tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post8307199081504660860..comments2024-03-29T00:32:33.920-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: More Stuff vs More RulesJames Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-48860210405922003312009-09-09T11:50:33.310-04:002009-09-09T11:50:33.310-04:00Richard, there WAS a shift in marketing paradigm, ...Richard, there WAS a shift in marketing paradigm, as can be seen in the changes in the style of the illustrations from vaguely gothic to comic book style. Call it the egffect of marketing globalization on D&D. <br /><br />Some staffer at WOTC official website once wrote words to the effect that: you make a product for the DM, such as a dungeon module, you are only selling to one in five D&D players. Making a supplement or accessory for the players to customize their character, you are selling to every player of D&D, including the DM who is going to include the modified PC in his game, or words to that effect.<br /><br />I don't like the idea of minions, it's borrowed from videogames, and computer based adventure is of necessity more linear and restrictibe than a PNP based one.<br /><br />I don't like the idea of scaling monsters to fit the players. The game ceases to be a DMs world, which the players can explore, with tactical problems to solve and obstacles to overcome, and becomess a tabletop theater stage instead. A stage, centered on the player characters. The game ceases to be a narrative form and becomes a DIFFERENT KIND of a tabletp wargame, especially with the emphasis on miniatures. I know one $th Edition DM who told me that he doesn't map out the site. He sets up monster lairs, and if the player roll for and find a "secret door" then they surprise the monsters and avoid the traps. This game is very different from one, where you have an actual pre-mapped setting, which the players can NAVIGATE. To me this style of play is new, and came out ouf the 4th Edition of the game.Brooser Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08487438364129415650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-88437537065688881722009-09-09T09:05:13.352-04:002009-09-09T09:05:13.352-04:00@Chris T.:
All those reasons are very good points...@Chris T.:<br /><br />All those reasons are very good points to make about actual game play. We were talking about designing monsters, though, which is a little different. You probably don't want to write a Cthulhu that goes down like a chump to 3rd level characters, and you probably don't want to give your goblins five brutal attacks a round. Design is all about making sure the result fits the original conception of the monster.<br /><br /><br />@Wally:<br /><br /><i>Minions steal attention; creatures with higher hit points hold attention. They serve different functions in combat, and allow mass-combat game situations to take on immense tactical complexity while minimizing bookkeeping.<br /><br />Indeed, 4e's recognition that these monster types serve different purposes in combat is an enormous step forward in playability from all previous editions' combat model. Indeed, 4e monsters come with carefully designed behaviour patterns atop the standard stat blocks and attack listings; the increase in usable detail and complexity far outstrips the increase in complication.</i><br /><br />Minions do make mass combat easier, and explicit monster roles are useful, yes. No argument there. However, I would point out that adding detail to a system doesn't necessarily increase playability - Quite the opposite. Speaking from a systems design standpoint, making a system more complicated almost *always* restricts the scope of what it can handle and makes it easier to break with edge cases. That's part of why 4e has no familiars or summoning spells, why all the magic items are so similar, and why the noncombat spell list is so miserably short. The added detail in combat makes the system more brittle.<br /><br /><br /><i>Tell me, then. How the hell do you 'simulate' hobgoblin combat capacity? And why is the minion model worse than any other at this in-game task?</i><br /><br />Whoa, relax! I didn't mean to sound insulting or anything. I make extensive use of minions in my 4e game myself. Some of the minion rules are just a little weirdly inconsistent in certain scenarios. Let me give an example.<br /><br />There's an 11th level ogre minion in the MM somewhere (don't recall the exact name), along with a 1st level skirmisher Goblin Blackblade. I think we can all agree that the ogre is the more physically stout opponent. Yet if a tenth-level character hits the ogre in the ankle with a dagger using a basic attack, it dies. But the goblin will easily survive the same hit.