WotC Poll: Guidance for Monsters and Treasure

Benoist · March 21, 2012, 08:36:24 PM

Want the rules to clearly stipulate it is the DM's right to come up with whatever encounters he deems appropriate for the game? Want there to be random encounter tables as well?

Well, you need to share your opinions and vote:

Guidance for Monsters and Treasure in D&D Next.

Marleycat · March 21, 2012, 08:54:50 PM

Quote from: Benoist;522907Want the rules to clearly stipulate it is the DM's right to come up with whatever encounters he deems appropriate for the game? Want there to be random encounter tables as well?

Well, you need to share your opinions and vote:

Guidance for Monsters and Treasure in D&D Next.

I did vote you won't like it though, because my opinion is as confused as the questions in that poll. IIRC...
I voted 5's because all of them are important to me. I'm willing to negotiate on the Player Agency question though, the others? No, even the CLR/WBL question, I need that guideline, just as long as its understood that's it's just a guideline not RAW.

Benoist · March 21, 2012, 09:09:43 PM

I think a CR or XP budget guideline IS useful and probably should be part of the game BUT this needs to be CRYSTAL clear these are guidelines which, if followed at the letter, lead to a particular play style that is NOT the only valid play style out there. Including advice, random tables and variants on game styles is an absolute Must IMO. I do not want the 3.x paradigm to repeat itself.

Idem on the topics of "encounters", "game balance" and the like. These memes that these are the only measures of enjoyable play need to die.

Marleycat · March 21, 2012, 09:49:09 PM

Quote from: Benoist;522923I think a CR or XP budget guideline IS useful and probably should be part of the game BUT this needs to be CRYSTAL clear these are guidelines which, if followed at the letter, lead to a particular play style that is NOT the only valid play style out there. Including advice, random tables and variants on game styles is an absolute Must IMO. I do not want the 3.x paradigm to repeat itself.

Idem on the topics of "encounters", "game balance" and the like. These memes that these are the only measures of enjoyable play need to die.

I totally agree, I love 3e but I DO NOT want a repeat of it or its issues. Again agreement, the VERY concept of "in game" character class balance via combat only capabilities needs to die in a fire. Encounter and Exception based design should go in the same fire, end of story.

I play different classes and different characters within those classes for the WEAKNESSES and/or STRENGTHS of those classes regardless of whatever someone else is playing.

Tahmoh · March 21, 2012, 11:49:49 PM

The fact they used CR as the descriptor for difficulty levels gives me a sense of forboding about the direction they are thinking where monsters are concerned, also the random monsters and treasure poll currently has more votes for not at all important than any other rating which again doesnt sit well with me as i think random monsters should be part of all good adventures.

Old One Eye · March 22, 2012, 12:48:24 AM

This is an area where WotC has a clear path. Simply include encounter building & wealth by level guidelines alongside random encounter and treasure tables. Give a decent description of the pros and cons of each method.

This is an area where WotC does not have to choose, just give DMs the tools.

J Arcane · March 22, 2012, 02:05:53 AM

The fact that random monsters and treasure are rating so poorly saddens and depresses me, as well as cementing the idea that the kind of D&D I increasingly grow to love is not the kind of D&D the kids are into anymore.

Marleycat · March 22, 2012, 02:26:08 AM

Quote from: J Arcane;522987The fact that random monsters and treasure are rating so poorly saddens and depresses me, as well as cementing the idea that the kind of D&D I increasingly grow to love is not the kind of D&D the kids are into anymore.

Remember though those polls are really only representative of the player base that plays 4e generally, not the lost players like myself that play Pathfinder or Fantasy Craft, or Savage World's, or S&W......or...need I go on? All Wotc needs to is make the game simple to learn and cheap to buy in and they will have a money making machine. Think 1e with color and then add-ons.

TAFMSV · March 22, 2012, 02:28:25 AM

Quote from: J Arcane;522987The fact that random monsters and treasure are rating so poorly saddens and depresses me, as well as cementing the idea that the kind of D&D I increasingly grow to love is not the kind of D&D the kids are into anymore.

