Powered by GURPS... Dungeon Fantasy?

[kmunoz]

Originally Posted by Nymdok

Because of the breadth and depth of the scope in 'Its a Threat' it will impart mechanical understanding on the GM to look at those metrics. If they choose NOT to look at the metrics, then having the pre-genned Threat levels printed clearly helps to make differential arguments quickly.

Remember, DPS means nothing till you take into account Hit Odds vs Defense Odds, and the DR that offsets that DPS.

Simply focusing on DPS will not give you a complete enough picture to be functionally in the 'ballpark'.

Trust me, I Looked at it. A lot. For a long time. And noodled and puzzled and mulled.

Nymdok

The way I'm describing DPS does include hit odds. Defense odds would be nice but I think it's a rabbit hole to require that any threat index be itself indexed against the party's stats. What I'm after isn't exactly threat relative to the party, but threat relative to other possible monsters. It's not: "is this lich going to TPK the party?" it's "If I'm trying not to TPK the party, would it be better to use the lich or the honey badger?" (The answer of course is lich.)

I think the It's a Threat calculations are great and valuable and certainly a lot more useful for comparing monster vs. party. However, the only pre-genned numbers are for DF. There are... not that many DF monsters. How quickly could I produce OR/PR/CER for the 600+ entries I converted 7 years ago? (Answer: not very.) But I could relatively quickly generate DPS values for those 600+ entries. And then I could decide between the lich or the honey badger, with the important caveat that I as the GM have to know my players and their play style and what their characters are capable of doing.

I feel Kromm's concern about wish rings and outlier actions is misdirected. Of course there is no way to get accurate data for all possible conditions. They never expected that in the D&D Monster Manuals, either. Those players can have wish rings and weird game-breaking artifacts too. But, again, the monster ratings aren't meant for that, and while it's a safe bet to make the perfect the enemy of the good, it's not the best bet.

The other advantage of using a DPS calculation rather than a more abstract metric like in IaT! is that you can very clearly state, without equivocation, that this metric refers to a specific and identifiable aspect of combat. It's not obfuscated. In a sense, you have a trap door to get yourself out of jams when people tell you that their party wiped against a monster that had a "low" DPS. "Did they die because they got hit too much?" "Uh, no, it was the wish ring the honey badger had in its pocket." "Well there you go, that wasn't DPS-related."

[Pseudonym]

Originally Posted by kmunoz

How quickly could I produce OR/PR/CER for the 600+ entries I converted 7 years ago? (Answer: not very.)

http://pseudoboo.blogspot.com/search...20Encyclopedia

I spent probably an hour +/-30 minutes calculating each of these posts, for what it's worth... did take some shortcuts though every once in awhile when I came into a really complex combination of modifiers for DR though.
It's also not every single monster yet either... about 2/3rds of them.

[kmunoz]

Originally Posted by Pseudonym

http://pseudoboo.blogspot.com/search...20Encyclopedia

I spent probably an hour +/-30 minutes calculating each of these posts, for what it's worth... did take some shortcuts though every once in awhile when I came into a really complex combination of modifiers for DR though.
It's also not every single monster yet either... about 2/3rds of them.

WHAT. I had no idea you'd done that. That's pretty cool! Well at least part of my concern is resolved then. :)

But yeah... that is a long process.

[philreed]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

Also, why not both? Advice in the GM section and a 1 (maybe 2) page appendix?

Space. Time. Cost. One or two pages for each "it's gotta have this!" adds up pretty fast. And pushing the page count higher and higher only increases the final MSRP . . . if there were such a thing as a Dungeon Fantasy Boxed Set.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by philreed

Space. Time. Cost. One or two pages for each "it's gotta have this!" adds up pretty fast. And pushing the page count higher and higher only increases the final MSRP . . . if there were such a thing as a Dungeon Fantasy Boxed Set.

I agree about it stacking up... and yet having a one or two page appendix putting combat into a ballpark would be *huge* for GURPS. It would nullify the one thing most new GMs have a problem with (balancing combat) because GURPS combat is unlike what most folks play. DF actually does a good job of dealing with the other issues (constrained traits, powers choices, etc.). It's why I wrote "It's a Threat!" to begin with. From what I've seen a good chunk of the DF community use it as a guide. They've even converted a ton of critters on various GURPS resources page.

