, read my email and download porn, feel up my wife and kick my dog just because I didn't SAY you couldn't?


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 29, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I just noticed something about the 3.5 Command spell:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





By that logic, I could give the command: "Conquer Europe."  The 3.5 version doesn't say it has to be one word.  Just because all the examples are doesn't mean any other command has to be.  Right?


----------



## Maggan (Jul 29, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> By that logic, I could give the command: "Conquer Europe."  The 3.5 version doesn't say it has to be one word.  Just because all the examples are doesn't mean any other command has to be.  Right?




Yeah. As long as you or your DM ruled "Conquer Europe" to be a "single command", which I would do, and your target could indeed conquer Europe on the following round, which the spell stipulates.

Which I doubt.  

But if the target could indeed conquer Europe in one round ... oh boy, that'd be one big mother of all opponents. Straight out of UK's epic bonanza, of which I read something about there being a monster with CR over 9000.

 

/M


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 29, 2006)

But, who says it has to be one round?  Just because all the other examples are, doesn't mean anything else you can come up with has to be right?  After all, it doesn't expressly say all hypothetical commands have to be one round.


----------



## Maggan (Jul 29, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> But, who says it has to be one round?




Ehm ... my 3.5 PH, right at the end of the spell description.

"If the subject can’t carry out your command on its next turn, the spell automatically fails."

I don't read that as only pertaining to the last command in the list, but to encompass the entire spell.

/M


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 29, 2006)

How long is a turn?  A round is six seconds.  In AD&D a turn was ten minutes.   I was being facetious anyway.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 29, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> How long is a turn?  A round is six seconds.  In AD&D a turn was ten minutes.   I was being facetious anyway.



 I think we got that 

And a turn is six seconds, at most. It's the point in the round when you take your action(s). Since the round itself lasts only 6 seconds, the turn is 6 seconds or less.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 30, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Well, what if I have to go take a leak?  While I'm gone do you plunder the fridge, read my email and download porn, feel up my wife and kick my dog just because I didn't SAY you couldn't?



Let me emphasize the key points that seem to have been missed.







			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> If I invited someone over, and *he asked* for something that I didn't explicitly offer, but *wasn't out of line with what I was prepared to*, like a soda instead of a beer, I'd be quite happy to provide it to him.



It would be inappropriate for the guest to take it for granted that permission would be given, but a hospitable host would generally agree to reasonable requests.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 30, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I concur.  If I invite you over and tell you you MAY have a beer, and you MAY have some chips, that does not mean you MAY sleep with my daughter just because I didn't expressly forbid it.




Ah. I believe this is slippery slope: If X, the Y WILL/WON'T occur.

I always read Command 3.5 as "utter a command. Below are common examples. These work as written. Other commands are up to the DM's Whimsy, and may fail utterly." 

Otherwise known as: I may have a beer, I may have some chips, (since you've already given my expressed consent) but I COULD ASK if I could sleep with your daughter, seeing the options are "Yes", "No" or "Get out of my house" (utter failure). Utter nonsense of the example aside, it never hurts to ask what you can/can't get away with in an RPG, esp BEFORE you try it.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 30, 2006)

Ignoring the command discussion for a second, I posted this in another thread and I think it's germaine here as well.



			
				me said:
			
		

> Why have niche creatures?
> 
> Let me explain. A niche creature is only good if you need that particular niche filled. An Ogre Mage, for example, really only worked as a background puppet master type monster. You couldn't toss it in anywhere else because it's hp's and whatnot were just too low for its CR.
> 
> ...




The new design philosophy, while you may or may not agree with how it falls out in the end, does seem to be geared towards making things simpler to use out of the box.  The goal appears to be a reduction in the amount of work a DM has to do.

If I want to use an original ogre mage, I have to pretty much tweak the entire adventure to make the ogre mage the centerpiece.  I can't really use an OM as a mook for instance since it's cone of cold is out of line and it doesn't have enough stand up power to take a beating.  A mook that blows a cone of cold, turns invisible and buggers off is not a good mook.

So, I have a creature in the MM that can only realistically be used one way.  With the new set up, I have a creature that can fill multiple roles.

Shouldn't creatures, or anything in RPG's for that matter, maximize utilization?

There are any number of extremely niche creatures in the MM that probably almost never see the light of day.  I used a tojanida for the first time in six years a few weeks ago for example.  I'm willing to bet that I'm a minority DM for actually using one.  There are obviously others but, I think I've made my point.

On a side note, I notice people calling for more fey.  I think my point above is why you don't see a lot of fey.  Rightly or wrongly, people view fey as very, very niche.  If you're not in a forest or a bog, you can't use fey.  (I know, that's not completely true, but that is the perception and a LOT of fey do fit that bill)  So, there are a large number of areas where fey simply don't fit.  Or, at least, in my mind, they don't fit.  Niche creatures are only great if you actually use that niche.

While there are always going to be monster niches, particularly terrain/climate niches, I don't think it's a bad idea to broaden narrow niche creatures into wider game play.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 30, 2006)

> Right but you want a Ferrari, somebody else wants a SUV, the other guy wants a small economical car, and I want something inbetween all of them. They can produce one model or they can produce several*. Current design philosophy seems to be towards making it one single model without any attention to the others. You are completly right that this does not satisfy us. Remember that is possible to adapt and die also as one can specialize to a niche that is too small or disappears.
> 
> *Car annolgy fails, but suffice to be said that I think it would be possible to build one game that would fit many different people's requirements, rather than specialize.




I don't think *D&D* can ever be more than one type of car. That's for d20 -- the d20 system is the basic chassis, engine, and wheels. You can take that system and play a game in it, any kind of game, really. But D&D, with it's own particular monsters, treasure, character creation schema, etc. needs to be more specific than that. Few people have the time or inclination to take the d20 system (the D&D rules) and add on the kinks, knots, options, and ideas that make it a good game themselves, and those people are not the ones the design should be catering too. Rather, the design should be catering to those who DO NOT have the time or inclination to tinker with the system, because those people are more common than the others. Car companies would get nowhere fast if they only catered to those who liked to tinker with cars. What they do is satisfy the end user -- the consumer, the person who wants to drive off the lot with a working machine. And if they do it well, the mechanics and autophiles love it, too.

EVERY market has it's share of rabid tinkering fans. For ANY item, it would be foolish to cater only to them by making an incomplete machine you had to cobble together by yourself later. The tinkerers will still take apart whatever you design, but for the use of the consumers, you need to have it work right away.

And gaming, unlike automobile sales, is not a big enough industry to support much in the way of specialized product.



> I concur. If I invite you over and tell you you MAY have a beer, and you MAY have some chips, that does not mean you MAY sleep with my daughter just because I didn't expressly forbid it.




Depends on the rules. If going over to your house was a fantasy gaming experience, I may have a beer, I may have some chips, and I may very well sleep with your daughter because I simply have the high Charisma and bardic music abilities to get away with it while you pat me on the back and start calling me "son." 

And in a fantasy RPG, things that are not expressly forbidden are possibly up for grabs. "Can I run accross the football field and save the princess?" is answered by "Move your speed." "Can I multiclass barbarian and monk" is answered by "You'd change alignment and not be able to go back to Monk." And "can I use this spell to command the man to stand on his head?" is answered with a DM judgement call that will depend on the campaign. 



> How long is a turn? A round is six seconds. In AD&D a turn was ten minutes. I was being facetious anyway.




So the answer to your facetious question is, of course, yes, because the rules don't say you can't, you can try, and the DM will arbitrate on if it's appropriate, using the guidelines of what the spell and similar spells are already capable of. "Conquer Europe" would probably fail. "Hit me!" probably wouldn't.



> As it stands, the rules actually work pretty well. Change for change's sake is not a virtue. Change for a specific reason (ie. something is broken, or no longer competes well against other games on the market) *is*.
> 
> Last I checked, D20/D&D 3.0/3.5 has a pretty thorough dominance of the RPG industry...and it's stronger now than it was 10 years ago.
> 
> To establish how quickly the game must evolve to compete against others, you'd likely have to determine whether D20/D&D has lost popularity against other alternative games in the industry....which is completely separate from whether it's selling as well as it was in 2003, for example, given that the entire industry is not selling as well.