<br /><br />If you try to take the system all at once, you get lots of minor inconsistencies like this. This is okay if (to use some dirty-hippy-Forge-speak) you play in a narrativist style and only care about the stuff thats in front of the players right now and how it interacts with their story. But for a player who wants a more robust simulationist angle in the game, odd shenanigans will ensue from this sort of thing when you start putting monsters up against other monsters. Being able to handle strange cases sensibly is important to a good simulation. And note: It's not that 4e can't handle stuff like that; it just doesn't do it as well as simpler systems. That's why I use it for some types of games (high-octane action-fests) and run screaming away from it for others (mega-dungeons).<br /><br /><br /><i>The point here being that 4e monsters are better differentiated, more complexly defined, and more transparent in their usage goals than any previous. They're good game material - less evocative than previous editions, maybe, but more usable. That's all.</i><br /><br />This. I wouldn't go as far as you do here - For one, I would rather ditch the complicated stuff for something simple but effective - but you are right on the money about transparency of design. 4e does present some very good lessons to be learned about effectively designing to a niche, which is the point I was trying to make above.Big McStrongmusclehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07067031012393190130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-80998844704636241252009-09-09T01:37:28.923-04:002009-09-09T01:37:28.923-04:00"Indeed, 4e's recognition that these mons...<em>"Indeed, 4e's recognition that these monster types serve different purposes in combat is an enormous step forward in playability from all previous editions' combat model. Indeed, 4e monsters come with carefully designed behaviour patterns atop the standard stat blocks and attack listings; the increase in usable detail and complexity far outstrips the increase in complication."<br /><br />That's a relief.</em><br /><br />The point here being that 4e monsters are better differentiated, more complexly defined, and more transparent in their usage goals than any previous. They're good game material - less evocative than previous editions, maybe, but more usable. That's all.Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215651059418273961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-6399106998093390882009-09-09T00:55:51.929-04:002009-09-09T00:55:51.929-04:00Indeed, 4e's recognition that these monster ty...<i>Indeed, 4e's recognition that these monster types serve different purposes in combat is an enormous step forward in playability from all previous editions' combat model. Indeed, 4e monsters come with carefully designed behaviour patterns atop the standard stat blocks and attack listings; the increase in usable detail and complexity far outstrips the increase in complication.</i><br /><br />That's a relief.Chris Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11064988977152302364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-44304285077175518502009-09-09T00:42:04.420-04:002009-09-09T00:42:04.420-04:00D&D has always been about XP and gold. What el...<i>D&D has always been about XP and gold. What else are players supposed to want? Rich improvised descriptions from their DM? A pony, perhaps? :)</i><br /><br />LOL. True. But there's more than one way to skin a cat ;)Chris Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11064988977152302364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-65868416168474588062009-09-08T23:46:24.395-04:002009-09-08T23:46:24.395-04:00Indeed, the 4e Quick Start rules from WotC take 15...Indeed, the 4e Quick Start rules from WotC take 15 pages; figure another 8 pages for customization rules, monster/powers-design guidelines, and some sample characters (including a single full power progression), and you could fit 4e into the Basic rulebook. It wouldn't be pretty but neither is any other game under discussion. :)<br /><br />Huh, someone should do this and distribute it as a <em>futuro-clone</em>.<br /><br />(Captcha: 'bowleyin,' Robert E. Lee's pronunciation of Henry VIII's wife's name I suppose.)Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215651059418273961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-51969602013669681542009-09-08T22:37:56.711-04:002009-09-08T22:37:56.711-04:005. it's the players' unreasonable thirst f...<em>5. it's the players' unreasonable thirst for XP and gold which has brought them undone.</em><br /><br />D&D has always been about XP and gold. What else are players supposed to want? Rich improvised descriptions from their DM? A pony, perhaps? :)Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215651059418273961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-43844935510292888272009-09-08T22:36:26.859-04:002009-09-08T22:36:26.859-04:00The actual rules content of the 4e PHB comes to ni...