Barf Forth Apocalyptica

powered by the apocalypse => Dungeon World => Topic started by: Mike Olson on February 02, 2012, 04:44:38 AM

Title: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Mike Olson on February 02, 2012, 04:44:38 AM
Last week, I built a couple monsters, mostly by eyeballing existing monsters in the previous DW release. One of them was this Iron Dwarf, an automaton "programmed" to protect a particular part of the dungeon. The idea was that the party would encounter four of them at once. Here's what he looked like last week:

Iron Dwarf
Instinct: To follow orders with unyielding force
Level 4, 9 HP, Armor 3, 6 damage (axe)

This version is largely the product of looking at several monsters, including the Dwarven Warrior, the Orc Bloodwarrior, the Clay Golem, and the Iron Golem. I knew about what level I wanted it to be, then used monsters of around the same level and/or theme to arrive at the numbers and moves. I anticipated the PCs would be level 2 or 3.

Under the new monster building guidelines in Beta 1.1, the Iron Dwarf now looks like this:

Iron Dwarf
Axe (24 damage Close) 10 HP 3 Armor
Instinct: To follow orders with unyielding force

Nearly identical in all respects -- except damage, which got a huge bump. Before, these were resource-depleting opponents. They could do damage two or three times to nearly anyone without dropping them on hit points. Now, they're potential one-hit-killers.

Here's the rationale that went into the revision:
What's the most powerful foe it can kill in a fair fight? Soldier (base 6). If these things were built to defend a dwarven stronghold, they're going to expect to go up against enemy soldiers -- explicitly so, in fact.

How does it usually hunt or fight? Small group (4 -- damage = base x 4). Like I said, there are four of them.

What environment spawned it? Hospitable places (10 HP). The Iron Dwarves were built by dwarven artificers in a well-protected, civilized location.

What is its most important defense? Mail or scales (2 Armor). They're basically animated suits of plate armor, but I'm taking them down a notch (from 3 Armor to 2) due to their age and a lack of upkeep.

Which of these helps describe it? It actively defends itself (+1 Armor). I see them as axe-and-shield fighters.

Dealing 24 damage just seems like way too much to me, even accounting for the fact that characters have more HP now, and especially considering that really nothing has changed with the monster's concept. I could scale it back by saying that it's only capable of beating, say, a peasant in a fair fight, but that seems really disingenuous. I don't feel like I should have to "work the system" just to get its damage down to a manageable level. Alternately, I could say that it's meant to fight in larger groups (reducing its damage to 18), but that's not accurate either.

So... basically, this seems weird to me. I'm not saying I don't want it to be dangerous, but neither do I want it to be the serious killing machine it's kinda become. Most notable, IMO, is that its Armor and HP didn't really change (but PC damage output hasn't changed, so I guess that makes sense), while its damage output has spiked so much it now seems to be overcompensating for the increase in PC HP. Arguably, its damage should be even higher -- its armaments are vicious and obvious (+5 damage), it fights by skill instead of instinct (+3 damage), etc. -- but I'm not going there.

What am I missing?

(EDIT: The other monster I made, BTW, was a green slime, but that doesn't lend itself to many easy answers for the monster-building questions.)
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: JBMannon on February 02, 2012, 08:16:30 AM
I just read the monster creation section myself and I'm not able to puzzle any of what you just said out of it. So far as I can tell the damages assume that a group attacks as a single unit which does not jibe with what I have read in the rest of the book. Also, there are no levels listed on any of the monsters which might help clear up some of my confusion and make the monsters actually usable in a game (many powers, i.e. sleep, need to know the level of the creature to work)
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: mease19 on February 02, 2012, 09:15:06 AM
I kind of like the idea of monsters not having levels.  It dispels ideas of 'balance' and planning adventures, in detail, ahead of time.  It also forces monsters to be individuals, monstrous in their own right, rather than bosses and cannon fodder.   
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: JBMannon on February 02, 2012, 09:21:33 AM
That would be fine if they could work the level based mechanics out of the player rules. I still like the idea of levels for monsters just as a quick guideline.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Glitch on February 02, 2012, 10:52:42 AM
I dislike the bloat in PC hit points and the removal of monster level. Monster level is a useful gauge, and currently required for several moves like Turn Undead. It seems like DW has needlessly bloated both PC hitpoints and monster damage to excessive levels. Compound that with static monster damage and you have a game that eliminates one if the most tense moments of any old school D&D experience: that dramatic monster damage roll where the life of the PC hangs in the balance.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Mike Olson on February 02, 2012, 11:46:08 AM
I dislike the bloat in PC hit points and the removal of monster level. Monster level is a useful gauge, and currently required for several moves like Turn Undead.
Well, in all fairness, Turn Undead doesn't reference monster levels anymore.

Quote
It seems like DW has needlessly bloated both PC hitpoints and monster damage to excessive levels.
Well, I can see the reasoning behind boosting PC HP and monster damage. Before, a monster that did, say, 8 damage was a concern for 1st-level PCs, but the average rate of HP gain meant that after a level or two 8 damage just wasn't a big deal anymore, which meant that those monsters could easily became irrelevant or not much of a threat. However, if PCs start with more HP but gain them more slowly, and that same monster does 20-ish damage, they're a threat for longer -- you get more out of that real estate in the book over time.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Glitch on February 02, 2012, 02:17:05 PM
Turn Undead was just rectified in 1.1, right.  The new wording had it affecting mindless undead only.  I think it's the best possible solution considering the removal of monster level.

The problem of monsters losing their punch could also have been solved by reducing the amount of hp PCs gain when leveling.  Maybe have them roll for HP like in classic D&D.

I guess I always try to reign in runaway stat bloat as much as possible in a design.  I hear Wizards are doing the same thing with D&D Next design.  Hopefully 5E won't need monsters with 1500 hp anymore :)

A final thought about that missing dramatic monster damage roll.  I realize now that it's been offloaded in a way to the Last Breath move, so it's not gone completely.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Mike Olson on February 02, 2012, 02:30:11 PM
The problem of monsters losing their punch could also have been solved by reducing the amount of hp PCs gain when leveling.  Maybe have them roll for HP like in classic D&D.
You do roll for HP, though, at least when you level -- although the least you can gain is your class's Base HP, so everyone's going to have a significant HP gain relative to their current total. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Of course, it's worth noting that you're not necessarily under any compulsion to have a monster deal its damage. There are any number of other options available. It's just that if a monster's damage is likely to kill a PC outright, I don't really feel like "dealing damage" is one of those options anymore, most of the time.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Glitch on February 02, 2012, 03:24:07 PM
>>Of course, it's worth noting that you're not necessarily under any compulsion to have a monster deal its damage. There are any number of other options available. It's just that if a monster's damage is likely to kill a PC outright, I don't really feel like "dealing damage" is one of those options anymore, most of the time.<<

You hit the nail on the head as to why I don't like the static monster damage.  I even wrote Sage about this very thing.  With static damage, the decision to "kill" a PC is squarely in the hands of the GM, with their choice of move.

If monster damage were variable, then you avoid this awkward situation, and you gain the adventage of those very dramatic monster damage rolls where the fate of the PC is in the hands of the dice.

I find it uncomfortable ... the foreknowledge that Deal Damage will knock a PC to zero colors the GM's decision to use it.

That's why I house rule the following:

- variable monster damage
- PC's really roll their hit dice when gaining level

It's pretty easy to adjust the monsters on the fly to determine their level and their damage output, and I feel it adds more fun to the game.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: John Harper on February 03, 2012, 03:58:35 AM
To the original point, it looks like putting that multiplier into the monster builder is part of what's throwing the damage off. Multipliers are dangerous.