D&D isn't just competing with other RPG games, first of all. It's competing with STRATEGO, with WORLD OF WARCRAFT, with TIVO, with posting on internet message boards -- it's competing for your free time.

And as it does that, it does not do it well. "Twenty minutes of fun squeezed into four hours of gameplay" comes to mind. There's also the idea that you need to coordinate five people's schedules and bring them all together in one place, and that's difficult as well. Change would be good, allowing more people to have more fun with D&D as opposed to watching TIVO. 

Besides, change for change's sake may not be a virtue, but it is an inevitability. Continents drift, our axis wobbles, stars explode into life or death, you're not nearly as spry as you once were....change happens. That which does not change, dies.

Change is happening all around D&D. Computers grow to popularity, videogames gain eye-popping graphix, the internet revolutionizes human interaction, iPods appear, robots land on mars, Conan goes out of style and Harry Potter comes in, movies are made about LotR that don't suck...D&D must embrace and adapt with these changes if it is to continue to exist. If it does not, it will be played only by contented grognards until they die, at which point D&D will die with them.

Some things from the new design philosophy are a direct result of D&D trying (mostly successfully, IMHO) to adapt to this changing world. Paladin's mounts no longer are a hassle. Command no longer REQUIRES interpretation. If mearls' rust monster became the new standard, now adventurers wouldn't be brought to a screeching halt. The combat round is one of the parts of D&D most people enjoy, so emphasizing that would make that part more enjoyable. 



> I may polymorph into an aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin. It doesn't explicitly say I may not polymorph into something else. May I polymorph into undead?




That would depend on the DM, who must interpret the vagaries in the rules. In my game, I'd say no, the living can't transform into the dead. But to rule yes would be a valid judgement (though somewhat scary).



> You lost me. You seem to be saying that anything the rules don't expressly forbid is allowed?




Anything there are not rules for is up to the DM to allow, invent rules for, or disallow.

"Can I swing from the chandelier onto the bar?"
"Can I play a half-orc paladin of Mother Theresa?"
"Can I break the lock off this door?"
"Can I arm wrestle Cthulhu?"
"Can I save the princess?"
"Can I light the campfire with Fireball?"
"Can I Command someone to attack me?"
"Can I polymorph into a golem?"

All of them require that famous DM judgement. Which the rules can never eliminate, but should provide a good framework from which to judge from. 

"Make a Tumble check."
"No, there are no half-orcs in this setting."
"Attack an object. It's AC is 18, hardness 8."
"...you can TRY."
"That depends on if you kill this dragon before it kills you."
"No, the flame doesn't linger long enough to light anything. You could blow a charred patch of ground there, though."
"No, that's too specific. You can command them to attack, though."
"Golems are made, polymorph works only with semi-biological life, not artificial constructs. No undead, either."


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 30, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Anything there are not rules for is up to the DM to allow, invent rules for, or disallow.





But the design philosophy you support is meant to make things easier which I do not believe it does.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 30, 2006)

> But the design philosophy you support is meant to make things easier which I do not believe it does.




What's easier to arbitrate? "One word command that is followed," or "A command such as W, X, Y, Z, which is acted out in A, B, C, D ways"?

The former is vague, and can be difficult to judge ("fly!" could mean fly straight up, fly into attack, fly away, fly straight down...). The latter has a few definate effects and always possibly more. The former takes time to think of a command, time to consider it's effects, time to enact it, and all must be done with reference to the rules and balance of the encounter. The latter has a few clear-cut effects that are already considered. If you want to do more, you can, but you don't have to take time in consideration because it's already done for you.

The same is true of, say the Ogre Mage redesign. It's easier to look at a small list of abilities that have an obvious use -- invisibility is obviously useful, as is lightning bolt, as is being able to melee attack well, as is sneak attack -- than it is to look at a longer, more vaguely defined list and pick something to use. Charm person doesn't need to be in that list -- a high Intimidate skill or a high Diplomacy skill can achieve much the same results without calling attention away from the better tactics of sneaking and attacking in combat. Out of combat, when many skills are their most important, you can look here to find out what would be a good social and campaign scenario for the OM. Effectively, the idea is that combat information and "social"/"ecological" information is seperate, and is easier to read and discern from each other so that when running an OM as a combat, it's easy to see what it would actually do (how to role play it well) and when paging through the MM in search of adventure ideas, you can see how the OM would fare in setting up a plot rather than in combat. 

The goals seem to be to make it easier to run -- to put more than 20 minutes of fun in 4 hours (indeed, to try to put 4 hours of fun into 4 hours). And so far, they seem to be succeeding at that quite nicely, as evidenced by the new MM4, by the Warlock class, by Mearls's design and development articles. All seem to be steering in the direction of putting more fun in your average span of D&D time, so that you spend less time accounting and considering and arbitrating and discussing and more time beating up things and taking their stuff. Streamlining the ogre mage makes that eaiser. Nerfing the rust ability made that easier. Giving me pre-classed monsters makes that easier. Having PC's who fire spells at will rather than have to do detailed accounting makes that easier.


----------



## Mark (Jul 30, 2006)

Make things easier to run without boiling all of the fun out of it in the process.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 30, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The goals seem to be to make it easier to run -- to put more than 20 minutes of fun in 4 hours (indeed, to try to put 4 hours of fun into 4 hours).





That's the goal no matter which side of this debate you are on.




			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And so far, they seem to be succeeding at that quite nicely, as evidenced by the new MM4, by the Warlock class, by Mearls's design and development articles.





Many believe the evidence you site points to failure, not success.




			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> All seem to be steering in the direction of putting more fun in your average span of D&D time, so that you spend less time accounting and considering and arbitrating and discussing and more time beating up things and taking their stuff.





This might be getting closer to the heart of the matter as many find simply "beating up things and taking their stuff" as an unsatisfying way to spend their time.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 31, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Many believe the evidence you site points to failure, not success.
> 
> This might be getting closer to the heart of the matter as many find simply "beating up things and taking their stuff" as an unsatisfying way to spend their time.



"Many" also seem to believe the opposite. I think that there is a deep divide in what gamers want, and it seems to be a trend that is not just limited to gaming. It seems to me, at least, that opinions on practically every issue are becoming more and more polarized.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 31, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> "Many" also seem to believe the opposite.





Of course, you're right.  Hence the debate, as you know.  The point I am trying to make with KM is he keeps presenting his opinion as fact and it isn't really leading to much of a fruitful exchange between us.




			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> I think that there is a deep divide in what gamers want, and it seems to be a trend that is not just limited to gaming. It seems to me, at least, that opinions on practically every issue are becoming more and more polarized.





This often happens on the declining side of a sales cycle for a game or edition of a game as its flaws are more universally clear and the player base fragments more and more.  Often players (mostly DMs in RPG games) have their individual fixes for gaps in the rules or changes and house rules that patch real or imagined deficiencies.  Once a game has moved this far along it is harder and harder for producers of supplements to gain a significant market share.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 31, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> This often happens on the declining side of a sales cycle for a game or edition of a game as its flaws are more universally clear and the player base fragments more and more.  Often players (mostly DMs in RPG games) have their individual fixes for gaps in the rules or changes and house rules that patch real or imagined deficiencies.  Once a game has moved this far along it is harder and harder for producers of supplements to gain a significant market share.



I suppose a clearer understanding of the flaws might account for part of it, but I suspect the fundamental problem is one of different playstyles. If the rust monster changes had been made when 3e was just released, for example, I'm sure it would have created a similar furore. 

What I wonder is why it is not possible to have a single system that caters to a variety of playstyles, perhaps along the lines of painandgreed's idea of a basic game plus supplements that are built around the idea of different gaming philosophies.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 31, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I suppose a clearer understanding of the flaws might account for part of it, but I suspect the fundamental problem is one of different playstyles.





