|
11 months ago ::
Jul 22, 2012 - 9:33PM
#1
|
|
|
Legends and Lore: Monster Creation in D&D NextMike MearlsIn this system, a monster’s experience point value is the basic measure of its power. Tougher monsters are worth more XP. That’s the only number you have to worry about when building encounters and adventures. The monster design process boils down to creating a monster’s stats and abilities, and then using the system math to determine its XP value. I’ll use a monster I created for the playtest, the minotaur, as an example to walk you through the steps of monster design.  Talk about this article here.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 22, 2012 - 9:52PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jul 17, 2008
|
I wish I could talk about the article, but I still can't get past the introduction:
"When it comes to combat, the math that our system uses assumes an adventuring day that lasts a number of rounds and involves a total experience point value for monsters based on the party’s level. Higher-level parties fight more and face tougher creatures."
Can someone bring me around to understand they're building a roleplaying game? Because this reads like a tactical combat simulation to me.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 22, 2012 - 9:57PM
#3
|
|
|
I wish I could talk about the article, but I still can't get past the introduction:
"When it comes to combat, the math that our system uses assumes an adventuring day that lasts a number of rounds and involves a total experience point value for monsters based on the party’s level. Higher-level parties fight more and face tougher creatures."
Can someone bring me around to understand they're building a roleplaying game? Because this reads like a tactical combat simulation to me.
It's dangerous out there. Here, take this. *offers anti-napalm suit, cuz you've done it now!*
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 22, 2012 - 10:00PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
Can someone bring me around to understand they're building a roleplaying game? Because this reads like a tactical combat simulation to me.
Not every day is an "adventuring day" - if you're playing D&D, though, the assumption is that some days will feature combat... because PC characters are good at fighting.
Remember, "role" has two definitions: an actor plays a role as in a stage production, but four characters also assume roles whenever one defends another while she picks a lock and a third strikes an opponent while the fourth inspires them all to keep going. The latter is not less valid of a definition than the former, especially if you consider the origins of the medium.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 22, 2012 - 10:14PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Talk about this article here.
Thank you Haldrik for starting this discussion using the established format. 
I've linked it as the Official Discussion thread.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 22, 2012 - 10:30PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
While i like the insight on Monster Design, i am not sold on the reduced accuracy to demonstrate the monster hit harder, i hope Hill Giants don't end up with +3 to hit.
Otherwise, their seem to be some form of guidelines even though maths are still a work in progress, and while i like the Budget idea discussed, i am not sure a per-day budget is the right way to go. It forces DMs to plan the adventuring day ahead, something not everyone do, especially people prefering to DM on the fly. They will end-up under budget if the day end up having not enought encounters or over budget if they plan more encounters than the budget stated.
I really like the Bonus: Evolving Chaos article that Rob Schwalb gave us. Lots of cool advices in there. There is even a new monster and options for a dreadful disease!
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 22, 2012 - 10:35PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Pretty neat stuff. This article gives me a chance to tinker a bit, perhaps craft up new monsters in anticipation (or even convert some of my 4E and 3E creations) can't wait for the next update. However, something feels off. I dunno what it is... But, something! ya know?
Disgruntled ghost of the Knights of W.T.F.
(Keep D&D alive, end the edition wars!)
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are based on opinions (and are sometimes humorous, other times inspirational)
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 22, 2012 - 10:39PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
I dont like the new article. I cant point anything specific,sorry, but it feels "wrong" to me. Maybe it reminds me too much of 4th ed monsters?. If i'll understand what's wrong i'll edit my post. Edit: now i got it. Mr Mearls,while i have all the possible respect for your professionality and design capabilities (i approve almost all you have done until now about the design choices for DDN), i also strongly believe that you are off target now. When i was younger,i had many fun afternoons going to the beach with my friends,and while taking sun we had fun playing D&D. My equipment was: 2nd ed DM Screen,a pencil,a set of dices and some sheets.If i had to design a monster,let'say a sewer worm, my reasoning was: hp=average hit dice?check. damage? 1d6 for wrmlings,1d6+1/1d8 sting( mature ones)? check. roll to hit?look thaco table. check. saving throws?look table. check. Design time? 30 second or maybe less. In the article instead,i see several problems:
- I have to guess characteristics
- bonuses for stats have to be added to the math
- i have to invent "+" for proficiency
- different sizes means different roles and math
- different hit dices for various creatures
- and so on..
While The system given in the article is perfectly fine imho is suitable for long term monsters,but not for "on the fly" ones. The flavor of a monster is NOT in the math,but in the dm capability of painting a scene..i couldn't care less for a complex,overdetailed enemy. That's imo is a gamist approach legacy of more recent editions. But i care MUCH about easy and fast play. So,my idea is:leave that system for detailed,long term,reusable monsters, but give me also a fast system (a table maybe?) with all the math already done that i can reflavor as i see fit,and who can be inserted in a dm screen,as it was in 2ed screen. It's a bit off? who care, they are just for fillers..and DM eventually can tune up the results. Strive for semplicity. I cant play with 3.5ed or 4ed on the beach with my nieces,but you could let me play with them at DDN. Your choice.
DM: Products of MY Imagination ©. Since 1986.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 22, 2012 - 10:40PM
#9
|
|
|
Can someone bring me around to understand they're building a roleplaying game? Because this reads like a tactical combat simulation to me.
Not every day is an "adventuring day" - if you're playing D&D, though, the assumption is that some days will feature combat... because PC characters are good at fighting.
Remember, "role" has two definitions: an actor plays a role as in a stage production, but four characters also assume roles whenever one defends another while she picks a lock and a third strikes an opponent while the fourth inspires them all to keep going. The latter is not less valid of a definition than the former, especially if you consider the origins of the medium.
But if that day does involve fighting, it better involve at least 15 rounds of it!
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 22, 2012 - 10:59PM
#10
|
|
|
For people who might not necessarily scroll all the way to the end of every article, be sure not the miss the PDF attached to the bottom of this one with some ideas for keeping Caves of Chaos fresh on repeat adventures through it.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