I like the new PC hit point totals. I like to throw incidental damage around on misses (when exploring etc.), and it lets me do that without always killing the wizard. :)

Seems like the damage numbers might need some more tweaking, though.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: JBMannon on February 03, 2012, 05:58:58 AM
I'm still not sure how you arrived at those numbers. Has anyone written them down somewhere? I would love a nudge in the right direction. Right now I'm still just guessing.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Mike Olson on February 03, 2012, 06:07:36 AM
I'm still not sure how you arrived at those numbers. Has anyone written them down somewhere? I would love a nudge in the right direction. Right now I'm still just guessing.
Which numbers -- the 24-damage numbers or the eyballin'-it numbers? The former come right from the guidelines on pages 154-155 of Beta 1.1. The latter are from, obviously, eyeballin' it (using the pre-Beta document).
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: JBMannon on February 03, 2012, 08:16:08 AM
Edit: Got the latest version and I now see what you mean. I am taking the damage totals to mean how much damage the group as a whole does. What I'm doing is coming up with the total and dividing it into how many creatures are in X group.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Mike Olson on February 03, 2012, 12:14:30 PM
The only straight mechanical bits that I'm seeing on those pages are "What is its most important defense" and "Which of these describe it" sections.
Is it possible you're looking at the first iteration of the Beta release? That one was lacking a lot of the numbers I referenced above.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: JBMannon on February 03, 2012, 12:20:16 PM
That id exactly the problem I was having. Just edited the post. Thanks.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Mike Olson on February 03, 2012, 01:04:06 PM
Edit: Got the latest version and I now see what you mean. I am taking the damage totals to mean how much damage the group as a whole does. What I'm doing is coming up with the total and dividing it into how many creatures are in X group.
There's a certain logic to this, but the math would be off -- now a monster that should reliably kill a soldier (base 6) when acting in a group of five (basex4) does less damage than one acting in a group of four (5 damage vs. 6 damage). I'm not saying any of this has to be realistic, per se, but internal consistency would be good.

It also means that this soldier-killin' monster doesn't actually pose much of threat to that soldier anymore. The average 1st-level Fighter is likely to have around 23 HP (assuming a 15 Con, which isn't too unreasonable). Now instead of potentially one-shotting that guy, the monster will have to damage him four times to kill him.

And if "soldier" doesn't have any correlation to "Fighter," then gauging the monster against a "soldier" doesn't really help me figure out what it can do. My monsters aren't going to fighting vaguely defined NPCs -- they're going to be fighting PCs. If I can't draw an equivalency there, then maybe it'd be more helpful to use something like character level instead of that "base" number. In fact, if I need to get an idea of how a monster stacks up against PCs of various levels, I might as well just assign the monster itself a level OH WAIT.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: JBMannon on February 03, 2012, 01:54:33 PM
There's a certain logic to this, but the math would be off -- now a monster that should reliably kill a soldier (base 6) when acting in a group of five (basex4) does less damage than one acting in a group of four (5 damage vs. 6 damage). I'm not saying any of this has to be realistic, per se, but internal consistency would be good.

For me the logic is that the groups organize themselves organicly into groups of relitively even power. So a bunch of weaker monsters will group together while the more hard-ass will have smaller groups. 

It also means that this soldier-killin' monster doesn't actually pose much of threat to that soldier anymore. The average 1st-level Fighter is likely to have around 23 HP (assuming a 15 Con, which isn't too unreasonable). Now instead of potentially one-shotting that guy, the monster will have to damage him four times to kill him. 

I don't see a one-shot kill being a "fair fight". Two to five attacks with the armor and HP to say in the fight fits my definition of what a fair fight should look like. I also take into account what the group should be able to handle not just one individual. 

And if "soldier" doesn't have any correlation to "Fighter," then gauging the monster against a "soldier" doesn't really help me figure out what it can do. My monsters aren't going to fighting vaguely defined NPCs -- they're going to be fighting PCs. If I can't draw an equivalency there, then maybe it'd be more helpful to use something like character level instead of that "base" number. In fact, if I need to get an idea of how a monster stacks up against PCs of various levels, I might as well just assign the monster itself a level OH WAIT.

I'm all for giving monsters levels and using the questions to modify that base but for now I'm going with what is written. I am almost certainly going to have to "de-level "one of the monsters I created today to make it fit into an adventure for first level players. Other wise it is completely invulnerable to the party (6 Armor and 44 HP)!
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: sage on February 03, 2012, 01:56:45 PM
Lots of good thoughts here.

For the record, all this damage was reverse engineered from player HP. The bands (described by what it can kill) correspond to rough level ranges. "Rough" is important because it's not an exact match at all, which is what monster level implied.

Monster level is not coming back unless things get really dire. It didn't really represent anything in the fiction, it was just a way of deciding how tough something should be without actually saying why. There are still some dangling references to it in the rules, but those will be fixed.

We're going to take another look at how to assign damage. Some things that we're looking at:

Get away from talking about people (peasants, guards) and instead talk about what they threaten. Like goblins: they're trouble for a village, but not for a keep. That keeps the fictional basis but removes comparing PCs to people of differing skills.

Mess with the group modifier. We want some reflection of "big bad lone wolf" and "pack of cannon fodder" and we want to keep the math simple. I had originally done a version with more fine tuning, but more math, and that's not really what we want.

Put more weight on the final group of questions. I love the final questions so much. They really bring the creature into focus. I want to write more of them, but I also want to keep it simple and compact, which is tough.


Thanks to everyone for your thoughts, please keep them coming.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: JBMannon on February 03, 2012, 02:14:21 PM
Get away from talking about people (peasants, guards) and instead talk about what they threaten. Like goblins: they're trouble for a village, but not for a keep. That keeps the fictional basis but removes comparing PCs to people of differing skills.

Just doing a quick gut check this sounds like you may want to keep what you have (modified of course) and add this in. Having both a personal level and a cultural level to it would make the monsters easier to envision.

Put more weight on the final group of questions. I love the final questions so much. They really bring the creature into focus. I want to write more of them, but I also want to keep it simple and compact, which is tough.

The final question with it's associated answers was really powerful and helped make each monster feel special. More options there would be great! Also, they already somewhat suggest moves that that sort of monster could do but suggested moves probably wouldn't be a bad idea there.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: sage on February 03, 2012, 02:21:44 PM
I was actually thinking of "What does it endanger?" (or something like that, I don't like that wording) as replacing "What can it kill?" Like this:

What can it endanger?
-A defenseless village (base 1)
-A defended town (base 3)
-A keep (base 5)
-A castle (base 7)
-A city (base 9)

This is just something I've been thinking about, I haven't even talked it over with Adam, but feel free to comment.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: JBMannon on February 03, 2012, 02:58:49 PM
What about making it:

What can it endanger?
-A distant homestead (base 1)
-A defenseless village (base 2)
-A defended town (base 3)
-A keep (base 5)
-A castle (base 7)
-A city (base 9)

That gives you a little bit more of a buffer for wandering monster types. But as I think about it I'm thinking wandering monster types might do better on the chart as it already exists.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: sage on February 03, 2012, 03:03:29 PM
The more I think about this the more I think the problem is not in the numbers generated, but in the fiction we tied those numbers to.

The "what can it kill" answers are probably not right. Not because the numbers are wrong, but because "a soldier" could totally be a first level fighter. In fact, I'd guess a lot of first level fighters are ex-military. That creates this clash of expectations because the math behind "can kill a soldier" is WAY to tough for a low level character.

The multiplication is intentional because player HP diverges at a similar rate. The fighter's HP gap over the wizard is always increasing so the range of monster damages also increase. Fictionally, once you hit a certain level of dangerousness the amount of damage can be pretty diverse since there are so many other factors in play.

So I think the mistake is making the question that gives you base damage 6 something that you might think a first level character can take on. They can't! base damage 6 is something that a first level character needs to avoid.

Does that make sense? Is the problem that you never want to see that Iron Dwarf with 24 damage or that you just don't see how you get him at first level?
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: JBMannon on February 03, 2012, 03:19:08 PM
I think the problem may also be in how static the numbers are. If you presented a range for each tier people may be able to judge it better. I've already done this with the HP tiers. Here is what my monster making notes look like for What environment spawned it?

•  Naturally safe places— HP 3-9
•  Inhospitable places— HP 9-15
•  Dangerous places— HP 15-24
•  Twisted places— HP 24-40
•  The planes—  HP 40-80

That gives me a range to work within to make each monster unique.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: sage on February 03, 2012, 03:25:31 PM
Sure, but why give a range? Why choose higher or lower in that range?
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Glitch on February 03, 2012, 03:29:46 PM
I'm confused about the Monster damage related to Monster groups.