In some ways, I think you are right but there are other elements that lead me to believe that it is only a part of a much larger equation.  I know some players who love D&D for heavy RPing but will play hours and hours of heavy tactical combat games (miniatures combat games of all types).  Try to introduce heavy tactical scenarios in their D&D game and they pull away.  Clearly it is not because they do not like that style of play, but simply because it is not something they want in their D&D experience.  Or, at least, not in their D&D experience with the rules as they are now.




			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> If the rust monster changes had been made when 3e was just released, for example, I'm sure it would have created a similar furore.





I suspect you are right.




			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> What I wonder is why it is not possible to have a single system that caters to a variety of playstyles, perhaps along the lines of painandgreed's idea of a basic game plus supplements that are built around the idea of different gaming philosophies.





I like the idea of a more flexible system that doesn't try to be so incognito.  I think it is time for a system that is frank about it's ability and interest in pleasing both the tactical combat enthusiasts and the storytelling aficionados.  Create a ruleset that highlights that flexibility and shows how to flex it (as a feature) and I think the game will be much improved for both camps.  This would have the added benefit of allowing the system to shift between the playstyles based on scenario circumstances, e.g. handling a bloodless palace coup in one game session and sessions with battling armies afterward as a civil war ensues as fallout.  Certainly, such a system would lend itself to supplements that focus primarily on either extreme of the tactical/storytelling axis or, indeed, on supplements that find themself somewhere in between.  The upfront nature of that flexible system would make marketing and purchasing supplements based on playstyle preference a much easier experience.  Those who find themself at either extreme would have no trouble tailoring their game based on such a model and no one would be lost as a customer while pursuing an expanded market share.  I would hope that those fashioning the new edition are up to such a challenge.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 31, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> That's the goal no matter which side of this debate you are on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree....finding a way to cram more "beating up things and taking their stuff" into a game isn't my idea of fun.

Nor is WoW.  I've been playing...and oddly enough, despite the fact that it's an MMORPG, I spend most of my time alone, because players don't roleplay, and are too intent on levelling that often 80% of my time is spent looking for a group......then I get to play for a tiny bit, and get to log off as I run out of time.

At least with tabletop gaming, you're getting together with friends, people you have a personal tie to, as you often live in the same city etc.  You can joke around, play, share some snacks, gossip, whatever.  Much better than sitting hunkered down in the basement staring at a computer monitor....no matter how good the graphics are.

Banshee


----------



## Scribble (Jul 31, 2006)

hey, haven't been in the thread in a while, but I stopped in to apologize for something I got wrong! 

I did in fact misread the original MM Ogre Mage entry.

I thought it said a general and some normal ogres, but it really said a general OM +2 HD and 1-8 regular Ogre mages, not regular ogres. 

It DID, however, say that the OM was a japanese cousin of the normal ogre, so I was right about that part. 

This was from the MM that had like the cartoonish picture of all the different monsters on the front, with a centaur on it, and like a cross section of the ground... (if that makes sense.)


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 31, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> I stopped in to apologize




No problem.  Message boards can get a little overwhelming when they're covering so much material in so many threads.  You are probably looking for the Ogre Mage discussion thread rather than this more general design philosophy thread.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=169179


----------



## Scribble (Jul 31, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> No problem.  Message boards can get a little overwhelming when they're covering so much material in so many threads.  You are probably looking for the Ogre Mage discussion thread rather than this more general design philosophy thread.
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=169179




nah, this thread a few pages back crossed into the OM for a short period of time (to illustrate a point.)


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 31, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> This was from the MM that had like the cartoonish picture of all the different monsters on the front, with a centaur on it, and like a cross section of the ground... (if that makes sense.)



That's the 1e MM.

Also, for the 3.5 Command business: "you may choose from the following 
" also means you may *not* choose anything else...I mean, goddess forbid that players be allowed to come up with new command ideas.  That said, I'd missed that 3.5 removed the one-word clause; that alone opens up worlds of potential grief that didn't need opening.

Lanefan


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 1, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> nah, this thread a few pages back crossed into the OM for a short period of time (to illustrate a point.)




Scribble, please limit your ogre mage discussion to the other thread.

This thread did have ogre mage discussion in it for a while, but it was split off into another thread for a reason.

Thanks.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 1, 2006)

When you think about it for a second, it's very interesting.

If a player makes a one trick pony character, we typically consider that a bad thing.  Most DM's will chuck in stuff to show why being a one trick pony PC is not good.  At worst, we tend to lump such players together with epithets like "powergamer" and "twink" or even "munchkin".  

Why should monsters be any different?  Why should we have a single monster for every niche instead of several monsters that can fill several niche's?  

As a comparison, take rust monsters vs babau.  Both are capable of destroying equipment.  Yet, a babau is capable of many, many more things, from being an assassin type villain, leader of a cult, sneaky bastard, straight up thug, etc etc.  So, if  I need a "remove PC wealth" monster, I have the choice of using a rust monster or using a babau.

From an adventure design point of view, which encounter is going to be more interesting?  My vote is for the babau simply because it's a heck of a lot cooler than a big bug that eats your sword.  It's a demon after all.  Demons are cool.  Whacking demons is what D&D is usually all about.  And, at CR 8 (IIRC), I can use a babau in a very wide range of encounters.

The new design approach seems to be centered on the idea of pushing creatures out of their niches and giving them a much broader utility.  The MMIV seems to be geared in this way as well.  Instead of a book full of niche monsters which may or may not ever see play, it works as a template book for how to use creatures in a broader sense.  Sure, there are still niche creatures, after all, if you don't use dragons very much, you aren't going to use spawn.

OTOH, now that you have spawn, you can use dragons a little more easily.  Instead of the dragon sitting in his lair on a pile of gold, now he has a ready made army of thralls to send out and do his bidding.  

Personally, I run Scarred Lands, so MMIV has very little use to me (no dragons), but that doesn't mean its a bad book.  I think the new approach has some serious merits.


----------



## Melan (Aug 1, 2006)

I don't get it. Why do all monsters have to have general appeal? It has always seemed to me that it is more healthy to have an array of staple monsters (orcs, zombies, dragons and big snakes, for example), supplemented by a range of monsters with niche appeal (ogre mages, various oozes and slimes) and a few odball things that should come up rarely in any given campaign - if at all (beholders). It seems more exciting to me when some monsters are common and others are special and highly specialised. It breaks the monotony of yet another critter with X hit points and Y resistances. The standardisation philosophy removes the individual touch of the D&D menagerie and robs it of its coolness.

Beholders, rust monsters and ogre mages are fun because they are not the same old, same old. They are oddballs, requiring oddball strategies to fight as a player and to run as a DM.

I don't see how that is bad. Really, Hussar, I don't get it. This is not rhetorical. I can't wrap my mind around the idea that someone would like to get them out of the game or change them to conform to a standardised design philosophy. It is a game of wild imagination and improbable strangeness, right? In short, fantastic and unpredictable. Or is that considered bad game design in today's environment?


----------



## FireLance (Aug 1, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> It is a game of wild imagination and improbable strangeness, right? In short, fantastic and unpredictable. Or is that considered bad game design in today's environment?



I think the problem is unpredictability when you don't want unpredictability, or if you don't fully understand the implications of the unpredicability (if you are an inexperienced DM, for example). I have nothing against highly specialized, oddball and unpredictable monsters. I'm a sufficiently experienced DM that I can probably guess at what the effect of such a monster would have on whatever party I'm DMing for, so I would be able to make an informed decision whether to use it or not. However, for the sake of those who are not, I think these monsters ought to come with warning labels.

And, there are players and DMs who don't want things to be too wild or strange - those seeking to emulate specific fictional universes, or the "real" world, perhaps with a slightly mythical feel, for example. Certain monsters may be considered inappropriate for those settings.


----------



## Melan (Aug 1, 2006)

But is ensuring that no "game balance accidents" happen such an overwhelmingly important design goal? Isn't this direction the gaming equivalent of "warning, knife may be sharp" labels?