<em>The actual rules content of the 4e PHB comes to nicely under 64 pages, interestingly. There's a huge chunk of pages dedicated to options -- power descriptions, magic items, and so on -- but the core rules are rather concise.</em><br /><br />I'd go further: the core rules for 4e can be fit (with precious little loss of detail) on a handful of pages, most class/race information on another couple. Powers and spells and rituals and the like take many pages, but then 4e treats powers as analogous to monsters: unique exceptions within broad 'balance' constraints.<br /><br />Indeed, you could include a <em>powers-generation algorithm</em> along with the core mechanics in fewer pages than OD&D took, and you'd have a hell of a lot cleaner design to boot.<br /><br />(And: no, I won't.)Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215651059418273961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-67547002971237517802009-09-08T22:29:57.191-04:002009-09-08T22:29:57.191-04:00I don't much like the minion concept. It's...<em>I don't much like the minion concept. It's a bit too explicitly "game-y" for my tastes, which is to say, I have a hard time figuring out what it represents within the game world.<br /><br />In terms of the concept, I agree. I'm still not quite sure what exactly the minion concept represents in a game world.</em><br /><br />Minions steal attention; creatures with higher hit points <em>hold</em> attention. They serve different functions in combat, and allow mass-combat game situations to take on immense tactical complexity while minimizing bookkeeping.<br /><br />Indeed, 4e's recognition that these monster types serve different purposes in combat is an enormous step forward in playability from <em>all</em> previous editions' combat model. Indeed, 4e monsters come with carefully designed <em>behaviour patterns</em> atop the standard stat blocks and attack listings; the increase in usable detail and complexity far outstrips the increase in complication.<br /><br /><em>Well, it is true that making certain hobgoblins instantly die from a single hit isn't very good from a simulation standpoint.</em><br /><br />Tell me, then. How the hell do you 'simulate' hobgoblin combat capacity? And why is the minion model worse than any other at this in-game task?Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215651059418273961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-4047592407389859612009-09-08T19:19:17.066-04:002009-09-08T19:19:17.066-04:00robbprofus
The only times I ever used really tough...robbprofus<br /><i>The only times I ever used really tough monsters which the players could only hit with a 10% or 5% probability (ie. requiring a natural 19 or 20 on their d20 attack rolls), was when I deliberately wanted to do a TPK on the players.</i><br /><br />Sigh.. I feel you are missing an important point about monsters and encounters. I'll break it down for you: <br /><br />1. the players do not have to attack every monster!<br /><br />2. the players do not have to attack every monster!<br /><br />3. just as they don't have to enter a room with an obvious pit trap, say.<br /><br />4. if <i>they decide</i> to attack and they die, it's not the DM's fault.<br /><br />5. it's the players' unreasonable thirst for XP and gold which has brought them undone.<br /><br />6. there are <i>always</i> other methods for getting what they want: eg. "MacGyvering", or even... <i>role-playing</i>.Chris Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11064988977152302364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-22058251584477416152009-09-08T18:02:38.795-04:002009-09-08T18:02:38.795-04:00Another thing which is insidious and contributes t...Another thing which is insidious and contributes to slowing down of combat in 3E/3.5E and 4E, is how there are so many more numbers being added up to the basic rolls like attack to-hit, damage, etc ... Keeping track of so many numbers and bonuses from spells and other sources, compounds the problem. Never mind that younger players tend not be be as adept at performing mental arithmetic.<br /><br />Figuring out which bonuses stack and which ones don't, and arguing with the DM over such things, contributes to the slowdown even more.<br /><br />In 4E, most basic at-will attacks already at minimum adds up the d20 roll along with a level modifier of +level/2 and particular stat adjustments (ie. from Str, Int, Dex, etc ..). For example, melee type fighting characters frequently want an 18 or 20 for STR which gives them a respective +4 or +5 STR adjustment to their to-hit attack rolls. From what I remember of 1E AD&D, a high strength of 17 or 18 only gives a +1 bonus to the attack to-hit roll.<br /><br />With the character stat adjustments being a core part of the to-hit attack roll, this can contribute significantly to munchkin style min-maxing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-89446952692593804272009-09-08T17:01:19.091-04:002009-09-08T17:01:19.091-04:00"After Gygax was ousted, rumor has it that pl..."After Gygax was ousted, rumor has it that playtesting was less and less extensive or very little of it was done."