How does it usually hunt or fight?
As part of a large group (5+) of creatures (damage=base × 3)
As part of a small group (2–5) of creatures (damage=base × 4)
As the leader of other creatures (damage=base × 5)
All by its lonesome (damage=base × 6)

I don't grok the logic of why the Monster's social behavior should impact it's damage.  A tiger might hunt alone, and be capable of defeating a knight in a fair fight (base 8).  So, by this logic, its damage should be (8x6) 48.  Is this assuming a knight has 48 hitpoints generally?
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: JBMannon on February 03, 2012, 03:36:07 PM
I like the range because it allows me to stay true to the environment the monster is from while allowing me room to taylor the monster for it's place within that environment. It also gives you wiggle room to try and help fit the monster into lower or higher level adventures.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Dan Maruschak on February 03, 2012, 03:41:06 PM
Part of my problem is the granularity. Going from peasant to guard doubles the damage. I think I'd like some more options in the low range to create monsters that aren't ridiculous threats to 1st level PCs. Another part is just that each attack has such a huge impact -- I had some cultist goons that did 8 damage each (which is basically the minimum) which is like 2 or 3 hits on a first level PC. These big numbers make the minor variations, like getting 2 points of healing from a Paladin's lay on hands, seem less impactful. It also makes the GM's "should I do damage or a softer move?" decision very weighty, to the extent that I was feeling uncomfortable in my session last night. Also, with the possibility of doing one-shot-kills with guard-killing-solos there's no room for error on the PCs part: if they erroneously think they can take a shot from this thing they'll find out they're wrong when they're rolling Last Breath.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: sage on February 03, 2012, 03:41:12 PM
Sounds like we weren't clear: you answer the first question while thinking about the second as well. The first question could be expanded to "Fighting in its normal grouping, what can it kill?"

So if a tiger can kill a soldier in a group, it has X damage. If a tiger can kill a soldier on its own, it has Y damage, X < Y.

The difference is between, say goblins who can kill a player character maybe in a large group, and a stone golem who might be able to kill a player one-on-one.




To answer a few other tangents:

Player HP at first level has increased but overall the increase is pretty small. Player damage has not increased dramatically. So: no monsters with thousands (or even hundreds) of HP. Tenth level tough characters will break 100 HP, but not by too much. That isn't all that different from the old system. As someone mentioned, the big difference is that first level monsters can now threaten everyone. Before it was tough to find something that could get past the Paladin's armor and not flat-out kill the Wizard.

Random monster damage is an option. You'll see it in the hacking chapter. Simple version: if the monster does 20 or less damage, add +1d4 damage. If it does 21-40, +2d4, and so on. This raises lethality a bit, if you want to counter that subtract 2 for each d4 added.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: sage on February 03, 2012, 03:47:46 PM
I like the range because it allows me to stay true to the environment the monster is from while allowing me room to taylor the monster for it's place within that environment. It also gives you wiggle room to try and help fit the monster into lower or higher level adventures.

I don't think that damage, HP, or armor is the place to represent that stuff. The difference between +1 and -1 in any of those (except Armor) is negligible. The numbers are the least important part of a monster. The moves and instinct are the really important part.

The problem I have with ranges is that it gives the GM one more step to take to get to a monster. And it's not a particularly important one. Picking between 3 and 9 damage without a fictional reflection of that is not particularly important, but now the GM has to think about it. I'd prefer if that GM just got a base number, then looked at the fiction and maybe modified it.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: sage on February 03, 2012, 04:06:39 PM
Part of my problem is the granularity. Going from peasant to guard doubles the damage. I think I'd like some more options in the low range to create monsters that aren't ridiculous threats to 1st level PCs. Another part is just that each attack has such a huge impact -- I had some cultist goons that did 8 damage each (which is basically the minimum) which is like 2 or 3 hits on a first level PC. These big numbers make the minor variations, like getting 2 points of healing from a Paladin's lay on hands, seem less impactful. It also makes the GM's "should I do damage or a softer move?" decision very weighty, to the extent that I was feeling uncomfortable in my session last night. Also, with the possibility of doing one-shot-kills with guard-killing-solos there's no room for error on the PCs part: if they erroneously think they can take a shot from this thing they'll find out they're wrong when they're rolling Last Breath.

First level characters shouldn't be facing "guard killing" stuff for the most part. (This just points out that we need to change it from "guard killing" cause that's just not right.) We need to make this clear: choosing a higher "can kill" option is a BIG deal. It's like making a monster "higher level" in the sense that it's definitively more dangerous.

2-3 hits was what we were looking for! Which means we need to communicate what you're making more clearly, but that's what a monster should do. "Can kill peasants in a party" was supposed to mean something like "a party of these can fight against a party of adventurers and not be foolish."

We've actually got spreadsheets galore on this to make sure that we're saying what we meant to with the stats. Our goal was that a small group peasant killer would be a danger in a one-on-one fight with most PCs. PC HP and Armor at first level ranges from 13 (1 Armor) to 23 (3 Armor). The small group peasant killer (8 damage) can kill low HP one in two hits, barely. The tough one can take 4 hits and still be standing. The in-betweens can take 2 hits.

I think maybe the problem is that "can kill peasants in a small group" doesn't match up to "can go toe-to-toe with a player character." In retrospect that's super obvious! But the math there was what we intended. The squishy PC can take a hit, but then they gotta think twice. The tough PC can take a hit and not flinch.

Then you get to monsters that can kill a peasant on their own. The idea was that meant "dangerous to a whole party of low level characters." (Again, when written like that I can see that we used the completely wrong term. Killing a peasant one-on-one is something a tough goblin can do!) That follows through to the numbers: anybody but the toughest of the tough can only take one hit (but no one dies in one hit either).

Why so few hits? Because combats are quick. Monsters are paper tigers. A fight is a quick bloody thing, not a slog. Your monsters won't be around for long, but while they are here they'll be painful. After a fight the players will need to heal most definitely. They may even need to make camp. Things snowball: a fight isn't just an event that we forget about, it ripples out through everything. There are no throw-away fights.

The paladin's healing not being very useful is certainly useful information though. We've had a hell of a time dealing with the healing niches and we'll keep working on it.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: sage on February 03, 2012, 04:46:07 PM
We've got a revision to monster damage in the works that lower it just a bit and might make the questions make more sense to some people. Hang tight, hope to have it out tonight along with character sheets.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: sage on February 03, 2012, 05:26:42 PM
Interested folks: we have a new version, what do you think?

Replace the first two questions with these:

How does the monster usually fight or hunt?
What is the largest that the monster could cause problems for (in its usual numbers)?

This is slightly more forgiving at low levels, gives a little more fine differentiation, and doesn't compare PCs to NPCs in odd ways. Thoughts?
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Dan Maruschak on February 03, 2012, 06:31:43 PM
The paladin's healing not being very useful is certainly useful information though. We've had a hell of a time dealing with the healing niches and we'll keep working on it.
The healing not being useful was from my perspective. I'm not sure how the Paladin player himself felt. It was useful that he had the move because he used it twice to bring back the Thief who had stabilized after a Last Breath roll, but as the GM I was looking at my monsters knowing that anything that did its normal damage to the healed Thief at that point was going to kill him again.

With your new proposed rule, I'm not sure if I have an easy time parsing "cause problems for", especially since village is the lowest level. At first I thought "would a gang of rowdy toughs really cause problems for an entire village?" But then I thought that if a village was beset by a gang of rowdy toughs the people that live there would probably consider it a problem. I think that using addition rather than multiplication seems less scary, which I like. With these rules my big lizard would be doing 9 or 13 points of damage rather than 24, which seems a lot more reasonable to me.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: sage on February 03, 2012, 06:38:34 PM
We'll certainly add text to unpack it, but your instinct is right: a gang of thugs could cause trouble for an undefended village. They'd probably call them bandits. A defended village less so. A gang sounds like a few guys, so probably 7 damage. Unless they're skilled or well-armed.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Glitch on February 03, 2012, 10:57:31 PM
Sage, I think the new damage guidelines are much better.  My lone tiger would now do 9 damage instead of 48, which seems more in line with reality :)

Just another thought, basing monster hp on their spawn environment seems strange to me.  In my thought process, I'd imagine first a list of size categories, Tiny to Gargantuan perhaps, and after that, the hitpoints possibly modified by extreme spawn environments.  That was just my impression after reading the creation rules ... I wonder what others thought?

Perfecting this phase of the system will be tricky, thanks for listening to our feedback!  I see it moving in the right direction :)
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: skinnyghost on February 04, 2012, 01:36:49 AM
In my thought process, I'd imagine first a list of size categories, Tiny to Gargantuan perhaps, and after that, the hitpoints possibly modified by extreme spawn environments.  That was just my impression after reading the creation rules ... I wonder what others thought?