I question the implication that game balance is all that important - or at least important enough to trump every other design priority a game may have. One of the appeals of roleplaying to me is precisely the fact that is is an unpredictable experience, where shared imagination and collective negotiation, if you will, results in the unexpected and the wondrous. This aspect, in my eyes, should be encouraged, not taken out to the shed and shot in the back of the head. And nonstandard monsters are a vital part of it.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 1, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I think the problem is unpredictability when you don't want unpredictability, or if you don't fully understand the implications of the unpredicability (if you are an inexperienced DM, for example). I have nothing against highly specialized, oddball and unpredictable monsters. I'm a sufficiently experienced DM that I can probably guess at what the effect of such a monster would have on whatever party I'm DMing for, so I would be able to make an informed decision whether to use it or not. However, for the sake of those who are not, I think these monsters ought to come with warning labels.
> 
> And, there are players and DMs who don't want things to be too wild or strange - those seeking to emulate specific fictional universes, or the "real" world, perhaps with a slightly mythical feel, for example. Certain monsters may be considered inappropriate for those settings.




That again points in the direction of either adding a lot of handholding and warning labels to the more complex matters in D&D to the core rules, in order to keep new gamers from getting too confused (which would be in order for more parts than just the "oddball monsters" in the MM, in my opinion), or creating a "basic" game that is still essentially D&D, just with most of the more complex and potentially confusing things cut out and left for the "advanced" version of the game. Weird, I have this déjà vu coming on...  

Alternatively, we have two examples of how to make two oddball monsters more conform with a focussed rules mentality (even though it still escapes me how adding more bookkeeping and adding an even more weird effect than metal rusting away immediately (i.e. "healing rust damage") can be "simplifying" the rust monster for newbies, for example  ), which is obviously lauded by those who would like those two monsters focus more on combat versatility, and discarded by those who see the original flair of the monsters in question being drained away.

I for my part would prefer the "basic game" strategy being used to better effect. I can live with warning labels and better decription of the "Behind the Rules" mindsets, too. I don't want to see everything streamlined down to "CR-adjudicated combat encounters with classes/templates tacked on for versatility", as I have enough work statting up important NPCs already..I don't need more work having to do so with monsters, too. Additionally, I believe new gamers will have it easier with monsters coming out of the MM complete with ALL abilities they could have, instead of monster do-it-yourself-kits with assembling instructions on how to modify them for taste.


----------



## Melan (Aug 1, 2006)

By the way, has anyone examined how new gamers react to "inappropriate" monsters like rust monsters or ogre mages? Do they dislike encounters which don't conform to the new design philosophy WotC employees and various posters on messageboards seem to advocate lately*? I really wouldn't know because I game with people roughly my age (24 to 30 in our group). I remember that we didn't care about game balance at all when we started; we eagerly experimented with game-breaking things because it was *fun*.

What I mean to ask is... is this expectation of balance over all a need present in gamers entering the hobby, or is it a learned trait?

*Last two or three years; IME. Before 3.5, this attitude didn't seem so commonplace.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 1, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> By the way, has anyone examined how new gamers react to "inappropriate" monsters like rust monsters or ogre mages? Do they dislike encounters which don't conform to the new design philosophy WotC employees and various posters on messageboards seem to advocate lately*? I really wouldn't know because I game with people roughly my age (24 to 30 in our group). I remember that we didn't care about game balance at all when we started; we eagerly experimented with game-breaking things because it was *fun*.
> 
> What I mean to ask is... is this expectation of balance over all a need present in gamers entering the hobby, or is it a learned trait?
> 
> *Last two or three years; IME. Before 3.5, this attitude didn't seem so commonplace.



I don't think it's a "new gamer" thing. I cut my gaming teeth on Basic D&D (the set with the solo adventure in which the fighter PC encountered a rust monster), and I still like the new design philosophy.

If your experience is that there has been an increase in players expecting balance, that could simply be because they wouldn't have played D&D before that, and would have spent their time on computer and video games instead. I admit that I do not have the data to back it up, though.


----------



## vulcan_idic (Aug 1, 2006)

Once upon a time, all gamers were new gamers and many monsters such as the rust monster and ogre magi have their origins in those early days invented by some of those very new gamers who were running them for other new players.  Sometimes these new ideas worked out well, sometimes they did not.

FireLance has no difficulty using oddball monsters as he can gauge at a glance the effect they are likely to have in a given situation.  As he says, "I'm a sufficiently experienced DM..."  how was that experience gained?  How do the new gamers become experienced?

By trying things and finding out what works and what doesn't.  Not every game will be a perfectly created storyline, tightly run, action packed and thrillingly played - sometimes a game flops.  That's OK.  It's no one's fault - mistakes are expected of everyone as part of human nature, we are not infallible.  We learn from those mistakes to make the next game better and more enjoyable - in the process taking steps to become that "experienced DM" or "experienced player".  Those are the experiences that make us experienced.

It seems to me that American culture, at least, currently has difficulties with perfectionism.  We protect our children to the point where they are unprepared for the world because they have never experienced it.  We're so paranoid about germs that we weaken our immune systems by minimizing contact with germs to such an extent that they fail to form antibodies to common infectious agents, while at the same time promoting the evolution of those bacteria towards resisting those antibacterial agents we use to fight them.  We don't want our children to make the same mistakes we did, in fact, ideally we want them to make no mistakes.  The problem with this is that we learn a whole lot more from our mistakes and failures than we do our successes, so in preventing children from making their own mistakes we also prevent them from learning from them.  The problem people have with oddball monsters and "balance" and "warning labels" and "handholding", I think,  is an outgrowth of this difficulty with not wanting our "children" - i.e. the next generation of gamers - to have to make the same mistakes we did and have to go through the really bad gaming experiences we did when we were young, so they can just have the fun part.  Of course then they can't learn from those mistakes to learn to judge the difficulty of a particular encounter on their own and instead rely on a Challenge Rating to do it for them, because they've never done it another way.  While a Challenge Rating is a good tool, it's no replacement for that gut feeling that tells you when something is likely to work or not.

This also seems to interact with our current seeming desire for instant gratification and general lack of patience.  We don't want to boil potatoes, and mash them by hand when we can take flakes, add water, nuke them for 3 minutes and stir.

None of this is intended to say any of these trends is good or bad, simply an observation of general tendencies that I see in American society in general and how they interact with the hobby as a whole and this topic specifically.

But that's just my thoughts, maybe others think differently.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 1, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Scribble, please limit your ogre mage discussion to the other thread.
> 
> This thread did have ogre mage discussion in it for a while, but it was split off into another thread for a reason.
> 
> Thanks.




Plane, I had no intentions of continuing that subject. I was simply apologizing for misquoting something in my argument. That's all.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 1, 2006)

While I don't disagree with what vulcan_idic said, I'd like to state for the record that I got my experience without ever using a rust monster. I made enough mistakes just using regular monsters.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 1, 2006)

And that's most likely the root of the whole thing...I'm not sure if you intend to imply that using a rust monster as an encounter was an error (or is one), I certainly agree that it could be one, depending on ones group and game make-up. As vulcan_idic pointed out already, that's a matter of experience more than of proper CRs, streamlined or nerfed powers or anything else. I never made the experience that it was an error when I used one in an encounter, and as such I don't have any aversions against it. But the experience of how it *could be an error* can only be made by actually using it a few times, and learning from it. Now, if all the oddball stuff and rough edges are smoothed down to one narrow standard, how much different is using e.g. a rust monster from a druid with _rusting grasp_, or a wizard with _desintegration_?

I don't know, maybe I'm simply too much of an old fart, but sometimes it seems to me the new design philosophy is to make D&D run as smoothly and as option-rich as a video-game out of the box, with all the good and bad consequences that kind of design can have..which can be a good or a bad thing, heavily dependent on the individual taste and preferance, and which clearly splits the opinions. Myself, I can't say I fancy it.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 1, 2006)

> It is a game of wild imagination and improbable strangeness, right? In short, fantastic and unpredictable. Or is that considered bad game design in today's environment?




