Fear of Change
Not long ago The Id DM posted a great write-up about errata in general - Et tu, Errata? - that discusses the nature of errata without going in to a line by line analysis of the Templar/Cleric changes by Wizards of the Coast.
I was going to chime in with an analysis, but I figured I'd take a similar angle and speak as a developer and game designer. In his post he discusses how errata is similar to software patches, and I've decided to elaborate on that a little further and use an example that he says he's never played: MMORPGs.
I've never played World of Warcraft, but for a time I was a rather heavy player in Everquest 2, and it has had its share of updates over the years. In addition to the times new add-ons were pushed (there have been five so far, I think), on several occasions they have introduced major changes in order to "fix" things. Although a majority of changes were in fact fixes to stop things such as exploits, some of those changes were quite radical: common items changed stats, mitigation (the equivalent of damage resistance in D&D) changed drastically, damage-per-second rates changed radically, some powers got "nerfed" or a got a serious boost, new items were made available that made the old ones obsolete, etc... Since it was an online game and a living, breathing server, you didn't have a choice in the matter. Changes went live on a fixed date and you had to either accept them or not play the game.
A lot of changes of this kind might not make sense to some players, but as a designer I know what it takes to even consider these changes. The developers didn't make a change just because they felt like it or because they were bored one day; each change had a reason or intention, and a painstaking amount of testing - internal developer testing, validation testing to ensure the feature was implemented correctly, internal QA testing for several weeks to ensure the change doesn't unbalance the game, public beta testing (or "user acceptance" testing, if you will) for several months, etc... - went in to every update to ensure that it did not change the game for the worse.
Every single update has a reason for being, and at the time SOE (Sony Online Entertainment, which owns and operates the EQ2 servers) was very good about providing a detailed explanation of why the changes were made.
But compared to WotC's errata, there are two major differences with how they do things:
- They announced the intended changes months before they went live. "Hey, these changes are coming... Get ready!" When the changes went to production, players weren't surprised and adapted quickly.
- They listened to player commentary, from the public beta testers actually using the changes to players that can only imagine how their game will change, well before the changes made it to production. In some cases that feedback allowed the developers to make further modifications before the change went live, pushing them to their test servers for even more feedback. And I can recall several planned changes that were ultimately scrapped because of user outcry.
Regardless, the changes eventually came and in some cases altered the game dramatically. I had several characters in EQ2, and on more than one occasion I found that the patches they made changed my style of play and how the group worked together. But I considered it a challenge and adapted, and it wasn't long before I learned the "new" way of playing and forgot everything about the old one.
As a customer of Wizards of the Coast, I have a certain degree of faith in the company to do some research and planning before making such radical changes. I may be personally bitter about how they ravaged my favorite character class, but in the back of my mind I understand that they must have done it for a reason. The original design was probably flawed and I simply accepted it because I didn't know of any other way to go. Put simply, I was using it wrong and didn't know it.
In seeing the recent backlash over the changes, I noticed something: almost all of the people complaining are complaining because of the nature of change itself. It doesn't matter what the cleric was before or what it is now... It's a problem because it's different, and extremely different if you count the changes compared to other treatments (such as the fighter weaponmaster). They're not complaining that Turn Undead only does 3d8 damage now; they're complaining because it use to do 6d10 damage.
Let's think about that for a second and go back to the above example: if you walked in to a GameStop today and purchased Everquest 2 (or World of Warcraft; I assume it has had the same issue when Cataclysm was released), went home to install it... would you be aware of all the changes that have occurred since the game first hit the shelf? Would you care how the game was originally?
I haven't done this myself - primarily because I've never played a cleric - but I ask some of you out there to try this: when the changes are live in the online Character Builder (they weren't last time I checked), go and try to create a cleric. But, before you do, clear your mind of everything that the cleric once was. Look at it as if it were a new class and weigh its pros and cons not on what it no longer is but rather how it compares to other classes. Play test it as if you've never been a cleric in your life. Consider yourself a newcomer to D&D 4e, oblivious to the history of changes the game has experienced as of late... Would the Templar bother you so much then?
Cornering the Gamma World Market
I realized something today: I'm a published author! And it wasn't even planned!
For the past several months, I've been working on my own personal Citizen Kane (or Waterworld... Time can only tell): a massive Heroic tier campaign for Dungeons and Dragons 4e called The Coming Dark. And when I say "massive", I kind of mean it: part one of three is about 80% complete and already clocks in at a staggering 116 pages. It's so epic that nobody may ever play it, but it's something I want to do for my own personal gratification.