Size is a real tricky one because a goblin or a rat, sure.  Size = small = wuss.  More problematic is a dragon whelp or an imp or something.  We're thinking damage is just something that happens, more often than not, as a byproduct of the fray, and doesn't indicate dangerousness in it's entirety.  The monsters' moves should give you a good idea of how scary or deadly it can be.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Mike Olson on February 04, 2012, 03:07:13 AM
I think maybe the problem is that "can kill peasants in a small group" doesn't match up to "can go toe-to-toe with a player character." In retrospect that's super obvious!
Okay, good. I'm glad this is the issue. You can understand my confusion then, I'm sure.

Here, look at part of what I'm told about the Fighter: "You are a beast of iron. ... Fighter, you are steel. ... You are the wall -- let every danger smash itself to nothing on you."

Likewise, the Paladin: "Eyes, hands and sweet killing blow of the gods, you are."

And need I even mention the Wizard, who I'm told "can hurl fireballs from [his] eyes?"

I never even considered that my dwarven-city-protecting automatons would be doing peasant-level damage, because by these descriptions the PCs are clearly way tougher than your typical agrarian laborer.

Anyway. By the New Method, it looks like my Iron Dwarf would now do about 11 damage, and I'm down with that. Much more reasonable. It'll take 3 hits to kill a Fighter and 2 hits to kill a less melee-oriented character, which is about where I wanted it.

"What does it threaten?" still isn't a useful question for these guys (or for the green slime), but I get the gist of it.

Oh, and I really like the "Which of these describes it?" questions, too. Adding more there can only be a good thing, and seems like the sort of task you could easily farm out to the fan base (for suggestions, at the very least).
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: noofy on February 04, 2012, 06:36:39 AM
Sorry, I've been away guys and not added to the discussion. :(
I like the newest damage descriptions and questions Sage, excellent.

I just wanted to point out to folks when making monsters that don't let the damage part of their stat block overshadow the power you can invest in the creature with its moves. The fictional consequences are so much more immersive (and powerful) within the framework of your very own dungeon world. The damage questions on threat give you an idea to the potential lethality of a monster, its damage a suggested blow, but its moves ground that all within the fiction.

I love spending time on monster moves, these are where the monster creation rules shine.

Oh and I Love the new playbook layout Adam and Sage, Brilliant!

Played a totally impro session this weekend and was heavily inspired by the 4e D&D Comic 'Shadowplague'. Had a blast! AP to follow soon :)
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Glitch on February 04, 2012, 12:44:28 PM
>>Size is a real tricky one<<

Hi Adam,

I think basing monster HP on environment is also tricky.  For example, take the Imp that you mentioned, and let's create an Imp and a Balrog.  Both are spawned in The Planes (50 HP base).  The Imp gets -6 HP because it's smaller than a Halfling, and the Balrog gets +7 HP because it's much larger than a man.

Imp = 44 hitpoints
Balrog = 57 hitpoints

It strikes me that the Imp has too many HP with this method.

On the other hand, assume a framework something like this:

Tiny = 2 hp base
Small = 5 hp base
Man sized = 10 hp base
Large = 20 hp base
Huge = 30 hp base
Gargantuan = 40 hp base

Spawned in Dangerous or Twisted places = x2 hp
Spawned in the Planes = x3 hp

With a framework like this we get:

Imp = 15 hp
Balrog = 60 hp

which is closer to what I would have expected.

After pondering this for a while, I feel that trying to shoehorn monster stat generation into a rigid set of questions like this will unfailingly lead to some results that defy logic.  As sage stressed earlier, the monster stats aren't even the most important part of the monster, so why devote so much energy in the rules?  I actually think the advice in the earlier DW Print Edition made alot more sense in this regard.  With those brief, helpful paragraphs, and eyeballing the existing monsters, a GM could easily stat out custom monsters.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: sage on February 04, 2012, 01:55:44 PM
Glitch, the issue with those was that they had Zero to do with the monster. I wrote a ton of monsters and always started with a clear idea of how tough the monster should be for the players and then worked back to stats. That's not how DW works! That's a thing you do for "balanced" encounters, DW is a living breathing world.

With the Imp we have an expectation clash. We, through the rules, are saying: anything from the planes is a big deal. Even the weakest thing is supernatural and can absorb a lot of damage. Your expectation that Imps are low level opponents doesn't match that.

Our goal here is not to make a system that puts every D&D monster in the same place. Our goal is to make a system where the monster's stats come from something besides "How tough should it be to players of this level?"

I like your size + modifier approach and it's something we've messed with before. My only concerns are adding more questions and adding more math. Also if we did something like that we'd use fewer size classes and bigger multipliers most likely, but that's a matter of taste.

Overall how are people liking the question-based monster creation?
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Glitch on February 04, 2012, 02:08:26 PM
Alright sage, I'll let other people weigh in.  But, in closing I don't think that the impetus for my ideas was balancing encounters, I'm not a fan of the "balanced encounter" at all.  Just wanted to point out some possible areas where the stat generation rules don't give enough variety for the huge scope of monsters DW will be inhabited with.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: JBMannon on February 04, 2012, 02:54:33 PM
I'm with glitch here. I think that even in the planes there will be weak and strong creatures.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Mike Olson on February 05, 2012, 12:03:58 AM
I just wanted to point out to folks when making monsters that don't let the damage part of their stat block overshadow the power you can invest in the creature with its moves.
Indeed. But damage is important, too. Oftentimes, a character's HP total is an indicator to the player of when things are really getting bad. If I fictionally beat up on them but never deal damage, for a lot of players (me included) that's going to lack a certain amount of weight. Like I said earlier, dealing damage isn't my only option for a move, but it's certainly one of them -- and important one -- and I don't want to lose it.

Besides, healing magic, armor, shields -- damage really matters to these elements of the game. I'm all for the Cloud, but the Dice are a part of the system, too.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: noofy on February 05, 2012, 05:25:15 PM
Oh, I agree Mike. But Damage isn't strict either. I see it as a 'Guide' to the monster's potential. I mean, if you want, you could just kill 'em all with an earthquake too, but that would be a dick move.

When Fizbo the wizard misses his hack and slash with the giant, I could make my monster move and say hurl the wizard against a cavern wall... But I also decide to deal damage (as warranted by the fiction). Now that could be the Giant's damage that it deals as listed in its stat block. Or I could ask the fighter 'Hey Groo, you've fought giants before right? Is that sickening crunch as Fizbo hits the stalagmites got you worried?' You know that the giant's damage as listed will kill the wizard, and you are a fan of the character's right?

You could knock Fizbo out, forgetting all his spells.
You could break his bones, or cripple him permanently.
You could bounce him painfully off the stalagmites and have him clinging precariously to the edge of a subterranean abyss. Groo can either save him from certain death or attack the Giant, what does he do?
You could have his bundle of books save his scrwany hide but get pierced by the stalagmites and use up his resources.
You could impale his leg on a needle thin stagalmite causing the loss of all his HP bar one and have (up until this point)  the trustworthy goblin guide named Snitch smirk evilly as he draws a rusty dagger and approaches Fizbo to 'help'.
You could disclaim decision making, ask questions and use what they give you, thus letting Groo's answer guide the fiction (or if he waxes lyrical - snowball and say, 'hmmmm sounds like you are spouting lore...').

Or you could just deal the Giant's damage and have Fizbo make the death move.

They are all vaild moves, I personally feel that the fictional ramifications have far more tension ridden 'weight' that simply choosing to either deal damage as established (or roll monster damage if that's your thing). And simply rolling the death move. The more I can tie the immediate fiction into the mechanics, the more weight our story has.

I really like telling them the consequences and asking. Foreshadow the pain and suffering. You know that the Giants stat block lists its damage as enough to kill all the PC's with one or two blows. Show them that doom! Have the Giant smash shit in front of them, crushing dwarven architecture into splinters. If they really decide that attacking the Giant is worth the risk, despite the fact you've said 'Hey, y'know one blow from his meaty fist will crush your bones into jelly', then by all means deal 500 damage.

I think the most powerful part of the game is the emergent potential of monsters as they are seated within your dungeon world, as tools of the story. Monsters exist to illustrate what a dangerous awful place Dungeon World can be, so illustrate with their moves, and deal damage as appropriate.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: John Harper on February 05, 2012, 07:45:32 PM
Maybe "where it's spawned" has more to do with the fictional positioning needed to hurt it (and its particular weaknesses), and less to do with piling on HP.