Sure, of course I agree with that.  That's what templates/character levels/advancement rules/etc are for.

This point was made in another thread.  The only way we got tougher monsters previously was to create a new monster.  Thus we have how many versions of goblin?

The mechanics are there to make a general creature into a fantastic niche creature.  Why ignore those mechanics and just make new creatures?  If I want a puppet master type creature, why not take an existing creature and then tweak it.  Why waste space in the monster manuals recreating the wheel every time.

Say I want to make a puppet master mastermind creature.  I could take a minotaur, stock fantasy brute that it is, slap on a few levels of Thrall of Baphomet, perhaps an abyssal template and some levels of bard and I now have a fantastic puppet master.   I don't need a "puppet master minotaur" entry in the monster manual.  OTOH, if I want a big bad brute, I use a stock minotaur, perhaps slap a few levels of barbarian on him and away I go.

It has absolutely nothing to do with ignoring the richness of setting and everything to do with actually using the tools we have.  What purpose does an ogre mage serve, for example?  It's a poor example of a master mind creature.  I can create a better one using the tools given to me in 3.5 - one that will not be a one trick pony, nor be so overpowered in a single attack.

Why is it a bad thing to use the tools we have?


----------



## wayne62682 (Aug 1, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why is it a bad thing to use the tools we have?




I agree totally.  My guess is because the newbies are not creative enough to do it on their own, and WotC is changing the "design philosophy" to accomodate them by having variants for every little thing so they don't HAVE to be creative.  

It's like was said:  It seems like they're trying to make D&D more of something you can play right out of the box, as it were, without needing to spend the time to customize things to suit your purposes.  This is also why there are so many base classes now.. because people were not really creative enough to come up with (and then try to balance) hybrid classes like the Beguiler or the Duskblade, or modified classes like Warmage.  Now, I find the new base classes to be a _good_ idea, but I could do without explicit rules for umpteen types of the same monster to fulfil various roles.  Give me the basic creature and let me apply templates or classes (or hell, make up my own things) to make it "unique" and fit into the role I want it to.


----------



## Melan (Aug 1, 2006)

If we followed this argument to its logical conclusions, we wouldn't need more than a half dozen monsters - Hitter Monster, Caster Monster, Sneaky Monster, Support Monster, Resistant Monster and Mastermind Monster. Of course, this is absurd. But there is a point to designing individual monsters instead of deriving them from basic types, since the available tools can't do everything. Templates, class levels, feats and skills only go so far; they can give you a variation of a standard monster and they prevent, for example, the proliferation of goblinoids which had happened in AD&D, but they can't recreate beholders or rust monsters. They could probably recreate ogre mages (or whatever), but after a while, the extent of changes is so much that the ogre mage is better served by being a separate monster. It is more effective that way.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 1, 2006)

If we followed the reasoning put forth by some in this thread to its "logical" conclusion, we would seed the MM with lots of purposefully poorly designed monsters with randomly high or low DCs and bizarre effects plus lots of impenetribly interesting flavor text laced with minor magical effects that do the monsters no good, just so newbie DM can learn the "right" way to play D&D by making painful mistakes the first hundred times they sit at the table with friends.  That will teach them to love D&D.

With respect to the Core books, giving the new DM as much a helping hand as possible to gauge the kind of challenge a monster will be to the PCs has an enormous upside and a little downside.  Frankly, we could toss out half the MM, keeping only the most boring choices, and that would still be a dizzying array of options to a brand new DM.


----------



## Gold Roger (Aug 1, 2006)

Well, I have just overflown this thread, but it doesn't look like people are even discussing one certain thing anymore, but it's just one big playstyle/edition war/preferences/game balance/gaming fundamentals (and fundamentalists) argument. You know, the kind of stuff that leads nowhere but agreeing to disagree, just to bring it up the next best time anyway? That one.

Anyway, on the original post:


> The logic of this new philosophy is lost on me. Since some creatures, like the ogre mage, were essentially gutted by the revision of certain spells during the switch to 3.x and as they are now ineffectual because their CR is too high for them to be combat threats, the plan is to individually revise each creature based on what can transpire during a five or six round combat? I would have thought it better to address the perpetually enigmatic CR system. Or to bulk up the abilities that are used in and out of combat to keep the creature special and not turn it into a large fighting creature with class levels. I like the idea of leveling spells so that they do more than simply increase in range/duration/etc. when cast by more powerful casters. If I wanted to just throw an enlarged Fighter/Sorcerer toe-to-toe with an adventuring group can't I already do that using an enlarged Fighter/Sorcerer (and wouldn't it be a better challenge anyway)?



(I've only quoted only the first paragraph since it's the only one with actual argumentation)

I'm not exactly sure that what you talk about is "the new design philosophy". I actually see it as "the personal oppinion of one developer on monster design relating to modern gaming needs, certain points of actual wotc design philosophy and target audience of wotc D&D products". With that target audience part as the most important point. Yeah, I felt a bit hurt at the reduction of the rust monster or the removal of charm on the Ogre Mage. But there was one thing Mearls said that gave me confidence:



			
				mearl in the rust monster redesign article said:
			
		

> *Homebrew Design V. WotC Design*
> 
> Development's understanding of the game tells us that a monster who destroys your gear isn't fun. Simply put, it makes the next encounter prohibitively more difficult. The rust monster requires a lot more DM skill and a deeper understanding of the game than other creatures in its CR range.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hussar (Aug 1, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> If we followed this argument to its logical conclusions, we wouldn't need more than a half dozen monsters - Hitter Monster, Caster Monster, Sneaky Monster, Support Monster, Resistant Monster and Mastermind Monster. Of course, this is absurd. But there is a point to designing individual monsters instead of deriving them from basic types, since the available tools can't do everything. Templates, class levels, feats and skills only go so far; they can give you a variation of a standard monster and they prevent, for example, the proliferation of goblinoids which had happened in AD&D, but they can't recreate beholders or rust monsters. They could probably recreate ogre mages (or whatever), but after a while, the extent of changes is so much that the ogre mage is better served by being a separate monster. It is more effective that way.




Yes, I agree with that for the most part.  I disagree that an ogre mage in particular needed to be a completely separate monster.  But, I'm thinking that's more of a matter of taste.

Of course, there will always need to be more monsters.  As you say, templates and the like can only go so far.  I'm pretty sure I couldn't template a monster into a beholder, as you say.  

But, going way back to the original point is the idea that the new design philosophy is based around turning sacred cows into hamburger, I'm thinking that, well, I like burgers as much as the next guy.  

WOTC takes tons of flak for not innovating.  I've heard it time and time again that WOTC doesn't lead, it only follows.  Yet, here we have a pretty solid example of breaking away from the tried and true and reworking ideas using the tools at hand.  The Ogre Mage, for many reasons, doesn't really work as written in 3e.  So, why not use the tools that we have and make a monster which does work?



			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Create a ruleset that highlights that flexibility and shows how to flex it (as a feature) and I think the game will be much improved for both camps.
> *snip*
> I would hope that those fashioning the new edition are up to such a challenge.




Personally, I would rather the powers that be actually take the time to use the mechanics that we have and show how flexible it really is.  

Something I find rather amusing is that people lauded Denizens of Avidnu for doing precisely the thing that WOTC is getting blasted about with MMIV.  Granted, WOTC took it a few steps further, but, isn't it interesting that what is great for one publisher is crap for another?


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 1, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> But there was one thing Mearls said that gave me confidence:







			
				Originally Posted by Mearls in a Homebrew Design V. WotC Design article said:
			
		

> In many ways, development assumes that an individual DM is like a computer who heartlessly applies the rules.





