Request: Better Monster Signal:Noise or Information Design

[beaushinkle]

Some assorted comments!

Mechanical Completeness
I've seen a couple of "list everything" notes, but I haven't seen anyone say that "Shark" needs to have "No Legs".

If we generally agree that we don't need No Legs, that means we're also in camp "we don't need everything", and the actual discussion is "what all is worth including". IE, we would be deciding that "No Legs" is doing more harm (makes the rest of the traits harder to scan) than good.

Concise Monster Descriptions
As for the variations of "briefly described monster descriptions means the monster is too simple or two-dimensional"; ie, a DFRPG mummy is this complex being that with motivations, variable emotions, and complex behaviors while the OSE mummy is a bag of hitpoints that attacks on sight, fights to the death, and has some disease/fear effects.

I don't think this is fair! The OSE mummy doesn't specifically say that it fights to the death, has simple emotions, and is a bag of hitpoints, so why is that the default assumption? When left unspecified, the GM decides the characterization of the mummy, either making it up or pulling from other sources (fiction, random tables, other game mechanics like reaction rolls, etc). If the GM in a OSE game decides that the mummy is bland, that's on them!

I think the tbone quote was really interesting:

Here’s a mummy, a being possibly thousands of years old, who lived a life as (possibly, again) a ruler or wizard or someone extraordinary, now returning to the land of the living after millennia spent wandering the shadow world beyond the veil of death. It's a traveler through timeless ages, a near-immortal with an ancient mind, mystic knowledge, and a tale like none other... which the OSE entry offers as "here's another thing to kill; combat stats below."

As in, tbone read the OSE entry for a mummy, and their brain filled in all of those details, and then contrasted those fictional details with the mechanical stats. As in, tbone didn't need to be told those details. If tbone had instead complimented their fictional understanding of mummies with the mechanical stats they would have a complete, interesting, complex monster.

Organization
I've been splitting up traits into Senses, Defense, Offense, Mind, and Body. Here's what part of an Alfar Wizard looks like in my notes.

For the folks who don't want to click, that looks like

-Senses-: Absolute Direction, Dark Vision
-Defense-: Combat Reflexes, Faerie Veil 8, Glamour, Improved Magic Resistance 4, Indomitable, Injury Reduction 2 (not iron or steel)
-Offense-: Elf-Shot (Any), Energy Reserve 19, Magery 5, Weapon Master (Staff)
-Mind- Bully (9), Callous, Dread (Running Water) 0 yd, Intolerance (Mortals), Outdoorsman 1
-Body-: Appearance (Very Beautiful), Dependency (Mana) (1 HP/min)

Closing Thoughts
There's this wonderfully written theory from Vincent Baker back in 2003 about mechanics:

Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true in game, all the participants in the game (players and GMs, if you've even got such things) have to understand and assent to it. When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not.

So you're sitting at the table and one player says, "[let's imagine that] an orc jumps out of the underbrush!"

What has to happen before the group agrees that, indeed, an orc jumps out of the underbrush?

1. Sometimes, not much at all. The right participant said it, at an appropriate moment, and everybody else just incorporates it smoothly into their imaginary picture of the situation. "An orc! Yikes! Battlestations!" This is how it usually is for participants with high ownership of whatever they're talking about: GMs describing the weather or the noncombat actions of NPCs, players saying what their characters are wearing or thinking.

2. Sometimes, a little bit more. "Really? An orc?" "Yeppers." "Huh, an orc. Well, okay." Sometimes the suggesting participant has to defend the suggestion: "Really, an orc this far into Elfland?" "Yeah, cuz this thing about her tribe..." "Okay, I guess that makes sense."

3. Sometimes, mechanics. "An orc? Only if you make your having-an-orc-show-up roll. Throw down!" "Rawk! 57!" "Dude, orc it is!" The thing to notice here is that the mechanics serve the exact same purpose as the explanation about this thing about her tribe in point 2, which is to establish your credibility wrt the orc in question.

4. And sometimes, lots of mechanics and negotiation. Debate the likelihood of a lone orc in the underbrush way out here, make a having-an-orc-show-up roll, a having-an-orc-hide-in-the-underbrush roll, a having-the-orc-jump-out roll, argue about the modifiers for each of the rolls, get into a philosophical thing about the rules' modeling of orc-jump-out likelihood... all to establish one little thing. Wave a stick in a game store and every game you knock of the shelves will have a combat system that works like this.

(Plenty of suggestions at the game table don't get picked up by the group, or get revised and modified by the group before being accepted, all with the same range of time and attention spent negotiating.)

So look, you! Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.

I think for combat, a lot of folks do want crunchy mechanics because they want something like a board game to play. But out of combat, many of those crunchy mechanics get in the way. I don't like the idea that every NPC that doesn't have bad temper on their sheet doesn't have a bad temper. I don't like the idea that there's a 26% chance every time my Draugr is in a stressful situation that they'll lash out against the cause of stress. I want them to lash out or not when I think it's narratively useful, including in combat.