A creature from the outer planes can't be harmed by weapons forged by mortals. It cannot abide the touch of quicksilver.

A ghost from the death lands has no physical form to hit. It cannot abide that which is holy and consecrated by the gods.


Etc.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: JBMannon on February 05, 2012, 08:11:38 PM
I've gone through and redone all of the monsters in The Whispering Cairn and did all of monsters in Three Faces of Evil with the new rules including Sage's suggestion for replacing the first two questions from this thread. The changes seem to have fixed some of my concerns without having to do stange math or answer the questions disingenuously. I'll let you know how it goes after my game on tuesday.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Ludanto on February 07, 2012, 04:54:01 PM
I read the "spawned" question as "where is it normally found", personally.  Like, a sort of tie-in to "monster settings".

So, even if an imp was literally spawned on some other plane, you'd typically find it in a civilized place (hanging out in a wizard's castle) and it wouldn't be too much of a threat.

Or, maybe your imps are more rare, and only found with more powerful wizards, guarding his magic circle or other "places of power", and it would be more dangerous.

So, I like the question in that regard.  Maybe it should be "normally encountered" instead of "spawned", if that's the intent.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Glitch on February 07, 2012, 05:53:16 PM
A rabbit and an elephant might both be "normally encountered" on the open plains, but I don't think that fact should be the fictional basis for determining their hit points.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Ludanto on February 08, 2012, 02:21:06 PM
A rabbit isn't a monster and the open plains isn't a monster setting.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: JBMannon on February 08, 2012, 02:28:26 PM
While I agree with your first point but the open plains works for me. To that point, an elephant and a cheeta might both live there and both threaten the party but would have different HP.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Ludanto on February 08, 2012, 02:35:38 PM
They certainly would.  A cheetah would have, say, 20HP and an elephant would have 27 (and Armor 1 and +Forceful).

Besides, we all know that HPs don't represent the number of times you can be stabbed and survive or anything.  They're an abstraction.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Glitch on February 08, 2012, 03:19:16 PM
A rabbit is a monster in my game.  It is a more aggressive version that carries poison in its bite.  I don't want it to have 20 hit points, so I simply ignore the current monster hitpoint questions and use common sense.

Thinking more about it, I agree with sage that fundamentally it's a clash of expectations.  His expectation is that every monster, for example, spawned in the forest will have either 24, 30, or 37 hitpoints (at least if it has a discernable anatomy!).  And my expecation is that there is a vastly greater variation in nature that I want to account for.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: mease19 on February 08, 2012, 03:51:30 PM
While I like the monster creation rules and some will find them really concrete and helpful, I'm guessing that eyeballing the stats won't really do any harm.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: noofy on February 08, 2012, 04:00:38 PM
Marshall speaks truth. A Monster's Moves and Instinct, and then its HP (in combination with the Player's damage potential) gives you a rough idea of how much of a narrative obstacle the monster(s) will be to the players schemes.

Quote
Monsters are nameless hordes of creatures that stand between the players and what they want. Give each monster details that bring it to life: smells, sights, sounds. Your monsters are arrows, fired en-masse at the players. Give each enough detail to make it real, but don't cry when it gets slain by intrepid adventurers.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Ludanto on February 08, 2012, 04:08:51 PM
All of that's true.  If we know how many HPs a "low level" (for example) monster should have, there's no reason we shouldn't be able to fudge it.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: mease19 on February 08, 2012, 08:48:43 PM
While the questions seem like a good guide to stating out a new monster, I don't think the monster block actually needs to include the answers to those questions.  They add a lot of text but it's not nearly as interesting or evocative as anything else in the monster block. 
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: nemomeme on February 11, 2012, 08:18:42 PM
I think you need to do a clean sweep on the all the math and make sure it's working first and then go back and figure out how craft questions to aid DMs in creating on-the-fly challenges.

I haven't playtested the damage/hitpoint changes yet but given the big bump for first level and the gradual addition of more hitpoints as characters increase in level, I can already see leveling feel like going backwards relative to opposition if DMs aren't careful.

It looks like you may have fixed some problematic issues with first level characters in Basic but added the potential for a whole host of monsters to one-shot heroes at even higher levels. 

I feel my DM confidence may be shaken by scenarios like, "Hmmm, do I escalate things in narration or do I now hit the 3rd level Paladin with FORTY-EIGHT points of damage?"  If a monster can kill a "Knight" then Class, Armor (and even almost Level) won't matter a bit in the face of that nuke.

I play to play some Beta soon but I am not going to playtest the damage rules as written but instead come up with something I think will work better (and report on that if there's interest).
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Anarchangel on February 12, 2012, 02:23:34 PM
Interested folks: we have a new version, what do you think?

Replace the first two questions with these:
...

This is slightly more forgiving at low levels, gives a little more fine differentiation, and doesn't compare PCs to NPCs in odd ways. Thoughts?

I like the new version. I wonder the ranges couldn't be stretched further at the ends, but additive modifiers are much less scary!
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Anarchangel on February 12, 2012, 02:24:44 PM
We'll certainly add text to unpack it, but your instinct is right: a gang of thugs could cause trouble for an undefended village.

Yojimbo, Fist Full of Dollars, etc, etc.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Anarchangel on February 12, 2012, 02:35:28 PM
The paladin's healing not being very useful is certainly useful information though. We've had a hell of a time dealing with the healing niches and we'll keep working on it.

It seems like healing needs a boost in light of the new monster damages.

Actually, I've never really considered Lay on Hands to be effective healing in DW (but to be fair, it was only slightly better in D&D). With the old damage and armour ratings, an armoured paladin wasn't taking much damage at low levels, so shuffling damage to her (7-9 result) from a mage/thief/cleric was somewhat better than zero sum. Now that damage levels are higher and armour is comparatively less effective, the paladin probably needs her HP more.

How about something like:
10+ heal levelx2, 7-9, choose one:
*Heal levelx2 and take levelx2
*Heal levelx1.

Cure Light Wounds seems like it might need a bump too.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: sage on February 14, 2012, 04:58:51 PM
Here's some changes that are on my mind, as yet unvetted by Adam, which means they're just crazy ramblings.

The reason for keeping the reasoning behind the stats in the stat block is to allow the GM to make comparisons that are backed up by the stats. So, for example, a band of orcs and a gnoll raiding party. Even match? Slaughter? Just looking that numbers gets you part of the way there, but not all the way. I think it's useful information to have, but I may be wrong. We could also deemphasize it in the layout some.

Make HP's most important factor is size, then environment, but with a bigger modifier. Currently HP's most important factor is environment, with a small size modifier.

Update the "what can it cause trouble for" options to give a little broader scope. Show that these are meant to be equivalent to various specific areas, show that it's not just villages. Something like:
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: noofy on February 14, 2012, 07:06:27 PM
Not crazy at all! I like that update Sage. HP is a broad starting point for a monster's 'threat level', followed by fictional positioning and adjustment of HP / Damage on the fly by the GM. I think guidance on this matter (being a fan of the characters whilst challenging them) in the GM's section is just as vital as the numbers themselves.

I mean, you are making your move without stating it yes? So the players are unwares of the actual HP of the monsters (unless established by a spout lore or discern reality - in which case it should be a description of relative 'toughness' anyways), and only know their damage if engaged in some manner...

I think a samll range for size, followed by an environment mod, followed by a threat mod is an easy thing to adjudicate on the fly. Making characteristic attacks is the fun part, that involves getting down to the essence of the monster and enacting it in the fiction as you make your move.

We like to play with little red glass tokens for the PC's hitpoints, so I always have a rough idea of how much 'soak' they have, giving me another visual reference to how 'hard' a move or damage dealt I should be doing, considering the challenge to the players and the fictional ramifications through the relevent impending doom.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Mike Olson on February 16, 2012, 02:46:46 AM
On a related note: If monsters are doing more damage now, and PCs have more HP, does anyone think Armor values should be a little higher?
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: JBMannon on February 16, 2012, 07:23:33 AM
I have had players note that armor is pretty worthless when monsters are doing 4-5x the damage that armor is protecting from.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Glitch on February 16, 2012, 09:23:11 AM
Or scale monster damage back like it was in the Red Book.  I felt there was a great balance there between PC hitpoints, monster hitpoints, damage, and armor.

