PhoenixPhyre
2023-06-07, 03:52 PM
One common complaint I hear about D&D (5e especially, even more so with the new-style casters, but I heard it about 4e as well) is that monsters are "simple bags of HP".
Personally, I have come to strongly prefer, both as DM and as player, when encounter complexity comes not from the complexity of any given monster, but from things like
a) combinations of simple monsters
b) terrain (including dynamic terrain and environmental hazards)
c) objectives that aren't "you or us die first"
d) non-monster entities (whether traps or NPCs you may want to protect/attack that aren't really participating in combat directly)
e) allowance for witty repartee, wordplay, and even negotiation during battle. Monsters switching sides, allies stabbing you in the back, etc.
Simple monsters compose well. If each monster has one or two Big Things, the difficulty of running several of them with different-but-complementary Big Things is much less than if each monster is, itself, a whole pile of Big Things. Also, complex monsters often have abilities whose effect is strongly non-linear when combined with others, leading to high swinginess.
Simple monsters lend themselves to having multiple combatants. D&D-likes (including Pathfinder) live or die by action economy. Solo monsters, generally, just don't work. Not even when they have extra actions (5e's Legendary and Lair Actions). They may be great "cinematic" set-pieces...but they'll be crappy encounters, taken objectively. Boss + minions works way better, as does "small band". My experience and preference is for when the number of monsters is between 1 and 1.5x the party size.
Simple monsters mean that the variance between being "on my game" and "having a rough day" is way less. Complex monsters have a huge gap between the ceiling and floor of their effectiveness. Which can mean that if the DM's dice are hot and their tactics are on point...the party dies. But if they're having a bad day (either uncooperative dice or just not handling the pieces as well), that same fight may be a disappointing pushover.
Simple monsters mean that they get to show off their Cool Things more reliably. One aggravating thing is building this big fancy monster...and it being dogpiled and slaughtered before it gets to do half of its cool things. Because its cool things require setup, are combos, etc. If the monsters have One Big Thing (ok, maybe 2), then as long as they don't get nuked before they go, they'll get to do a Cool Thing.
Simple monsters can vastly decrease the run-time complexity of the game. Nothing slows things down like having to cross-reference materials. Or having to retcon a turn because XYZ ability needed PDQ effect up, but that doesn't happen until next turn. Or whatever.
These are preferences, not absolutes, to be sure. But something I've thought a bunch about recently.
----------
Note this doesn't mean PCs have to be simple. Because PCs and NPCs are asymmetric game elements.
And it doesn't mean that monsters can't have out of combat things or (in the fiction) other abilities. Basically, I think of a monster stat block as a limited subset of the monster's "full self". A limited interface, in programming terms. Just the parts that are directly going to come up when used like so. Heck, you could have a monster with several different stat blocks, depending on where and how they're encountered. One for Boss Dude at Home, with all his stuff. One for Boss Dude Caught with Pants Down (figuratively or literally[1]). Etc.
[1] I had a couple scenarios where the party was stealthy enough to catch the goblin boss (it was a low-level scenario) literally with his pants down, engaged in...exercises...with some less-than-entirely-willing companions. That didn't end up even being a fight--I just skipped straight to the "ok, what do you do with this poor sod" step. Which, in a couple of the cases, was "we hang him from the ceiling by his entrails, still alive". Odd that two different groups, with no repeat members, both came up with that almost unanimously, almost instantly. Teenagers can be so brutal...
Personally, I have come to strongly prefer, both as DM and as player, when encounter complexity comes not from the complexity of any given monster, but from things like
a) combinations of simple monsters
b) terrain (including dynamic terrain and environmental hazards)
c) objectives that aren't "you or us die first"
d) non-monster entities (whether traps or NPCs you may want to protect/attack that aren't really participating in combat directly)
e) allowance for witty repartee, wordplay, and even negotiation during battle. Monsters switching sides, allies stabbing you in the back, etc.
Simple monsters compose well. If each monster has one or two Big Things, the difficulty of running several of them with different-but-complementary Big Things is much less than if each monster is, itself, a whole pile of Big Things. Also, complex monsters often have abilities whose effect is strongly non-linear when combined with others, leading to high swinginess.
Simple monsters lend themselves to having multiple combatants. D&D-likes (including Pathfinder) live or die by action economy. Solo monsters, generally, just don't work. Not even when they have extra actions (5e's Legendary and Lair Actions). They may be great "cinematic" set-pieces...but they'll be crappy encounters, taken objectively. Boss + minions works way better, as does "small band". My experience and preference is for when the number of monsters is between 1 and 1.5x the party size.
Simple monsters mean that the variance between being "on my game" and "having a rough day" is way less. Complex monsters have a huge gap between the ceiling and floor of their effectiveness. Which can mean that if the DM's dice are hot and their tactics are on point...the party dies. But if they're having a bad day (either uncooperative dice or just not handling the pieces as well), that same fight may be a disappointing pushover.
Simple monsters mean that they get to show off their Cool Things more reliably. One aggravating thing is building this big fancy monster...and it being dogpiled and slaughtered before it gets to do half of its cool things. Because its cool things require setup, are combos, etc. If the monsters have One Big Thing (ok, maybe 2), then as long as they don't get nuked before they go, they'll get to do a Cool Thing.
Simple monsters can vastly decrease the run-time complexity of the game. Nothing slows things down like having to cross-reference materials. Or having to retcon a turn because XYZ ability needed PDQ effect up, but that doesn't happen until next turn. Or whatever.
These are preferences, not absolutes, to be sure. But something I've thought a bunch about recently.
----------
Note this doesn't mean PCs have to be simple. Because PCs and NPCs are asymmetric game elements.
And it doesn't mean that monsters can't have out of combat things or (in the fiction) other abilities. Basically, I think of a monster stat block as a limited subset of the monster's "full self". A limited interface, in programming terms. Just the parts that are directly going to come up when used like so. Heck, you could have a monster with several different stat blocks, depending on where and how they're encountered. One for Boss Dude at Home, with all his stuff. One for Boss Dude Caught with Pants Down (figuratively or literally[1]). Etc.
[1] I had a couple scenarios where the party was stealthy enough to catch the goblin boss (it was a low-level scenario) literally with his pants down, engaged in...exercises...with some less-than-entirely-willing companions. That didn't end up even being a fight--I just skipped straight to the "ok, what do you do with this poor sod" step. Which, in a couple of the cases, was "we hang him from the ceiling by his entrails, still alive". Odd that two different groups, with no repeat members, both came up with that almost unanimously, almost instantly. Teenagers can be so brutal...