Here's a topic that interests me. I don't know if it has been dealt with before.
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.
----
What are your opinions?
Are you prepared to deal with some miscalculation in balance so that monsters/spells/items that feel more unique and are written from a flavor standpoint.
Is balance most important so you are prepared to sacrifice some flavor to ensure that everything is mathematically proven to be of the correct CR?
Every time you abuse the system you enforce limitations. Every time the system is limited we lose options. Breaking an RPG is like cheating in a computer game. As a DM you are the punkbuster of your table. Dare to say no to abusers. Make players build characters, not characters out of builds.
I am greatly in favor of a Flavor-centric design; this is one of the things I dislike most about 4th Edition D&D.
Then, in case balance becomes a problem, make sure that the DM has the tools (in the DMG?) needed to ensure balanced play is/can be maintained, in any situation.
Like many of the more important questions, this question isn't as black and white as it's being presented. The best option lies somewhere in the middle, which is exactly why it's a difficult question to answer. The 4E Vampire blood drain may not be sufficiently mechanically evocative of what I want the ability to do thematically, but I also don't want to suffer through the complexity of the 3E vampire blood drain. Abstraction is a necessity. The question is just how much abstraction we're willing to tolerate and in what scenarios.
Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha
Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further.
Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I would like a flavorful balance of flavor and balance.
(Your 4E example is missing the typical flavor text found in 4E powers.)
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Here's a topic that interests me. I don't know if it has been dealt with before.
Should the design of monsters/spells/magical items etc be flavoured-centric or balance-centric. To explain what I mean with those concepts: Spoiler:Show
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.
----
What are your opinions?
Are you prepared to deal with some miscalculation in balance so that monsters/spells/items that feel more unique and are written from a flavor standpoint.
Is balance most important so you are prepared to sacrifice some flavor to ensure that everything is mathematically proven to be of the correct CR?
I used good old sblock because that's a lot of example!
Here's why I don't like "flavor-centric" or as I sometimes call it "intuitive" design: mistakes pile up.
Your example references CR, grapple, and ability drain. (1) CR is ugly from a game design standpoint because it doesn't say enough - if you design monsters intuitively, then there could be high CR monsters that lose initiative and die without acting or low CR monsters with surprisingly nasty abilities. Intuitive CRs don't help DMs understand anything about the adventures they are trying to make, leading to more TPKs or cakewalks or dice fudging. (2) Grapple is usually a source of combat slowdown - it's more rules and more rolls than the other ability by a *lot*. (3) Ability drain means someone could be rewriting parts of his character sheet every round, possibly even losing prerequisites for other abilities. And then the problem sticks with the character indefinitely.
In other words, the "flavor-centric" philosophy gives us a bunch of quirky models and sub-systems that may not play well together.
I do see that the "balance-centric" design can leave some people feeling underwhelmed though, since it doesn't give any flavor to the effect. I'd probably narrate it as the vampire lunging in, overpowering the PC (attack versus fort, after all) and sinking its canines in, leaving the PC with a lingering numbness and desire to succumb. But plenty of people read power in that format and don't find them at all inspiring, so writing that way means putting some extra effort into power fluff.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
I am greatly in favor of a Flavor-centric design; this is one of the things I dislike most about 4th Edition D&D.
Then, in case balance becomes a problem, make sure that the DM has the tools (in the DMG?) needed to ensure balanced play is/can be maintained, in any situation.
I don't see how the second part of this works. Balancing an intuitive system with more intuitive fixes doesn't add up to a rational design.
For example, what do you do if someone wins initiative and drops the vamp with a lucky crit or well-chosen spell? Do you give less XP because your players were lucky or played optimized PCs? Or what if the vampire gets lucky and sucks 12 points of Con from the wizard? If the party doesn't have the right resources, do you put some potions and scrolls in a treasure to get them out of trouble? Or is it best to just fudge rolls in the first place to make up for the lack of math behind the system?
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
I wanted to get the discussion rolling a little before adding my own personal thoughts around this since the first post is the one most likely to derail the thread as it might feel like it is trying to present an answer as right or wrong which I am not gunning for. :P
My personal preference is the flavor-centric approach as I feel that monsters tend to be more interesting for me and not blur together as much. There is a problem with balance and slowdown as is noted in the thread. Thus, to me it feels like there is a tradeoff in the quantity/quality spectrum of the battles as well... Many similar battles or fewer more differing battles.
The problem with slowdown is hard to get away from, but can be helped with monsters and PCs not being able to take as much damage.
The problem with surprise too-hard-fights is also an issue. Personally I never fudge, but the players are aware that all my rolls are in the open. This means that it is part of every players responsibility to recognize a fight that is going the wrong way and being able to know when to flee (DM is not perfect all the times :D). It is also my responsibility as a DM to recognize a fight that is poorly matched and allow players to get away when they are trying to, and also to allow them better opportunitites to bypass the obstacle. This could be by providing them alternate routes, allowing them options to split the encounter using smart thinking, giving them better tools etc.
As someone said there could also be shades of gray of this...
A system that is able to allow for freedom of design yet meeting perfect balance would be the most wanted, but as it is near impossible to create such a system, my preference is that they walk on the side of flavor rather than that of balance.