I always like to reduce things down to the least common denominator :)
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: sage on February 16, 2012, 12:36:49 PM
We're going to introduce a few more options for increasing armor. Having more HP gives us that option.

The problem with the Red Book numbers came down to the poor 0 Armor 3 HP Wizard. That was actually a pretty common case. Taking even 1 damage was a hug deal for that Wizard, while everyone else had at least 1 Armor. A well-armored fighter could even make it to 3 Armor, meaning an attack that wouldn't touch them could kill the low-Con wizard (and the low-con wizard is a pretty common choice).

Armor at first level is about where we want it. Just going with the base monster classes we've got 5, 7, or 9 damage. The well-armored character, the one we want to feel powerful, has 2-3 armor. That cuts weak attacks in half and absorbs 1/3-1/4 of strong attacks.

To keep roughly the same armor effect we need a few more ways of increasing armor, which we're adding. A high level character needs around +4 armor over their starting to still absorb about the same % of damage.

If we start raising armor too much we end up with the same situation as before: the 9 Con 0 Armor wizard who can't take an attack that barely scratches a tougher character.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Glitch on February 16, 2012, 02:42:27 PM
Although I like the "squishy" wizard as an old D&D trope, it sounds like you're working hard on striking a good balance.  It'll be interesting to see what comes in the pipeline to give characters that +4 armor.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: nemomeme on February 18, 2012, 11:07:41 PM
A question and some more damage thoughts.

Where does the 5/7/9 "base monster class" reference come from?  Is it not yet revealed or did I miss it in the Beta 1.1 doc or a thread here?

I'm running a Beta 1.1 playtest tomorrow but I'm setting the following guideline for what a scary single opponent looks like (not a faceless goblin or kobold, etc).  For my preferences, such a monster should *juuuust* one-shot kill a 1st level wizard who put an 8 in CON and was foolish enough to not be somewhere the party fighter could Defend him.  I think that means they do 12 damage!  What are other people thinking?
 
I think you guys are going to have a raft of people interested in making content/dungeons for Dungeon World and I think you should really concentrate on getting the monster/opposition build templates/rules as transparent as possible so that people are comfortable both in making content on-the-fly and for more carefully wrought scenarios.  One person's cannon fodder/lieutenants/bosses in a scenario intended for levels 4-6 should be similar to another persons.  To this end I think you should at least consider bringing back monster levels.  If not that, some other really clear scaling templates.  I don't think I can overstate how much interest in and audience/third-party creator potential are tied to this.

Maybe your current design direction will facilitate this just fine.  I'm just worried about it because I want to see a thousand dungeons bloom.

"Oh I see Maria has S3: The Idols of Blood coming out this fall...  You just *know* that'll be good."
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Mike Olson on February 19, 2012, 05:57:11 AM
I'm running a Beta 1.1 playtest tomorrow but I'm setting the following guideline for what a scary single opponent looks like (not a faceless goblin or kobold, etc).  For my preferences, such a monster should *juuuust* one-shot kill a 1st level wizard who put an 8 in CON and was foolish enough to not be somewhere the party fighter could Defend him.  I think that means they do 12 damage!  What are other people thinking?
I think that'd be reasonable if Armor were more meaningful. Like, if the Fighter wearing plate armor could cut that 12 damage down to 6, I'd get the message that the monster's dangerous if you're not tough or protected. As it is, that 12's going to be just about as big a deal for my 15 Con, chainmail-wearing Fighter as it is for your 8 Con, unarmored Wizard.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: noofy on February 19, 2012, 07:32:28 AM
This isn't 4e though. Fighting is dangerous in Dungeon World. There are other ways of 'dealing with' monsters. Remember that Monsters are much more than just a name, some HP and damage. Wading in, even after the GM shows signs of doom? Then so be it.

A goblin is a goblin is a goblin. No wait, maybe this is Urgbad the bold, weilding a nasty serrated cleaver as he commands his tribe of goblin nutters and in your dungeon world he has the potential to deal 10 damage (enough to kill the Wizard with one blow). He even will give the Paladin in plate with a shield a pretty hefty whack when he hits him....

So you reveal that shit to the players! Spread rumours that they hear, have tales of previous adventurers that just barely survived Urgbad's onslaught! Make it matter, make it immersed in your world, encourage fictional depth to your players attempts to overcome the challenges you craft for them. Let the story emerge from these choices. Hack and slash is one of many possible moves, but it must stem from the fiction first.

If you are struggling to use the monster guidelines (mechanics) scale against your players, here is your advice, straight from the rules:
 
Quote
If you're making a monster on the fly during a session start by describing it to the players. Your description starts before the characters even lay eyes on it: describe where it lives, what marks it has made on the environment around it. Your description is the key to the monster. A monster is so simple to make you can jump right into the fiction, describing whatever you want and back it up with stats as you need them. Make the world fantastic: describe your monsters first and worry about their stats later....A monster stops being an arrow when it is given a chance to shine by the players' actions. When the players are forced to run away from something it gains weight. When a monster somehow survives the players' assault it becomes interesting to the players and to the world at large. The players are the heroes. Your monsters are only important when they become important to the heroes and, thus, important to the world.

If answering the questions is giving you something 'out of sorts' with what you expect, then change it! They are just guidelines after all. Perhaps then have a little chart based on HP? HP are simply resources that are expended. You know the levels / HP of your players right? Have a rough idea of how 'tough' a monster you want to throw at them and scan the appropriate damage dealt.

I would suggest though that their instincts and the fictional effects (via moves) that the monsters deal are far more powerful than the damage they deal. Use these as the arrows of your agenda, follow your principles and make Dungeon World a place filled with adventure.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: mease19 on February 19, 2012, 07:55:17 AM
Because many attacks take fictional positioning to set up, monster moves that affect the fiction, rather than deal damage, can undo players' fictional positioning.  In some ways, that is more punishing than taking their HP; which, up until the end, players can shrug off and continue getting their kill on. 
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: noofy on February 19, 2012, 08:09:08 AM
Maybe it would help if the damage dealt part of the Monster's stat block wasn't on the first line (lowering its importance?) Perhaps if you wrote it under the monster moves as a bullet point? Thus it just becomes something you scan as a move for the monster to make when the players roll a 7-9 on Hack and slash?
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Mike Olson on February 19, 2012, 12:30:32 PM
You know the levels / HP of your players right? Have a rough idea of how 'tough' a monster you want to throw at them and scan the appropriate damage dealt.
This would be one thing if we were talking about a game that's published and set in stone, because we could just say, "Yeah, I don't know how they came up with those numbers, but just ignore that stuff and do it like this." Because this is a game that's still in development, I think it's important to stick to the rules as much as possible -- otherwise, we're not really helping the development process along, right? The more I houserule, the less useful my feedback. I want to (and should be able to) use the process as written. The whole point of this thread is "When I build monsters the way I'm told, it produces some weird results."

I can eyeball monster damage and etc. just fine, but it feels pretty dishonest if I start adjusting numbers mid-fight.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: nemomeme on February 19, 2012, 01:06:28 PM
That's a good point that I've been thinking about too, Mike.

Somewhere in the beta process, I think Adam and Sage will want a "Keep on the Shadowfell" baseline dungeon with fixed damage, armor and numbers of monsters in each "room" and ask playtesters to use that as written and report back how it goes with a fixed number of PCs. 

That might not be how most would want DW dungeons to be written/created/run going forward but it might be necessary for playtesting.

And maybe the dungeon should be for 5th level so more mid-level playtesting is done.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: noofy on February 19, 2012, 08:00:37 PM
I think we are coming from a different place Mike. I was referring to the new section on making monsters 'on the fly' that Adam is so proud of. We play pretty loose and without much prep. I'm not talking about adjusting a pre-prepared stat block and fudging it after I've fictionally 'set up' the monster for the characters to interact with.

I was discussing the rules as written as you introduce a monster into the story (having done no prep) using the lists and questions suggested. This is where I was coming from:
Quote
Your first agenda is to "Make the world fantastic". This shines through strongly based on how you think about monsters. Everyone and everything who comes up against the players is a monster but that doesn't mean you have to write their stats out ahead of time. In a fantastic world, every goblin might end up in a fight but you don't have to know their HP before that happens. A monster is so simple to make you can jump right into the fiction, describing whatever you want and back it up with stats as you need them. Make the world fantastic: describe your monsters first and worry about their stats later.

