New Monster Building Guideline Weirdness?

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 ;)

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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! :)

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?

• As part of large group, five or more: 5 damage
• As part of a small group, around 2–5: 7 damage
• All by its lonesome: 9 damage

<h4>What's the toughest it's a threat to in its usual numbers?</h4>

• An defenseless village or lawless slum: +0 damage
• A defended village or poor district: +4 damage
• A rural keep or guarded neighborhood: +8 damage
• A garrisoned keep or noble household: +12 damage
• An entire city: +16 damage
• A seat of power or capital city: +20 damage

How big is it?

• Smaller than a housecat: 4 HP, Hand
• About halfling size: 8 HP, Hand
• Human-like: 10 HP, Close
• As big as a cart: 25 HP, Close, Reach
• As big as a house or bigger: 40 HP, Close, Reach

What is its most important defense?

• Leather armor or a thick hide: 1 Armor
• Mail or scales: 2 Armor
• Boney plates or plate armor: 3 Armor
• Magical protection, permanent spells and the like: 4 Armor

Which of these describe it? (Choose all that apply)

• It's from a dangerous place like wild forests or shifting glaciers: +5 HP
• It's from a twisted place, including places of power and the like: +10 HP
• It's from the planes—maybe the City of Dis or the Realms of Discouragement: +20 HP
• Its armaments are vicious and obvious: +3 damage
• It fights by skill, not instinct: +2 damage
• It isn't dangerous because of the wounds it inflicts, but for other reasons: -2 damage, write a move about why it's dangerous
• It's muscular and hardy: +forceful, +7 HP
• It has long appendages or weapons: Reach
• Armor doesn't help with the damage it deals (due to magic, size, etc.): +Ignores Armor
• It lives in squalor and filth: -2 HP if it's sickly, +2 HP if it thrives)
• It doesn't have organs or discernible anatomy: +1 Armor, +3 HP
• It actively defends itself with a shield or similar: +1 Armor
• Its armaments can slice or pierce metal: +messy, +1 Piercing, or +3 Piercing if it can just tear metal apart
• It can attack at range (Near, Far, or both, your call)

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?

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.

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.

Yeah, alternate monster builders get their own section in the Hacking chapter.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.