Every time you abuse the system you enforce limitations. Every time the system is limited we lose options. Breaking an RPG is like cheating in a computer game. As a DM you are the punkbuster of your table. Dare to say no to abusers. Make players build characters, not characters out of builds.
the first problem with flavor-centric design is if you don't agree with the flavor presented it's not just a matter of reskinning the flavor text, since you're also redoing the rules... and at that point if i'm reworking both flavor AND rules... what am i paying the devs for again?
the second problem is that it's easier to unbalance a balanced game then balance an unbalanced one. 4th ed is well balanced so it's far easier for me to predict if an element i introduce will unbalance the game or not, and this is a good thing! if i want to introduce items that far beyond the norm for the party's level of power but still reasonable i can more easily eyeball it. in an unbalanced game this generally much harder to do since power between elements fluctuates quite a bit more wildly.
i'm entirely for a game built on a solid mechanical foundation i can reskin to my image.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />For example, what do you do if someone wins initiative and drops the vamp with a lucky crit or well-chosen spell? Do you give less XP because your players were lucky or played optimized PCs?
XP measure the challenge faced. Modest challenge = modest XP gain.
Or what if the vampire gets lucky and sucks 12 points of Con from the wizard?
Uhm, you probably have a dead wizard. Or an undead one.
If the party doesn't have the right resources, do you put some potions and scrolls in a treasure to get them out of trouble?
No. The party should procure the right resources when needed.
Or is it best to just fudge rolls in the first place to make up for the lack of math behind the system?
Fudging is acceptable, if it serves the game. You might fudge a couple rolls, allowing the PCs to flee before getting a TPK. Fudging to make up for player mistakes (like attacking a vampire without magic weaponry) is not as good. But in the end, it's up to the individual DM.
However, design for flavor and design for balance are likely not the best ways to think of different design styles. That's because no one designs with absolutely no concern for flavor or balance. Even the "design for balance" Vampire above tries to conform, albeit vaguely, to the flavor of the Vampire. I find it more useful to think in terms of design for cause and for effect, as in wargaming.
If the designer is building a Vampire for effect, he first decides a level and type of threat ("the Vampire is an elite lurker opponent for 8th level PCs"). According to this desired effect, he gives the Vampire two attacks per round, double HP for its level, a certain attack bonus. He notes that the Vampire needs an invisibilty type power. At that point, he looks at cause to decide whether the Vampire attacks cause debilitating damage or fire damage or large untyped damage or whatever, and whether the invisibility power should be flavored as "hide in shadows", "teleport to cover", "gaseous form", "an invisibility spell", or any other option.
If the designer is doing the same, but for cause, he would first look at the type of powers and weaknesses assumed for the Vampire (superhuman strength, blood drain, gaseous form, shapechange, charme, cannot enter uninvited, cannot abide holy symbols, disintegrates if exposed to sunlight, able to soak up massive physical damage), creates stats for each effect based on the assumptions of the meta-setting -- e.g., he expects the Vampire to drain completely a normal human in 4 rounds; since a normal human has about 10 Con, he decides that 1d4 Con per round is a good measure of the damage inflicted. At this point, he switches to checking effects. He then sums up the various powers, and compares them with existing powers, and gauges the approximate level of challenge given by his vampire and adjusts accordingly the base stats (to hit, HPs, saves). Then he playtest the creature and iterates, either adjusting the challenge level or modifying the stats, until the result is satisfactory.
I have to agree with crimson concerto on this. I will freelly grant that the 3e version has more flavor than the 4e version. However, those advocating "flavor centric" design seem to be ignoring the fact that you can have an awful lot of flavor with absolutely no mechanical referrant. You can also have extremely complex rules that add nothing to flavor. 4e got lazy with its flavor text and smart with its design, but it could have had both.
Personally I don't see CON damage as opposed to HP damage adding much at all in the way of flavor, certainly not enough to be worth the fuss of rewriting character sheets. And while I'll grant CA isn't as evocative as a pin, I don't think anything would have been lost from a flavor perspective if they had simply required a grab. The problem is, in order to avoid the terrible brokenness that was 3e grabs, and to have fun tactical combat rules with pushes and slides, they made it practically impossible to actually maintain a grab for a full round, especially if the players know that allowing it to continue will trigger getting their blood drained. So it's not that they made the choice between "flavorful" grab and bite mechanic and "balanced" CA mechanic, it's that they made the choice between "balanced" CA mechanic and "boring" power-he-never-gets-to-use mechanic. I can't tell you how many times I've run monsters with a grab and attack mechanic that they never once got to use because they couldn't maintain a grab long enough, at least until I houseruled the "forced movement breaks grabs" rule to allow a chance to hold on.
I'm not saying you're never going to have to choose between balance and flavor. But you can get a whole range of flavor within a given level of balance/simplicity. The fact that 4e got lazy (or to put it more kindly, left the flavor text up to DM imaginations in the interest of compact presentation) and often ended up on the low end flavorwise shouldn't be held against balance. And I think it's a lot easier to add flavor to a a monster designed with balance in mind than to add balance to a monster designed with flavor in mind.
BTW, "quality over quantity" suggests that those of us who want faster combats are just hoping to get more of them into a session. This is not so. In fact, what we would like - and correct me if I don't speak for all of us - is game sessions that are more fun, both because we spend less time waiting for our friends to finish their turns and because we spend more time advancing the story. I would not call a flavorful fight that turns into a cakewalk or a TPK due to failure to balance or that takes 4 hours to run because players are constantly looking stuff up in the rulebook "quality."