I see a red flag.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 1, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> WOTC takes tons of flak for not innovating.  I've heard it time and time again that WOTC doesn't lead, it only follows.
> 
> (. . .)
> 
> Something I find rather amusing is that people lauded Denizens of Avidnu for doing precisely the thing that WOTC is getting blasted about with MMIV.  Granted, WOTC took it a few steps further, but, isn't it interesting that what is great for one publisher is crap for another?





I've not heard these arguments.  I wouldn't agree with them, anyway.  In the past, WotC has shown it can be both a leader and innovative.  Let's not get off track.




			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Create a ruleset that highlights that flexibility and shows how to flex it (as a feature) and I think the game will be much improved for both camps.
> *snip*
> I would hope that those fashioning the new edition are up to such a challenge.






			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Personally, I would rather the powers that be actually take the time to use the mechanics that we have and show how flexible it really is.





I'm not suggesting they need to start from scratch.  However, essentially we are in agreement as to the presentation.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Aug 1, 2006)

> Development's understanding of the game tells us that a monster who destroys your gear isn't fun. Simply put, it makes the next encounter prohibitively more difficult. The rust monster requires a lot more DM skill and a deeper understanding of the game than other creatures in its CR range.




Again, maybe the CR system needs to revamped, then?
And it isn't "fun" to have your gear destroyed?  Well, duh!
Doesn't mean it won't (and shouldn't) happen!  Adventuring is a risky business; why do you think so many ex-advetnruers are now tavern owners?    

Characters are more than a just a pile of numbers and equipment.  Your sword rusted?  Well, you may have to use another weapon until you can replace it then, and take the non-profiency penalty that goes with it!  Maybe it's the grognard in me talking, but we used to take the good with the bad when we played.    



> Development's responsibility is to create monsters that work in a way that’s easy to handle. The rust monster is CR 3, but it has a much bigger impact on the game than, say, a CR 3 ogre. We can't realistically put both those creatures on a random CR 3 monster table. Even worse, we don't want to send the message that monsters capable of destroying a party's gear are common opponents.




I don't think "easier to handle" applies to ANYTHING in 3.x, let alone the CR system.
And doesn't the above statment in itself point out a MAJOR flaw in the CR system, then?  They're both CR3, but one's more unbalancing than the other.  

If suc is the case, why are they both CR3?  (I'm not going to touch on the "Redesign" issues; I'll save that for the other thread.



> We don't want to encourage such effects, but there's no reason why a DM who knows what he's doing can't use them. In many ways, development assumes that an individual DM is like a computer who heartlessly applies the rules. This approach allows neophytes to trust the rules and experienced DMs to bend, fold, and mutilate them from the foundation of a workable, stable system.




Bolding is mine; and I think that's the single most horrifying admission I've heard in regards to this edition of D+D.  I've been getting a "Power to the players" vibe (which is admittedly what they were trying for since the 3E premiered), but, IMO, more and more I'm getting a "The DM is essentialy a CPU for the players" vibe from WotC.  ("Just follow the rules like a good little boy or girl, and you, too can have a thriving D+D campaign.")     :\


----------



## Gold Roger (Aug 1, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I see a red flag.



Well, you did take that a bit out of context. I think it's certainly understandable that wotc, if it wants to reach a large audience, has to asume the worst case and for those that don't act like that "red flag quote" it's a simple case of, we have to make sure the system works and is understood before we can step out of the system.

Edit:


> In many ways, development assumes that an individual DM is like a computer who heartlessly applies the rules. This approach allows neophytes to trust the rules and experienced DMs to bend, fold, and mutilate them from the foundation of a workable, stable system.




It seems these two sentences have to be re quoted together so some people start to understand what they mean in context with each other.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 1, 2006)

Originally Posted by Mearls in a Homebrew Design V. WotC Design article said:
			
		

> In many ways, development assumes that an individual DM is like a computer who heartlessly applies the rules.






			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I see a red flag.






			
				Gold Roger said:
			
		

> Well, you did take that a bit out of context.





The meaning doesn't change when removed from the passage, it is merely highlighted.




			
				Gold Roger said:
			
		

> I think it's certainly understandable that wotc, if it wants to reach a large audience, has to asume the worst case and for those that don't act like that "red flag quote" it's a simple case of, we have to make sure the system works and is understood before we can step out of the system.





Reaching the audience isn't really a problem, nor what I find disagreeable.  It's what they intend to present to that audience upon reaching them that concerns me.  Again, I agree making the game easier to play but I do not think that requires removing its complexity.  Stripping every creature down to the lowest common denominators, leaving them with just enough to get it through a brief combat scenario, won't ultimately satisfy anyone, at least not for long.




			
				Originally Posted by Mearls in a Homebrew Design V. WotC Design article said:
			
		

> In many ways, development assumes that an individual DM is like a computer who heartlessly applies the rules. This approach allows neophytes to trust the rules and experienced DMs to bend, fold, and mutilate them from the foundation of a workable, stable system.






			
				Gold Roger said:
			
		

> It seems these two sentences have to be re quoted together so some people start to understand what they mean in context with each other.





Untrue.  Again, the meaning doesn't change when removed from the passage, it is merely highlighted.  The second sentence is an addendum, not a clarification.


The major difference between the design philosophy that appears to be on the horizon for WotC and the one I personally champion is fairly simple . . .

One approach seemingly presupposes that if the complexity of the game is removed it will appeal to a much larger audience and those who want complexity can add to it after the fact.  It apparently purports that the game as it is would be too difficult to explain to a wider audience than those currently enjoying it.

Another approach keeps the complexity and finds a way to present it to a wider audience that makes the game more accessible without oversimplifying it.  It finds way to ease play without genericizing the very elements that, IMO, help keep the game and the brand strong.

Anyway, that is what I am seeing.  Now, it may be that the actual WotC design philosophy is akin to my own and all of the hubbub is superfluous, but the peeks we are being given behind the scenes seem to suggest otherwise.


----------



## Gold Roger (Aug 1, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> The meaning doesn't change when removed from the passage, it is merely highlighted.







			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Untrue.  Again, the meaning doesn't change when removed from the passage, it is merely highlighted.  The second sentence is an addendum, not a clarification.




Actually the second sentence states the intend and purpose behind the first, thus giving insight into the actual design phillosophy while the first sentence taken alone is a superficial statement.






			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Reaching the audience isn't really a problem, nor what I find disagreeable.  It's what they intend to present to that audience upon reaching them that concerns me.  Again, I agree making the game easier to play but I do not think that requires removing its complexity.  Stripping every creature down to the lowest common denominators, leaving them with just enough to get it through a brief combat scenario, won't ultimately satisfy anyone, at least not for long.




Well, we've seen nobody state this as actual intend, right? The Ogre Mage wasn't only stripped of things, there where also additions.











			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> The major difference between the design philosophy that appears to be on the horizon for WotC and the one I personally champion is fairly simple . . .
> 
> One approach seemingly presupposes that if the complexity of the game is removed it will appeal to a much larger audience and those who want complexity can add to it after the fact.  It apparently purports that the game as it is would be too difficult to explain to a wider audience than those currently enjoying it.
> 
> ...




What you are seeing may not exactly be what happens. After all Mearls just stated in a thread I know you've read that the monster makeovers are experiments more than statements of direction. If they are indications for a fourth edition, they are testings of the water, not previews.

People are complaining about wotc going over their heads and wishes when in fact they are giving us a way of influencing the way D&D is taking. Of course the whole action was harmed by mearls at times less than eloguent way of (written) presentation.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 1, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> Actually the second sentence states the intend and purpose behind the first, thus giving insight into the actual design phillosophy while the first sentence taken alone is a superficial statement.





I disagree.  I think the first sentence is a statement that gives insight into the actual design phillosophy and the second sentence tries to give some added reason to the approach.




			
				Gold Roger said:
			
		

> Well, we've seen nobody state this as actual intend, right?





We have only the indications from the materials shown us that WotC's goal is to reach a larger audience (certainly laudable) and that the design philosphy that they feel will get them there includes removing complexity from the game as a means to create greater ease of play (misguided means to a commendable end, IMO).  Are you disagreeing that these are the indications or goals?  I'm certainly open to hearing reasons and evidence to the contrary regarding the latter since I disagree with the approach but thus far I have only seen people either say they like the approach (that I do not) or say that they don't believe it is the actual approach (but point to no convincing evidence to the contrary, IMO).