<br /><br />All signals I see are that was true. The "Playtest" credit simply disappeared from most publications in the late 80's. There are also obvious clues from product quality and speed-to-print.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-82689613793016239822009-09-08T16:21:14.588-04:002009-09-08T16:21:14.588-04:00Over the years I've wondered how extensive the...Over the years I've wondered how extensive the playtesting was, for D&D and AD&D stuff when Gygax was still at TSR. After Gygax was ousted, rumor has it that playtesting was less and less extensive or very little of it was done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-80609044438567188192009-09-08T16:08:51.915-04:002009-09-08T16:08:51.915-04:00Minor Waffle: Most of the monsters in the AD&D...Minor Waffle: Most of the monsters in the AD&D Monster Manual are pretty good about this, probably because most of the stuff in it had previously been tested for years. Fiend Folio and MM2, however, are rife with monsters that have this problem.Big McStrongmusclehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07067031012393190130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-75908369261959169222009-09-08T15:19:05.800-04:002009-09-08T15:19:05.800-04:00@Chuck: Yes and no...
While the Number Appearing ...@Chuck: Yes and no...<br /><br />While the Number Appearing stat handled that cosmetically, a lot of the monsters weren't given combat stats suitable to their intended use. One major issue I always had was that big monsters tended to get swamped by the sheer number of actions a PC party could take in a round. When designing one's own creatures, it's very useful (and surprisingly rare) to give big creatures a breath weapon, or a larger number of smaller attacks each round. That lets a big monster take on several PCs at once without necessarily turning the thing into a party killer.<br /><br />@robbprofus: For defense, I generally like to fiddle with HP rather than AC (because absolutely nothing's more frustrating than missing a monster eight consecutive times), but yeah, I do something similar.Big McStrongmusclehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07067031012393190130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-37095852502575222142009-09-08T14:32:13.850-04:002009-09-08T14:32:13.850-04:00"What are you thoughts on the minion concept ..."What are you thoughts on the minion concept in 4E D&D?"<br /><br />I'll comment here, too. I don't like 4E "minion" rules because it's a statement about the characters (NPCs)in-game, thus affecting the milieu setting. <br /><br />It would be a far different thing if it were a statement about the out-of-game rules that the players are choosing to use. For example, for an extraordinarily large fight, I'm happy to "switch" to Chainmail-like granularity, no damage rolls, every hit = 1 HD taken. But it affects everyone equally, it's not a statement visible in-game or identifiable to the characters themselves. <br /><br />Compare to <a href="http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2009/06/games-within-games.html" rel="nofollow">Doug Niles rules for switching granularity in Star Frontiers Knight Hawks</a> based on number of combatants. I'm fine with that, bit making special character types born to die is not cool.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-62779922462081301402009-09-08T14:23:12.357-04:002009-09-08T14:23:12.357-04:00Even back in the 1E AD&D days, I generally tri...Even back in the 1E AD&D days, I generally tried to avoid using monsters which the players can only hit with a 10% or 5% probability (ie. requiring a natural 19 or 20 on a d20 attack roll), whether with melee/ranged weapons or penetrating magical resistance. For a 10% probability to hit a monster, it will take on average around 10 attacks to hit it. For a 5% probability to hit a monster, it will take on average around 20 attacks to hit it. At the time I didn't know the formal mathematics, but intuitively I knew enough that rolling a 19 or a 20 for a hit is a slow tough slog.<br /><br />At worse for a tough "boss" type monster, I would make them such that they could be hit with a 15% or 20% probability. For a 20% probability to hit a monster, it would take on average around 5 attacks to hit it. For a 15% probability to hit a monster, it would take on average around 6.67 rounds to hit it.<br /><br />The only times I ever used really tough monsters which the players could only hit with a 10% or 5% probability (ie. requiring a natural 19 or 20 on their d20 attack rolls), was when I deliberately wanted to do a TPK on the players.