Of course, this is all hypothetical. Pie in the sky and all that. But a box set (the way I've always seen them) is a starter kit for a game, campaign frame, etc. A way to get folks interested in the game without overwhelming them. GURPS combat can be overwhelming. Even Dungeon Fantasy combat.

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

My issue stems from the fact that Phil Reed said "Box Set" upthread and that screams to me the old DnD box set to get people into the game. If that were the case then you'd attract more players from that Other Game if you have at least a guideline on what monster/trap/whatever a given delver should be able to handle.

Said D&D boxed sets didn't have too much on this issue. The Moldvay Basic Set was just as concerned about treasure being balanced with danger. The advice about how tough the monster is:

Originally Posted by D&D Basic Set (1981), p. B29

A monster's level is only a guide, and a monster could be found anywhere in a dungeon, whatever the level. However, as a general rule, it is useful to limit monsters to 2 dungeon levels higher or lower than their hit dice. When monsters are encountered on dungeon levels less than the monsters' level, there should be fewer monsters than normal. And when monsters are met on dungeon levels greater than the monsters' level, there should be more monsters than normal.

Aside from the example following, that's pretty much it. The obsession with D&D encounter balance is comparatively recent, coming only after D&D 3.0.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

Aside from the example following, that's pretty much it. The obsession with D&D encounter balance is comparatively recent, coming only after D&D 3.0.

This may sound heretical, but I think this is one of those developments that come out of experience. TL 8 RPG design instead of TL 7, if you like.

"that's pretty much it" includes the idea that monsters have a difficulty rating, that said rating is also linked to group size, and you can vary the difficulty of a monster by varying group size. It's woollier than challenge rating, but it's still there, and it's actually got a concrete rule (only vary the dungeon level by +/- 2) along with very firmly worded instructions that if you put the monster on a different level, the encounter size should be adjusted to roughly adjust it to the level.

3.0e tried to come up with less woolly rules on how to use encounter size to adjust challenge rating, and therefore support using the monster at a broader "level range" of encounters with hopefully a little more certainty. I wouldn't say it succeeded, but that's what it did. It's clearly directly based on the text you quoted.

[Nymdok]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

Said D&D boxed sets didn't have too much on this issue. The Moldvay Basic Set was just as concerned about treasure being balanced with danger. The advice about how tough the monster is:

Aside from the example following, that's pretty much it. The obsession with D&D encounter balance is comparatively recent, coming only after D&D 3.0.

Originally Posted by Bruno

This may sound heretical, but I think this is one of those developments that come out of experience. TL 8 RPG design instead of TL 7, if you like.

"that's pretty much it" includes the idea that monsters have a difficulty rating, that said rating is also linked to group size, and you can vary the difficulty of a monster by varying group size. It's woollier than challenge rating, but it's still there, and it's actually got a concrete rule (only vary the dungeon level by +/- 2) along with very firmly worded instructions that if you put the monster on a different level, the encounter size should be adjusted to roughly adjust it to the level.

3.0e tried to come up with less woolly rules on how to use encounter size to adjust challenge rating, and therefore support using the monster at a broader "level range" of encounters with hopefully a little more certainty. I wouldn't say it succeeded, but that's what it did. It's clearly directly based on the text you quoted.

Im with Bruno, the HD approximation was what we used back in the day for a ballpark. Not it wasnt precise and since I havent played any of the later editions I dont know how close the CR numbers get, but I dont see it too much grumbled about so I presume that it works fairly well.

Again, I strongly agree with Ghostdancer, It seems the 'Its a Threat' system is fairly popular and people have invested the time to test it on some level. It seems to answer an important question that a lot of new GMs have. (Certainly one I struggled with).

On a long enough timeline, GMs will only glance at those metrics Im sure, but for a starting GM, those numbers are the training wheels that will help them get rolling.

Nymdok

[Anthony]

A large part of the problem with balancing combat encounters in DF is the inherent randomness of the combat system, particularly at typical higher power levels; the odds of a single roll turning the fight are pretty high.

[Refplace]

I dont know about a boxed set or a large compendium but GURPS Starter sets are an interesting idea.
Kind of like Caravan to Erris and GURPS Lite.
A very focused version of the rules, an adventure, a very sketchy genre/setting description to spark the imagination and offer possibilities and some pregen characters.
Finish it off with a recommended reading list.