I've been practicing using the rules as written - no houserules -   with these questions in play, both with a new group of 1st level characters and an ongoing game with advanced characters. I've found that knowing how many HP my PCs have is essential in this process of me being a fan of the characters. So much so, I've taken to having visual piles of HP tokens (red glass beads) for them.

I have become comfortable in using these questions on monster design to determine the damage they deal. I know that my kobold guttersnipes that hunt in a pack (usually) and would threaten a peasant deal 6 damage. I also know that a big bad dragon that threatens a legendary hero and fights on its lonesome deals 60-68 damage(AP) at all ranges!

Even if I wasn't familiar with these guidelines, the example monsters do give me some frameworks to make my own (balancing them against the characters if I like). Say the players author in some sketetal bugbears into the fiction and I have a 'mental blank' as I try and ask the monster creation questions? I can just go off the stat block for skeletons but bump their damage dealt and add a cool move or two. This is not houseruling!

Quote
A monster is any living (or undead) thing that stands in the players' way. How you use these monsters follows directly from your Agenda and Principles. Stay true to your principles, use your moves and pursue your agenda—you can't go wrong.

When adding a monster to a front, placing them in a dungeon or making them up on the fly your first responsibility is to the fiction (Make the world fantastic) and to give the characters a real threat (Make the characters heroes), not to make a balanced fight. Dungeon World isn't about balancing encounter levels or counting experience points; it's about telling stories about adventure and death-defying feats......
When using damage this high make sure to use moves to make this apparent before you start doling out the killing blows. In particular Show Signs of Doom. Damage at this level can kill the unprepared in a single blow so give your players a bit of warning. Smoke drifting from the dragons’ nostrils or the black glow of necrotic energy in the talons of the wight.

The last set of monster building guidelines (which used levels) were basically the same, except damage was based on level, not threat and group size. It was (and always will be) still a GM call. If I want one of my kobold guttersnipes to deal 8 damage cause he's a wanna be dragon priest named Krish-snak the daring, then I can! This is playing by the rules. I may even give him the instinct of 'fight to to death for the honour of my Dragon God' and the move 'bite hard and not let go'. All still by the rules as written.

The fine point I think that needs to be made is:
Quote
When running Dungeon World as the GM you say these things:
What the rules demand
What the adventure demands
What honesty demands
What the principles demand

Specifically, that preparation is just that, preparation. It isn't imbedded into the fiction until you author it in. But:

Quote
Flexibility is key when planning: what happens during character creation [or in play] trumps anything you wrote ahead of time... Once you tell the players it's set in stone, no going back on it.... Don't be afraid to say "I don't know" and ask them the same questions; work together to find a fantastic and interesting answer.
Share the ideas you've brought to the table (either general ones or even a specific dungeon).... All the ideas and visions in your head don't really exist in the fiction of the game until you share them, describe them and detail them. Until the players agree, it's just your idea. Once they nod their heads, it's part of the game....

So once you decide on a monster's damage and you deal it, it's there in the fiction and you can't retcon it. Prior to that its just an idea, a means of challenging the PCs. I would suggest also that Damage is the least cool thing about your monsters and the most banal way of challenging the PCs.

Quote
Elements of a Monster
The most important part of a monster is what it does. These are it's moves. Just like the normal GM moves, they're things that you do when there's a lull in the action or when the players give you a golden opportunity. Just like the normal GM moves they can be hard or soft depending on the circumstances and the move: a move that's irreversible and immediate is hard, a move that's impending or mitigable is soft.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Aaron Friesen on February 20, 2012, 02:02:51 AM
On a side tangent here, re: "Which is the most powerful it can kill in a fair fight," I think the language involved is the issue. First time I read it, it naturally parsed for me as "If we control for circumstances in which if two peasants fought one another the results would be 50/50 in favour of either, what is the most powerful foe this creature can kill every time." i.e not what it is possible for it to kill, what it will necessarily kill every time in a fight where neither side is given undue advantage outside of it's own abilities. I think that most folk parse it as "What can it feasibly kill, assuming even enough odds; what is it at 50/50 with?"

Thus, if I answer the question with "It can kill a guard", I'm saying that this critter can kill a trained guard every time in a mano a mano fight. The damage makes sense in that frame of reference. If we instead go with the "50/50" value, the numbers make much less sense.

Anyway, it looks like that method may be heading out the door. I think I'll keep it in my toolbox, though, as a secondary method ;)
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Mike Olson on February 22, 2012, 03:37:03 AM
Even if I wasn't familiar with these guidelines, the example monsters do give me some frameworks to make my own (balancing them against the characters if I like). Say the players author in some sketetal bugbears into the fiction and I have a 'mental blank' as I try and ask the monster creation questions? I can just go off the stat block for skeletons but bump their damage dealt and add a cool move or two. This is not houseruling!

If the best way to build monsters in DW is "Look at existing monsters and make something like that," then that's what I want the rules to tell me. (That's what I was doing before the Beta came out.)

I don't want a couple pages of what look like concrete guidelines, but that don't work unless tempered with paragraphs of best-GMing practices. If you're saying that's the answer, then I'm saying that I disagree.

I know you like to answer most questions by quoting the Holy Scriptures here, and I get that -- the Scriptures are good and I like them too -- but when I say "There's a problem with the math here" a response along the lines of "Be a fan of the players!" isn't really helping.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Mike Olson on February 22, 2012, 03:39:26 AM
On a side tangent here, re: "Which is the most powerful it can kill in a fair fight," I think the language involved is the issue.

I agree with this. The revisions to monster-building so far have involved a fair number of unspoken assumptions along these lines.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: noofy on February 22, 2012, 06:05:29 AM
Hmmm. Sorry Mike. I wan't trying preach to you by quoting the rules, I was just showing you that the answers you seek on guidance to the GM on monster building are already there. But I get what you are saying now and those answers aren't there (for you). I think that the concrete guidelines on monster building work (but can be better!), and I understand that they are are work in progress. I guess we disagree on the efficacy of  'paragraphs of best DMing practices'  and their importance to the spirit of the rules as a whole. That's cool, there is more than one way to approach the game for sure!

So back to your problem. How can folks help? So what of the math? I get that if you solely treat a monster as its damage dealt, ignoring instincts and moves, (assuming then that its one instinct is to attack PCs and its sole move is to deal its damage) then of course the numbers are terrifying. The math (without temperance by agenda/principles/moves) is a problem. Simply saying 'Be a fan of the characters' is definately not helpful. I'm sorry for not seeing your position.  I do now. So rather than just change the math, what can we do to make the monster building more concrete, less statistical and more fictionally constructive?

Perhaps the monster building questions should have a list of instincts and 'common' moves, perhaps segregated by type (like the threats in DW) that get answered before you determine the Monsters HP and Damage?

I don't know if Adam and Sage will allow us into the designer's headspace and explain their 'unspoken assumptions'. They have in the past. I feel that if anything, the monster building guidelines have become even more prescriptive with each edition. The descriptive, laisse faire original guidelines were far more 'hand-wavey' and 'left to the GMs judgement' than the current set of questions.

This is a really good discussion and I'm sure that a lot of good ideas are floating about to make the next iteration of the rules as user-friendly and satisfying as possible.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: JBMannon on February 22, 2012, 08:15:23 AM
@noofy

You are so right about monsters needing other moves and motivations. The ghost that caused so much trouble for me and both my groups did so because I had no concrete idea of what it wanted. It had other, narrative, moves which I used a lot bur not having a solid motivation made it difficult for the players to interact with it in any way other than simply attacking it. I have gone back and given it a motivation that I hope will keep other GMs from floundering like I did.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Glitch on February 22, 2012, 08:43:41 AM
Hi noofy, you alluded to the more loose guidelines for assigning monster stats in the Red Book, which I feel keep much more in the spirit of the unwritten but posted guidelines we get from sage and adam on the forums.  If the monster stats themselves are really the least important part of the monster, which I can get behind, it's odd to see 2 full pages of detailed questions devoted to determining them.  It kind of sends mixed messages.

I think it's really tough to boil down the "art" of assigning custom monster stats to a rigid set of questions, it is a bit too prescriptive at this point.