I've been working on it for months, doing all the maps, designing and redesigning each scene, creating each stat block, laying it all out in Adobe InDesign, playtesting it with at least three different "play by post" groups. It's been quite an undertaking, and the focus of most of my development efforts.
But about a month ago I decided to take a little diversion. Every now and then I get an idea that pops in to my head and I just can't get rid of, and have to actually create it in order to satisfy my subconscious. Usually this has taken many forms, but this was very specific: it was a Gamma World campaign.
NOTE: To avoid spoilers, I have chosen to make no reference to the module's contents.
So one week I decided to take a break from TCD and write a short delve for Gamma World called Fire From the Sky. It honestly didn't take much time to put together - probably no more than a few days for mechanic design, then several more days for map generation and layout - and was somewhat of an entertaining experience.
At the time of its writing, I didn't quite know what to do with it. I had read the 4e GSL but didn't know how it applied to publishing Gamma World content, so I sent a letter to Wizards of the Coast legal department hoping for clarification; I have yet to receive a response. At the same time, I submitted my Gamma World "pitch" to the Wizards of the Coast submission email address, and I got three responses back saying "we don't want Gamma World content." Well OK then.
So be it. One day I decided "what the hell, I've got nothing to lose" and published a free preview of the first two encounters on Drive Thru RPG while I prettied up the module for publication.
The free preview has over 300 downloads so far. Who knew there'd be that many?
At the same time I was preparing to post my module, I noticed something: Drive Thru RPG didn't really have a Gamma World category, so it lumped it together with the 4e/GSL content. Looking through the product list... I was virtually the only person creating Gamma World content!
I wasn't sure if Gamma World even had an audience; I could very well be creating something that nobody will ever use. But the module was done, and there was no reason to hold it back at this point.
When the module went up for sale, I immediately started receiving emails from would-be customers. Since Wizards of the Coast seems to have virtually abandoned Gamma World, fans of GW were excited to see actual content from someone. They began to praise my efforts before even seeing the module. They asked for tactical maps with 1" squares. They offered suggestions on how to continue it. And, today, I saw at least two people on Twitter mention that they were going to use my module with their gaming group. It's kind of a surreal experience. People like it, I think! 🙂
Almost everyone that communicated with me in one way or another had the same question "are you making another one?" A few even said they would buy it "regardless of price", which is flattering.
Making more Gamma World modules hadn't occurred to me until then, but I see now that there are many Gamma World fans out there that are desperate for new adventures and need someone to fill the void. I had found what is apparently an untapped market, a market long forgotten by Wizards of the Coast, a market that is just dying for someone to step up and create more stuff.
Well, if anyone's going to fill the void, might as well be me.
I have officially begun development on my next Gamma World module. I don't have a title for it, but here is a brief synopsis:
The town of Wildwood has taken some time to recover from the recent chaos, but it is finally back to its "normal" self... For one whole day. Then the swarms began: millions of rats, birds and insects poured over the nearby hill and assaulted the town, forcing everyone to seek shelter as they harried anyone and anything left in the open. Granted, one could argue that swarms of creatures were pretty common in Gamma Terra, but when a swarm of monkeys arrived in Wildwood handing out hand written death threats from someone called "Dr. Neb", it wasn't hard to see that this was far from ordinary.
[Name Pending] is a Gamma World campaign for five 2nd level characters, who must brave the swarms and other oddities to find this "Dr. Neb" and stop his nefarious plans!
As you can hopefully tell, this campaign will be a little more "off the wall" than my last one. It will also be longer; I'm debating whether to make it span one or two levels.
Maybe that's my calling in this crazy world: to be the authority on Gamma World. Well, we'll just have to see how things go, won't we?
Stay tuned for more information!
Hazard/Monster: The Black Obelisk
WARNING: Possible campaign spoilers.
I've recently been having a bit of a mental dilemma with certain traps in my campaign.
My previous post talked about a specific hazard that has both positive and detrimental effects, and issues that come up as it relates to forced movement. Now I'm dealing with a solo trap that... well... I'm not sure if it should be a "trap" in the first place, at least in terms of how a "trap" is defined by the 4e rulebooks.
NOTE: In order to avoid spoilers, I will be talking in a general sense and have created a radically different object that has the same issues: the Black Obelisk.
You see, there's this object that is extremely powerful. One could argue that it's also intelligent, in the same manner that artifacts are but at a much more powerful scale. And it has friends, creatures that want to protect it and the area ahead.