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-62187489428212106702009-09-08T13:51:00.913-04:002009-09-08T13:51:00.913-04:00Rob, weren't the "number appearing" ...Rob, weren't the "number appearing" stats in old monster write-ups used for that? <br /><br />I understand it was a bit more "seat of the pants" but that was part of the charm.Vigilancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12302020918798504358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-10328267913728969542009-09-08T13:33:14.518-04:002009-09-08T13:33:14.518-04:00Well, it is true that making certain hobgoblins in...Well, it is true that making certain hobgoblins instantly die from a single hit isn't very good from a simulation standpoint. However, I have found the Minion/Solo concept rather useful in old-school games, although not in the way you might expect. While the bookkeeping gains are minimal in a system where tally marks are practical and effective, there are some very valuable insights here in general monster design.<br /><br />The core conceit behind Minions and Solo Monsters and whatnot is that different monsters might be a match for different *numbers* of characters. That's an aspect of monster design too often ignored in early D&D (except in a few odd cases like the hydra). While it's counterproductive to use the system to obsessively balance everything (yawn - boring!), I think you can only help your simulation by working out whether a monster is used in large swarms, small groups, or as a singular beast; then designing accordingly.Big McStrongmusclehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07067031012393190130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-78208233751371593132009-09-08T13:12:22.215-04:002009-09-08T13:12:22.215-04:00Brooze, I love your characterizing of "grad s...Brooze, I love your characterizing of "grad school types and other technical intellectuals" as an ethnic group. I agree <i>exactly.</i>richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13517340075234811323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-44589351195289374782009-09-08T12:59:56.775-04:002009-09-08T12:59:56.775-04:00I must admit that I find the notion of even 25 min...<i>I must admit that I find the notion of even 25 minute-long combats very off-putting nowadays. Most combats in my Dwimmermount campaign, even those involving 20+ combatants don't take more than about 10 minutes, tops.</i><br /><br />I remember 3E/3.5E combats being even longer slow grinds, along with the bookkeeping nightmare that came along with it. This is what turned me off from 3E/3.5E, with combat encounters taking over two hours at high levels.<br /><br />4E is slightly better in this regard, but the combat encounters are still somewhat slow grinds (with or without minions). Many of the monsters are like huge bags of hit points.<br /><br />I haven't tried using the "minion math" for in-game accounting yet for 1E AD&D, basic D&D box sets, OD&D, etc ... Hopefully it will keep the combat manageable to 5 to 10 minute encounters, without having to do much bookkeeping.<br /><br />Now that I think about it, back in the 1E AD&D days I was functionally doing "minion math" for monsters which had less than 2 hit dice. This would be like a group of kobolds, orcs, goblins, etc .. attacking the players.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-41385799900088062692009-09-08T12:37:14.012-04:002009-09-08T12:37:14.012-04:00I've done encounters which only take 25 minute...<i>I've done encounters which only take 25 minutes to execute which in the past would have taken over 40 minutes to finish, due to keeping track of hit points of many monsters and/or misjudging the power of the monsters. I frequently overestimated the player party's ability to kill some particular monsters.</i><br /><br>I'm glad they speed play, although I must admit that I find the notion of even 25 minute-long combats very off-putting nowadays. Most combats in my Dwimmermount campaign, even those involving 20+ combatants don't take more than about 10 minutes, tops.<br /><br /><i>With the minion style accounting, it is also a lot easier to analyze encounters to check for balance and how long it would take to kill the monsters.</i><br /><br>Again, glad you find it useful to you, but it all sounds very alien to my preferred style of play.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-42834309420230398702009-09-08T12:09:50.814-04:002009-09-08T12:09:50.814-04:00Most of the answers to the issue raised above come...Most of the answers to the issue raised above come from the changes in the target audiences. OD&D was written for the grad school types and other technical intellectuals, same folks who kept Tolkien/LOTR alive through the 1950's and 1960's. Those people READ sword and sorcery, READ for entertainment. They did no need detailed campaign settings since they have already inhabited that fantasy world.