Community

Apr 9, 2012 -- 4:01AM, Butcha wrote:

Should the design of monsters/spells/magical items etc be flavoured-centric or balance-centric. To explain what I mean with those concepts:

Flavor-centric:
The monster/spell/item/power is designed with little regards to balance. Text and rules intermingle to generate something that feels right as the author is designing it. Afterwards, one tries to get a general feel for the creation and adds an approximate CR in comparison to similar creations. Additional tweaks are added to get the balance right. This approach is not vey scientific and will at times cause balance to err, but it gives a unique feel to the creation that sets it apart from others.

Example: 3e vampire blood drain
A vampire can suck blood from a living victim with its fangs by making a successful grapple check. If it pins the foe, it drains blood, dealing 1d4 points of Constitution drain each round the pin is maintained. On each such successful attack, the vampire gains 5 temporary hit points.

Balance-centric:
To ensure that balance is maintained, one tries to use known appraisable powers, areas and effects to build powers that aims to give the feeling one is looking for. One can calculate the CR based on whatever was put into the monster/spell/item/power, making it easily comparable to other similar creations. Any text added is primarily used to add some flavour but will generally not affect the creation from a rules perspective as free-form powers are hard to compare.

Example: 4e vampire blood drain
(Standard action, Recharge when adjacent becomes bloodied, Requires Combat Advantage)
+X vs Fort, 2dY+Z Damage, Weakened - Save Ends, Vampire regains X Damage. 
  
 
----

The flavor-centric approach has more complex rules involving grapple checks, different results depending on whether pin lasts, and whether additional attacks succeed. It really feels like a vampire grabbing hold of the target, drawing blood, trying to hold it steady while it drains more and more life. The power feels made for the vampire. However, the complex rules involved will make it inherently hard to compare against other powers.


The balance centric approach is working completely in standard battle terms. Each part of the power is easily recognizable from other powers and can be evaluated and compared. The power however has removed the feeling of a vampire grabbing hold its target and draining it. The benefit of a better balance has been traded for reduced flavor, making the power feel more generic.

     Now I prefer the balance approach, but this is a very poor example, and is quite wrong in its implications.  There is no inherent reason the flavor-centric approach will have the more complex rules.  In fact, the flavor-centric approach can get by with almost no rules at all.  [The plot requires you to win this fight?  OK, a 2 hits.]  It is the balance approach that needs complex rules in order to achieve that balance. 

Apr 9, 2012 -- 11:58AM, DavidArgall wrote:

     Now I prefer the balance approach, but this is a very poor example, and is quite wrong in its implications.  There is no inherent reason the flavor-centric approach will have the more complex rules.  In fact, the flavor-centric approach can get by with almost no rules at all.  [The plot requires you to win this fight?  OK, a 2 hits.]  It is the balance approach that needs complex rules in order to achieve that balance. 

A flavor-centric approach needs balance as well I think. A monster in the MM that requires only a 2 to hit would not be very fun.

The flavor-centric approach is more difficult to balance I think because it is not rule-centric, instead it is focused on whatever you are trying to create. I.e. when you are creating a monster you are thinking about the monster primarily, you are not thinking in game terms.

Thus if a monster's flavour calls for an affected PC to turn suicidal you do not consider whether the battle rules has an effect called [Suicidal] among [Dazed] and [Staggered], instead you write the effect of suicidal down on the monsters attack.

This monster might be the only one that will ever use the [suicidal] effect. But how does suicidal compare to staggered? How does it compare to stunned? There will be few precedents which means that each monster will more often needs to be balanced by itself, rather than against known parameters which I think increases the chance for a poorly set challenge rating.

Also as a DM such attacks will more often move away from the comfort zone of Attack vs Will/Fort/Ref/AC which means there will probably be more reading since a text block of rules is harder to consume than the short attack block with known effects.