			
				Gold Roger said:
			
		

> What you are seeing may not exactly be what happens. After all Mearls just stated in a thread I know you've read that the monster makeovers are experiments more than statements of direction. If they are indications for a fourth edition, they are testings of the water, not previews.





I would love nothing better than to hear that the design philosophy will not be as I suspect.




			
				Gold Roger said:
			
		

> People are complaining about wotc going over their heads and wishes when in fact they are giving us a way of influencing the way D&D is taking.





Perhaps.  




			
				Gold Roger said:
			
		

> Of course the whole action was harmed by mearls at times less than eloguent way of (written) presentation.





I think we have to assume what goes up on the website is vetted by management.  I don't believe Mearls has carte blanche in what gets added as articles.


----------



## Delta (Aug 1, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> If we followed this argument to its logical conclusions, we wouldn't need more than a half dozen monsters - Hitter Monster, Caster Monster, Sneaky Monster, Support Monster, Resistant Monster and Mastermind Monster. Of course, this is absurd.




You'd think so, but look at d20 Modern classes -- literally Strong Hero, Fast Hero, Smart Hero, etc. Some people defend that approach strongly. (Me, I don't like it.)


----------



## Gold Roger (Aug 1, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I disagree.  I think the first sentence is a statement that gives insight into the actual design phillosophy and the second sentence tries to give some added reason to the approach.




Then we have to agree to disagree on that part (unless you want us to go "first sentence"-"second sentence" over sides)






			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> We have only the indications from the materials shown us that WotC's goal is to reach a larger audience (certainly laudable) and that the design philosphy that they feel will get them there includes removing complexity from the game as a means to create greater ease of play (misguided means to a commendable end, IMO).  Are you disagreeing that these are the indications or goals?  I'm certainly open to hearing reasons and evidence to the contrary regarding the latter since I disagree with the approach but thus far I have only seen people either say they like the approach (that I do not) or say that they don't believe it is the actual approach (but point to no convincing evidence to the contrary, IMO).





I actually don't think removing complexity from the game in a larger amount is actually part of the game. The new Ogre Mage is certainly still a complex monster (sneak attack, fly, spell like abilities, including an evocation blast), though it's a bit streamlined (I agree that there's some to much in that "a bit"). The moment D&D stops being a tactical game it lost its complexity. Lets just say that I as a tactician in part see no removal of complexity.

There are shortcuts provided for the inexpirienced, lazy, uncreative and those that simply lack time, people who are all valid and valued part of the games audience. This includes encounter tables, the return of adventures, example encounters, classed Monsters in monster books etc.

Then there's the removal of complication, like the rust monster. Parts of the game that can be fun if handled correctly/introduced to the right crowd, but can screw the games of others. Rust Monsters are great fun, but you need a certain amount of expertise for that. When I carelessly used a rust dragon and consequently destroyed the 6th level fighters complete gear, I was lucky he was mature enough not to storm out in disgust and he was lucky that I came up with something to replace his gear. In our game this lead to some roleplaying and interesting new hooks and plot elements when he took that cursed bone armor from the doomguard to replace his equipment. In other groups, those of younger/more casual people, which is a large number of groups, i.e. customers, that player would have stormed out in disgust or the DM would have left him in the dark without equipment.

What this tells is, that if any complexity is stripped out of the game, it's the complex fun, while the fast and easy fun remains. Everyone can have fun kicking puppies kobolds, slaying dragons, fighting beholder, throwing fireballs etc.

But a Ogre Mages Cone of Cold or Rustmonsters equipment have the possibility to massively wreck games. Hell, there are even those slimy DMs that use rustmonsters or instant kills to screw their players (screwing PC's is fine, but screwing the players just sucks), using their officiality as excuse. And wrecked games are unfun games and lead to players dropping out and leaving the game. 

Do I agree that groups shouldn't be screwed with killer encounters? Yes

Do I agree that there should be ways to "complex fun" in my gaming material? Hell yeah.

It's a dilemma for the designers. Mearls articles certainly made it seem that wotc is stripping out the "complex fun", just to be sure. But if the articles are really more experiments (and I don't think mearls lied to us), then they seem to deal with the dilemma by trial and error.

So in a way I agree with you, there are indication that this may be part of the goal. However, my complain is, if you are concerned about this, I don't think complaining on a internet board first is the way to go when you could very well first ask the designer "Is this the design goal?"

I understand that people are concerned, but complaining about proplems that may or may not exist doesn't go right with me. We have little prove that this isn't part of the stated design philosophy, but we don't have much proof that it is either.



			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I would love nothing better than to hear that the design philosophy will not be as I suspect.




Of course *I* can't promise you that will never be part of the design philosophy, but I'm pretty confident that wotc has a R&D that creates a design philosophy that is not as one dimensional and single minded as that. The game has to many aspects to be handled that easily.




			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I think we have to assume what goes up on the website is vetted by management.  I don't believe Mearls has carte blanche in what gets added as articles.




Well, management isn't always the most knowledgable on the actual subject. Hell, they don't even know much about marketing communication either. 95% of the time ""This is unfun, so we don't do it" sounds perfect to a manager/marketing expert, but it can still upset the custommer.


----------



## Taraxia (Aug 1, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> You'd think so, but look at d20 Modern classes -- literally Strong Hero, Fast Hero, Smart Hero, etc. Some people defend that approach strongly. (Me, I don't like it.)




Yeah, but those are base classes. The deal being that D&D style flavorful base classes would be really hard to run in a generic setting like d20 Modern, since "modern" covers a lot more ground than the sword-and-sorcery fantasy genre of D&D. If "Computer Hacker" were a base class, there'd be tons of campaign ideas that simply couldn't use it. Same deal with "Soldier", or "Doctor", or "Musician".

The idea of generic base classes plus Occupation to define your character fits a lot better with d20 Modern's ethos of making the standard action-movie "ordinary guy rises to extraordinary challenge" plot possible.

However, d20 Modern has no lack of flavor when it comes to its advanced and prestige classes, at least not by my standards.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 2, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Mearls in a Homebrew Design V. WotC Design article
> 
> In many ways, development assumes that an individual DM is like a computer who heartlessly applies the rules.
> 
> ...




I wonder why?  I'm not being facetious here.  I would think that designers SHOULD assume that the DM cleaves completely to the RAW.  The alternative is design ideas that each DM is going to fold, spindle and maul the rules anyway, so any product doesn't really have to mesh with other products.

This became rather evident in the 2e days.  I'm thinking specifically about clerics.  The power difference between what was in the PHB, Tome of Magic, Complete Priest and Faiths and Avatars was incredible, never mind Skills and Powers.  You went from a fairly balanced class, to an incredibly gibbled one, to unhuman monstrocities.

Personally, I would think that designers should absolutely adhere to RAW and be very explicit when they deviate.  To me, that means that the designers have to assume that the DM's also cleave entirely to the RAW.  It makes breaking the rules much easier when everyone is on the same page.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 3, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I wonder why?  I'm not being facetious here.  I would think that designers SHOULD assume that the DM cleaves completely to the RAW.  The alternative is design ideas that each DM is going to fold, spindle and maul the rules anyway, so any product doesn't really have to mesh with other products.
> 
> This became rather evident in the 2e days.  I'm thinking specifically about clerics.  The power difference between what was in the PHB, Tome of Magic, Complete Priest and Faiths and Avatars was incredible, never mind Skills and Powers.  You went from a fairly balanced class, to an incredibly gibbled one, to unhuman monstrocities.
> 
> Personally, I would think that designers should absolutely adhere to RAW and be very explicit when they deviate.  To me, that means that the designers have to assume that the DM's also cleave entirely to the RAW.  It makes breaking the rules much easier when everyone is on the same page.