<br /><br />WoTC is marketing its D&D product to a culturally diverse audience, which includes members of other ethnic groups, whose connection with the fantasy is via pop culture and who wouold be unlikley to discover Lovecraft and other literature that was prominent in Gygax worldview. This is NOT to say that people from other ethnic groups don't read, they just read different books. Imagine how different AD&D might be, if its magic was based not on the writiungs of Jack Vance, but based on the magical realism traditions of the Spamish literature or have its clerical spells based on the tradiitons of the Japanese folk religion. In short, first, Paizo is marketing D&D to a multicultural audience, and second it's maeketing it to early adilescents as opposed to twenty-somethings, the peers of the Gygax's group. This would explain the primacy of the videogame and the emphasis on extended and exacting rules. The early adolescents are more likely to be playing Diablo then reading pulp fantasy stories, and they are closer to the age group of 7-12 years olds, which psychologically, developmentally, preoocupies itself with playing, not just any kind of playing, but PLAYING BY RULES, and a great portion of the play activity in that developmental stage concerns the making up of rules, making sure that other follow the rules, deciding onthe rules, etc. Read up on Erik Eriksson's work to find out more on this. Initially, WOTC/Paizo decided to make OPTIONS products to sell more books, both for the munchkins to customize their characters and to provide diverse players with a common fantasy setting so that they can coe together and play, but then the psychosocial characteristics of their core audience kicked in and encouraged the trend.<br /><br />With regards to combat and spell complexity. D&D does a great job representing magic for battle, on the Vancian model, but there are other models for magic that would make for a better gaming experience. Shamanistic Magic would need different rules. Vodoo witch doctors would have their own spell lists. Clerical magic based on early Christian mysticism would work differently from the magic used by the Shinto priests inJapan. Theb game effects would be different, some players may enjoy playing different systems. I think that the direction in which the DM develops a rule set is the result of the interplay between the DM and his players. The house rules of the DM running a group of fighters would be a little different from a game, where the players are into high level magic, and different still from a game dominated by thieves. That is if the DM wants to encourage and accomodate player charater development. I am into mysticism, but my last group of players were fighters, so the house rules emphasized tactics and the development of the warriors and diplomacy in the realm, purely as a consequence of the choices the players made. It could have been seeking out the ancient sages and shamans, and a bunch of other things that the players weren't interested in.Brooser Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08487438364129415650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-62239962134496771982009-09-08T11:54:17.778-04:002009-09-08T11:54:17.778-04:00I don't much like the minion concept. It's...<i>I don't much like the minion concept. It's a bit too explicitly "game-y" for my tastes, which is to say, I have a hard time figuring out what it represents within the game world.</i><br /><br />In terms of the concept, I agree. I'm still not quite sure what exactly the minion concept represents in a game world.<br /><br />For my purposes, the minion "mechanic" and how I've modified it to be less wonky, largely has more to do with in-game accounting to save time and simplify things. I've done encounters which only take 25 minutes to execute which in the past would have taken over 40 minutes to finish, due to keeping track of hit points of many monsters and/or misjudging the power of the monsters. I frequently overestimated the player party's ability to kill some particular monsters.<br /><br />With the minion style accounting, it is also a lot easier to analyze encounters to check for balance and how long it would take to kill the monsters. With a probability p of hitting a monster, it takes on average around 1/p attacks to hit the monster.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-30649364464845532552009-09-08T11:41:41.896-04:002009-09-08T11:41:41.896-04:00Having classic-style adventures available that can...<i>Having classic-style adventures available that can be played in 4 hours would be great. But that may not be possible with the way D&D is structured for exploring.</i><br /><br>Again, I agree, and I think it's the shift away from exploration that's responsible for most of the trends I actively dislike in the post-Gygaxian development of the game.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.com