If the questions approach is going to remain, we do see that the designers are currently on the right track in listening to the feedback and improving them to ultimately give us monster stats that make sense.  It's just that I'm not sure all that work on their part is warranted, and I can imagine how much work this is! :)
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: sage on February 22, 2012, 01:01:54 PM
In my opinion the best way to make monsters IS to use the rules as written, not to eyeball existing monsters. That's because all the existing monsters were made using those rules.

The "what can it kill" wording is already gone. For reference, here's the current state of the monster builder:

How does it usually hunt or fight?
<h4>What's the toughest it's a threat to in its usual numbers?</h4>
How big is it?
What is its most important defense?
Which of these describe it? (Choose all that apply)
List the monster's moves.
List the monster's special qualities.
Write the monster's instinct.


How does this look to people? Is there anything that sticks out as crazy? Can you think of key monster characteristics that aren't covered?
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Anarchangel on February 22, 2012, 01:19:37 PM
I like it. That's pretty much an extension of the fix you already proposed in this thread, and thus it's what we were using at Living Dungeon World. It worked great in my three games.

Also, I'm happy with armour as it currently stands. It lets me throw around half strength attacks and little bits of damage without just murdering the wizard and not even bothering the fighter.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Glitch on February 22, 2012, 02:07:15 PM
I think these will result in much more sensible monsters, great work!  And if a GM has a different expectation of some detail (like maybe there are some weaker monsters even though they're from the planes) its a 1 question tweak.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: sage on February 22, 2012, 02:08:01 PM
Yeah, alternate monster builders get their own section in the Hacking chapter.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: noofy on February 22, 2012, 05:57:06 PM
These are great Sage! I know I seem to be in the minority here, but that is a rather comprehensive (and extremely useful) set of lists to determine 'hard and fast' numbers for the Monster's HP / Damage and Armour. This is great to create monsters 'on the fly' as Adam origianlly intended.

 But what of guidance to a monster's Instinct and Moves? I realise they can appropriate moves from their Danger category, but what some guidelines / rules / examples on creating the narrative side of the Monster 'Stat Block'?

The Early Rules (25-8-10 ruleset) said:
Quote
The most important of these is the cool idea. Without
that, everything else about a monster will feel the same
as any other monsters. Go scrounge old Monster Manuals
and movies for inspiration. Come up with something that
sounds interesting before you think about any of the other
parts.
 

To me, making sure the GM knows that the most important part of the Monster is your cool idea, rather than how many HP it has or how much damage it does, is ESSENTIAL. I think this is vital to avoiding the disconnect some playtesters have been having with the monster builder 'math'.

When you frontload the builder with mechanical values first and tack on your cool idea (and thus instinct and moves) after, it lowers the importance of a monster's narrative moves in its ability to imaginatively 'challenge' the PC's, what it looks like, what it does, why it stands out. The stories told about it and what effects it has had on the world and the monster's importance within the Hero's world.

I know the current Beta rules have wonderful rules in the 'Elements' paragraph of the monster chapter, and they highlight in bold (in order of importance) the 'stats' of any given monster. Remembering that the most important part of any monster is what it does.
Moves
Instinct
Description
Damage
Tags
HP
Armour
Special Qualities


So maybe there could be a section of Questions to establish (or at least get the GM's imagination flowing) in the following section on 'Creating Monsters' for its Moves / Instinct / Description  before the questions on Damage / Tags / HP / Armour?

Maybe a sample move or two? Or a basic template (similar to Defy Danger) for a player initiated monster move? Some common instincts listed and their obvious effect on the fiction?

Just ideas to help folks who are finding a disconnect between the stats as generated by the questions as they stand and the 'lethality' of the monsters Damage / HP / Armour without the nessesary 'temperance' by the narrative (descriptive) potential in monster moves / instinct / special qualities.

I'm really enjoying playtesting this process and putting myself in the 'shoes' of folks who are finding the monsters they are building not working in the ways they expected mechanically. I for one, find the rules as written excellent for our little to no prep improv style and I will test out the new monster builder questions this weekend with our newly levelled Thief & Ranger as they explore ever deeper in search of the Skull of Akatosh.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: John Harper on February 22, 2012, 07:01:23 PM
I like this new list better.

"What's the toughest it's a threat to" is weird grammar. Maybe "What can it threaten in its usual numbers?"

I'd like an option to make a creature with 0 Armor.

A few more elements that reduce qualities rather than increase them might be good.

I kind of want to see something a bit like the Chopper's gang options, something that produces tags like savage, disciplined, cautious, or something. Not just damage, HP, and Armor values.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: nemomeme on February 27, 2012, 11:05:21 PM
How does this look to people? Is there anything that sticks out as crazy? Can you think of key monster characteristics that aren't covered?

Nothing crazy, no.  But here's my 2 cents based on only two Beta playtests (plus four Basic) so far.  All the damage seems off (high) to me given how I want to consistently apply it on 7-9 H&S's and on Misses when the monsters are narratively established as within range and trying to kill the PCs.

The hitpoints seem a bit high given the case that there's not much damage increase for the PCs between Basic and Beta.  You moved up the bottom of the range.  Were combats too short or were you not happy with the power level of the monsters relative to the PCs in some regard?  The goblin warrior of the Bloodstone Idol dungeon from Basic had 5 hit points which was just a shade too high for my tastes.  Now he has 6-10 hit points depending on GM interpretation.

My baseline for a good humanoid monster in a "cannon fodder" classification for Dungeon World is one where even a Wizard has a *chance* to one-shot a goblin footsoldier with his dagger.  Hence, 4 hit points at most.  I want my Fighters and Paladins to kill those guys a good percentage of the time and get on with the next foe.  Or get on with defending their comrades from incoming damage, or any number of interesting things.

Look at it this way.  If, as I infer elsewhere, your design philosophy is that applying damage is the least interesting thing a monster can do, then the the same should apply to PCs, no?  If you want Dungeon World fights to be at least as much about positioning, i.e. Defying Danger and correctly Discerning Reality and such, to get into the state where they can then assign damage to the monsters, that damage should be *nasty* most of the time when it lands.  When a PC goes through all that interesting stuff and then rolls a "1" or a "2" against that spear-carrier orc with 10 (!) hit points they've shaved only 10-20% of the damage needed to off him.  Well... fuck.  Is that really Dungeon World?  Maybe it is, but I doubt it.  At 10 hit points even a Fighter who's been adventuring for quite awhile is not killing that orc all the time.  That looks off to me.

There is also the principle that it is easier for a GM to increase opposition as needed than it is to dial things back once the fight has begun.  In my second Beta playtest, faced with a large number of bandits in an mine, the PCs retreated to to a pinch point where the bandits could only get at the PCs two at a time. Even with the 1 armor and 8 hitpoints I assigned them (at least 10 by the above rules), the combat overstayed its welcome a bit before I felt I could justify the remaining bandits retreating to fight another day.  This is a case that is going to crop up in dungeons from time to time.

I really like the kind of descriptive questions you're asking and think this is a great direction.

What do you think about meta questions like, "This monster is here on this day but to add to our heroes' name, +nameless, -2 HP"

I will also echo John's "0 armor" comment.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: John Harper on February 28, 2012, 07:32:07 PM
My baseline for a good humanoid monster in a "cannon fodder" classification for Dungeon World is one where even a Wizard has a *chance* to one-shot a goblin footsoldier with his dagger.  Hence, 4 hit points at most.  I want my Fighters and Paladins to kill those guys a good percentage of the time and get on with the next foe.

Yep, me too. Good analysis, Matthew.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: sage on February 28, 2012, 07:33:05 PM
Good point. I'm taking all this feedback into account for Beta 2, which will be out by this weekend at the latest or maybe sooner.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Anarchangel on February 28, 2012, 09:07:12 PM
Hooray!
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: Cneph on February 28, 2012, 10:57:01 PM
In the games I ran (pre-Beta, with me scaling monster HP with the 'EL' of the monster) fighting monsters with even 15-20 HP and a couple armour took too long for the players- they felt too many hits were required when the Fighter needed a several good swings to take them down.

I'd third the idea that the bulk of enemies should fall easily before the Paladin's holy wrath, but am also concerned about the upper end HP.
Title: Re: New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?
Post by: sage on February 29, 2012, 06:57:50 PM
Yes, monster HP has been rescaled. It has a habit of sneaking up despite our stated intention that monsters should hit hard and fall fast.