If we are interpreting the mechanics fictionally instead of mechanically, as in we don't take "Bad Temper (12)" to mean the above, but instead to mean "hey GM, just wanted to let you know that draugs have a bit of temper", then I think that information should not be side-by-side with very important combat information, or you make both harder to read/understand.

[beaushinkle]

Another Example!
Here's a Baital from Yoon-Suin, which is effectively an OSE setting.

Baital
A hostile dead spirit, intelligent and manipulative, which seeks to inflict its own displeasure on humankind. It is able to inhabit and animate any corpse, but it can also affect the thoughts and emotions of the weak-willed – driving them to madness or suicide and causing miscarriages. It delights in ‘revealing’ itself as a demigod in order to dominate an unfortunate lunatic, but it might likewise be dominated by powerful magicians who seek to use its abilities for their own ends.

In its true form it is recognisably the image of its former self, but it is able to appear as a winged skeleton; a dark, hooded figure; or a many-armed, dancing spirit.

HD 3, AC 5, #ATT 1, DMG *, Move 120 (Fly 240), ML 7, Save As: M3, TT: L (S+T)

• Touch attack does 1d8 in shocking/freezing damage, and drains 2 levels.
• Can charm person 3/day.
• Can cast audible glamer and phantasmal force 3/day.
• Is semi-corporeal; immune to non-magical weapons.

Often enslaved by a magician or engaged in the torment of an unfortunate individual.

If encountered randomly will usually (1-4 on a d6) be inhabiting a corpse; this is noticeable on close inspection. On a roll of 5, it is enslaved by a powerful magician and engaged in the performance of some task.

Alternatively (on a roll of 6), it may manifest itself as a demigod, demon or spirit plaguing a lunatic.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by beaushinkle

I've seen a couple of "list everything" notes, but I haven't seen anyone say that "Shark" needs to have "No Legs".

I didn't expect that when I argued for "list everything" I had to specify "Sharks need the trait No Legs".

Sharks need the trait No Legs.

This is because there is a precedent and a method to how NPCs are designed and listed in GURPS products*, listing Sharks with "No Legs" stays true to that form and method.


* To whit: "You get what you pay for", if a Shark is taken as an 'animal form' for a shapeshifting PC, then "No Legs" informs how many points the form costs, thus this information is needed. Now granted we're in DFRPG land where all of that is hidden behind the curtain, but that is not how it works out in the greater GURPS field, and as such, NPC stats in DFRPG are informed by "how it would be done in a regular GURPS book".

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

I didn't expect that when I argued for "list everything" I had to specify "Sharks need the trait No Legs".

Sharks need the trait No Legs.

I'll go even further: DF has not enough info on legs for my taste, not too much. Horses should have Vulnerable Legs, so that it doesn't take the full HP/2 injury to cripple them.

I would like it if monsters had more info about their habitats and ecology, social organization, goals, number appearing, treasure collecting habits, etc., but I recognize that DF Monsters is already printed and that page constraints were a big concern--it's water under the bridge. And the newer books from Gaming Ballistic such as Serpents of Legend are actually fantastic at this anyway.

But sharks should have No Legs because they do. If they didn't I could roll my eyes and say "obviously they do," and it wouldn't hurt the game beyond annoying me, but there's no reason to omit it. If you're worried about page space you should look at how Garden of Evil handles plants: defines a meta-trait called Flora which includes traits like Doesn't Breath and No Blood, etc., and uses it for all the plants. You can do that for Shark and just say it has trait: Fish. Now you've got the best of both worlds: it officially has no legs (see Fish definition on pg. XYZ), and it doesn't offend anyone who likes short stat blocks.

[Armin]

Originally Posted by beaushinkle

As for the variations of "briefly described monster descriptions means the monster is too simple or two-dimensional"; ie, a DFRPG mummy is this complex being that with motivations, variable emotions, and complex behaviors while the OSE mummy is a bag of hitpoints that attacks on sight, fights to the death, and has some disease/fear effects.

I don't think this is fair! The OSE mummy doesn't specifically say that it fights to the death, has simple emotions, and is a bag of hitpoints, so why is that the default assumption? When left unspecified, the GM decides the characterization of the mummy, either making it up or pulling from other sources (fiction, random tables, other game mechanics like reaction rolls, etc). If the GM in a OSE game decides that the mummy is bland, that's on them!

There is a huge difference between decide and make up. If the details are there, I can see what the intent was, and that intent can be very informative. I can then decide to use that information or not.

If the details are not there, I can't decide to use them at all. I just have to make something up. And on the spot, my ability to make it up may be limited, especially without some seeds to help get me started.

Many people can't just decide to be creative and make something up. Not everyone is good at improvisational creativity.

But I agree that the way the traits are organized is often not particularly helpful, and sometimes seems to actively hinder usability. I do quite like your organization, with Senses, Offense, Defense, etc; that seems like a very useful breakdown.