Designing with the thought in mind that players will more than likely follow the rules being designed is very important but it is the very rules that are most likely going to be followed that are being designed with that in mind.  You've created a knot of logic that tangles up a few points to support one another.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 4, 2006)

I'm sorry, I don't see the conflict.

The designer designs rules.  The designer is assuming that the rules already written, as well as the rules he's writing right now, are going to be used in a game.  Thus, the rules that he writes must mesh with the rules that came before.  The standard for this meshing is an absolute rules as written baseline.  No houserules, no rules variants (unless, of course, the new rule is based off of a variant, in which case, that should be specifically spelled out).

To me, that seems the best approach to writing game rules.  Sure, it results in pretty bland rules without any major changes.  I can live with that.  It also results in fairly static rules that aren't going to throw massive wrenches into someone's game.  To me, this is a great goal.

If I want to make massive changes to my game, that should be my decision (probably with input from my players).  I don't think it is the role of game dev's to make those massive changes.


----------



## Melan (Aug 4, 2006)

It seems to me that there would be a subtle difference between "applies the rules as written" and "applies the rules as a heartless computer". The fist includes a provision for common sense: the second does not. Just my thoughts.

<offtopic> Off I go, holiday at last! Have fun, all.</offtopic>


----------



## vulcan_idic (Aug 4, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> It seems to me that there would be a subtle difference between "applies the rules as written" and "applies the rules as a heartless computer". The fist includes a provision for common sense: the second does not. Just my thoughts.
> 
> <offtopic> Off I go, holiday at last! Have fun, all.</offtopic>




The unfortunate thing about common sense is that it's far too uncommon.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 4, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> It seems to me that there would be a subtle difference between "applies the rules as written" and "applies the rules as a heartless computer". The fist includes a provision for common sense: the second does not. Just my thoughts.
> 
> <offtopic> Off I go, holiday at last! Have fun, all.</offtopic>




I'm with Vulcan-Idic on this one.  I think I would much rather the designers assume that I'm brain dead and explain things in terms a six year old could understand than assume I have a grasp of old English and can parse the meaning in vaguely worded rules.

I spent far too much time arguing at gaming tables over rules to ever want to go back to those days again.  Even when I look at the rules boards here at En-World, 99% of the the rules arguements never happen at my table.  They are usually issues that are pretty esoteric from day to day occurances.  Things like why doesn't a held opponent draw an AOO?  Well, since having a held PC has occured exactly once to me in the last year or so, this isn't an issue that I have to worry about.

Which xp tables my priest of Kossuth uses is pretty important though.

Basing design assumptions around the idea that the DM has the common sense of a slightly concussed gerbil is probably not a bad thing.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 4, 2006)

Hussar, I think I see why we have not been connecting.




			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I don't see the conflict.
> 
> (. . .)
> 
> If I want to make massive changes to my game, that should be my decision (probably with input from my players).  I don't think it is the role of game dev's to make those massive changes.





I think you may have gone off on another track that is a topic for a different discussion.  Are you, in simplest terms, just saying you do not want D&D to change in 4E unless the new rules are completely optional and merely addons to 3.x?




			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm with Vulcan-Idic on this one.  I think I would much rather the designers assume that I'm brain dead and explain things in terms a six year old could understand than assume I have a grasp of old English and can parse the meaning in vaguely worded rules.





Are you having trouble with the way in which the rules are explained or are you having trouble with the rules themselves? 

Explaining the rules in simple terms is a goal for all game writing.  Everyone agrees with that so it's really not the issue being debated here.  The debate is over whether the design philosophy should be for non-complex game rules explained simply (which I hasten to point out *would* mean removing much of what is 3.x) or complex game rules explained simply (which I further point out *could* mean keeping much of 3.x but explaining it more accessibly).  It's my contention that stripping away everything not used in a brief combat scenario is the former and not a worthy goal.

Is this an issue for you because you are concerned how the rules will be explained or how the rules will actually function?  You seem to be concerned about the former while claiming the latter.  You seem to be tying the two issues together when they need not be.




			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I spent far too much time arguing at gaming tables over rules to ever want to go back to those days again.  Even when I look at the rules boards here at En-World, 99% of the the rules arguements never happen at my table.  They are usually issues that are pretty esoteric from day to day occurances.  Things like why doesn't a held opponent draw an AOO?  Well, since having a held PC has occured exactly once to me in the last year or so, this isn't an issue that I have to worry about.





This seems to be an area where you feel complexity is superfluous.  But I have to ask, "Would you prefer rules for AoOs didn't exist or that they were written more plainly?"

Arguments that I have witnessed over things like AoO are often about how the rules function but are, at the same time, often about how they are interpreted as written, some claiming one interpretation allows the rules to function better, others going with a differing interpretation.  Both generally enjoy the complexity of the rules but might find the wording of them ambiguous.  This is really an argument for keeping the complexity but explaining it more clearly.




			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Basing design assumptions around the idea that the DM has the common sense of a slightly concussed gerbil is probably not a bad thing.





I think at the heart of this discussion it has become plain to me that you actually mean that you want the rules explained simply but kept complex.  You seem to want the rules written elegantly and to handle a broad range of challenges (and multiple styles of games) but for any intelligent person to be able to understand them on the first reading.  I think we are really on the same page.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 4, 2006)

> This might be getting closer to the heart of the matter as many find simply "beating up things and taking their stuff" as an unsatisfying way to spend their time.




Fair enough, but it seems that "beating up things and taking their stuff" is the core game of D&D, and the point from which much pleasure derives. A story you tell is framed by "beating up things and taking their stuff." A legendary feel you recreate...by "beating up things and taking their stuff." A fantastic world of dragons and monsters....that you can beat up and take the stuff of. Evil villains...which you beat up and take the stuff of... Heck, entire D&D sessions can go by without doing it (political intrigue, etc.), but the rules don't need to handle that which does not need die rolls. They need to cater to that which does. The way that most people (not many or some, but most) play D&D needs to be addressed. 

You perhaps see the point. While it's not the ONLY way to play the game, it is one of the most fundamental aspects of the game, and so designing for it -- for a way to ensure that there are no unexpected hiccups in beating up things and taking their stuff -- is one of the only logical goals of design.

You would rather them try to explain complexity? Eh. People don't have time to listen to justifications of why they can't just sit down and have fun. D&D shouldn't be something you have to study and work at to be fun. It should just *be* fun. Instantly. That way, if I want to add complexity, it shouldn't be a problem, and if I just want to roll some dice and raid a dungeon, that shouldn't be a problem, either. 

I'm not Hussar, but I'm nodding in agreement with a lot of what he says, so I'll see if I can perhaps clarify my own stance...



> Are you, in simplest terms, just saying you do not want D&D to change in 4E unless the new rules are completely optional and merely addons to 3.x?




It's the dev's job to support the game that the most people want to play. If 4e winds up being wildly unsuccessful because it does a poor job of that, then 4e is a bad step. If this new design philosophy doesn't make most consumers happy, then it is a bad step. But while it's certain to alienate some, I feel those it alienates are a small fraction of the gaming community who doesn't invest a lot of money in the future of the system anyway. 

The changes they make should make the game "better," by making it more fun for more people. If some dozen stoics get stuck in the mud about an issue or three, but those changes draw three dozen more people into the game, the game is better.

[/QUOTE]
Are you having trouble with the way in which the rules are explained or are you having trouble with the rules themselves? 
[/QUOTE]

For me, in most cases, it's the rules themselves. Because they shuoldn't need another paragraph or three explanation, IMHO. If the rules were clear and sensible to begin with, there wouldn't need to be any explanation of them.



> But I have to ask, "Would you prefer rules for AoOs didn't exist or that they were written more plainly?"




For me, it's very much the former. If the rule can't be explained clearly enough for a brain-dead six year old to understand, it's not a good rule, and should be replaced with something simpler and more efficient that is easier to explain and understand. AoO's serve a purpose that we still want served, but they don't do it well. The same thing is true of grapples, for instance.


----------