Those kids you're talking about have probably never tried it your way. I'm hoping that the Gygax reprints, and maybe elements of the open playtest, will soften some opinions. The poll shows you what they think right now. There's still hope.

Aw, who am I fooling? We're DOOMED!!

Benoist · March 22, 2012, 02:31:19 AM

Actually that's 31% or so rating random treasure and monster tables either "pretty important" (4) or "vital to the game" (5) with 24% that's okay with the idea, and the rest evenly split between "meh" and "no fucking way". That says to me it'd be a good thing if it was part of the game, and leave it up to the DM to use or not.

J Arcane · March 22, 2012, 02:32:57 AM

It's OK. I'm finally warming up to the OSR style of gaming, and I'm making my own Space D&D after almost two decades of everyone failing to deliver one. At this point, I'm set for D&D, I don't need Wizards.

Mostly, I just think it would be cool to have an official D&D I like out there, because Wizards is always the easiest D&D to find players for, save this recent Pathfinder boom. And if they do really make a simpler core game this time, I could probably get on board.

If not? I'll keep playing and making my own stuff like I have been for sometime now.

Marleycat · March 22, 2012, 02:57:41 AM

Quote from: J Arcane;522994It's OK. I'm finally warming up to the OSR style of gaming, and I'm making my own Space D&D after almost two decades of everyone failing to deliver one. At this point, I'm set for D&D, I don't need Wizards.

Mostly, I just think it would be cool to have an official D&D I like out there, because Wizards is always the easiest D&D to find players for, save this recent Pathfinder boom. And if they do really make a simpler core game this time, I could probably get on board.

If not? I'll keep playing and making my own stuff like I have been for sometime now.

That's my point, I already moved on as did alot more people than the 4vengers are willing to admit, Wotc knows this.

I am intrigued about your Dnd in space though, Spacejammer is fun in silly way but if something more serious and better is out there, I'm game.

Ladybird · March 22, 2012, 09:14:15 AM

Quote from: Benoist;522923I think a CR or XP budget guideline IS useful and probably should be part of the game BUT this needs to be CRYSTAL clear these are guidelines which, if followed at the letter, lead to a particular play style that is NOT the only valid play style out there. Including advice, random tables and variants on game styles is an absolute Must IMO. I do not want the 3.x paradigm to repeat itself.

Idem on the topics of "encounters", "game balance" and the like. These memes that these are the only measures of enjoyable play need to die.

Yes. Explain the "default" and how doing that affects the game, and when you'd want to do it. Explain how going over or under changes the game, and how, why and when you would want to do that.

Random encounters? Great! Tell players why they should use them, and what effect they have on the game.

Include lots of advice for newbies on running the game. If the grognards roll their eyes and whine about it online, that's fine, they don't need the advice anyway - but it does need to be in the core game, not in a specific "guide for new players" book.

Joey2k · March 22, 2012, 09:45:57 AM

I don't understand the risk vs reward part.

"Many groups enjoy a more risk-and-reward approach, which allows informed players to attempt encounters potentially too difficult for them so that they can gain treasures that would normally be “beyond them.” "

Can't any group already do this? Decide if they want to face a tough challenge? Or is it asking if such a challenge should even be presented to a group whose level is too low for it?

Exploderwizard · March 22, 2012, 12:44:17 PM

Quote from: Technomancer;523032I don't understand the risk vs reward part.

"Many groups enjoy a more risk-and-reward approach, which allows informed players to attempt encounters potentially too difficult for them so that they can gain treasures that would normally be "beyond them." "

Can't any group already do this? Decide if they want to face a tough challenge? Or is it asking if such a challenge should even be presented to a group whose level is too low for it?

In a sandbox game sure. In adventure path style games which are very popular now then no. The PC's in an AP leap through the hoops as the DM presents them.