One could argue that that's a trap or hazard, but I have some issues with that:
- The object's mechanics are beyond the scope of the traditional trap's statistic block. Most traps have a single attack or action they take; this object would have more options.
- The object provides an aura that protects its allies, so it technically functions as a controller. If it were to have healing or regenerative properties, it could also be considered a "leader".
- The object has multiple attack types, and some of those attacks or actions are not as intense as its bigger hits, so it has Minor and Standard actions. It could also conceivably have interrupt actions and make opportunity attacks.
- The object is powerful enough that it can't simply be dispelled by a few rolls (such as the traditional Arcana-/Religion/Thievery-based skill challenge, for example), and there's no chance of it being defeated by a single Thievery roll. It should take significantly more work to disable it, so much so that it's probably easier to destroy than to disable.
With that in mind, a thought occurred to me: what if this was a creature? That also has some issues:
- It is an object, and as such falls under certain guidelines in terms of defenses and durability (see "Object Properties" in the Dungeon Master's Guide). Granted, those defenses will probably be boosted because of the nature of the object, but it's still an object nonetheless.
- It has no brain or mind of its own (one could argue its attacks are by design or due to some sort of programming), so it doesn't have a Will defense. It would also be immune to other mind-affecting keywords and specific attack types: disease, poison, gaze, psychic, charm, fear and so on.
- It's anchored to the ground, which means it can't be force moved and probably cannot fall prone.
- It doesn't provoke opportunity attacks because its physical state never changes; it cannot "let its guard down" (see the definition of "Opportunity Actions" in the Player's Handbook) because it really doesn't have a dynamic guard like a living creature would. It also doesn't have eyes, so it qualifies as having "all around vision" and blindsight.
- Unless one of the creatures in the encounter is a mason, it can't heal. For that matter, it doesn't know what it is to be "bloodied" either. When it drops to 0 hit points, it is destroyed.
So I decided to make my object a "object monster", treating it as an Elite monster with a somewhat modified stat block.
As an example, I have created the Black Obelisk "creature" below. I admit I threw this one together rather quickly (I even had to make post-production changes to the image in Photoshop to remove spoilers) and only made it for this blog post to give you an idea of the sort of thing I had in mind.
The Black Obelisk
As you may notice, the important differences are in the top section (hit points) and in the "Traits" section, where the obvious differences between a monster and a common trap are. Beyond that, it's a monster. I hesitated including the attributes at the bottom since they don't apply and are hardly used, but whatever.
Now this "creature" is not meant to be alone; it comes with any number of other guys. Those guys in turn draw power from the obelisk, regenerating their wounds and gaining protection from the obelisk's own attacks.
Now that I've decided on this hybrid, I might end up using it in multiple places. I don't know... I somehow prefer creature mechanics compared to trap mechanics, at least for the simpler non-deathtrap traps.
Hazard: Calming Waters
Don't drink the water...
WARNING: If you're one of my players, this might contain spoilerific material!
I have a bit of a quandary, and figured this was as good a place as any to talk about it... Well, at least here you can speak in blurbs larger than 140 characters anyway.
As part of my campaign, I have one room that in addition to a lot of bad guys and a few other traps there is a stream of shallow water. This water - what I refer to as a Calming Waters hazard - heals the creature that touches them quite a bit (gain a used healing surge or recover your surge value in hit points, +5 temporary hit points, make an immediate save versus an effect), but that wave of healing energy is so powerful and overwhelming that it has a nasty side effect: it knocks you unconscious for at least one full turn.
In a non-combat situation that's all well and good; if a player chooses to drink from the water, well, that's his prerogative. And if he falls asleep because of it he can wake up (eventually). But what if this is a combat situation?
In the same room I have some bad guys, guys that may not even know themselves the power of the water, so they do not know how much of a tactical advantage it would be if their enemy would simply keel over and fall asleep if they so much as touched it. But they will enter combat the same way they would against any other foe, using the powers that come naturally to them. In this case, they have powers that perform forced movement (Thunderwave, for example), so it is conceivable that they could push their enemies in to the water without intending to do that in the first place.
Question: If someone is force moved in to this hazard, do they get a saving throw?
There are some factors to consider here...
First off, if you force move an enemy in to "hindering terrain", they get a saving throw; that rule is pretty cut and dry. For the record, here's the text from "Forced Movement" in the original Dungeon Master's Guide:
Hindering Terrain: Forced movement can force targets into hindering terrain. Targets forced into hindering terrain receive a saving throw immediately before entering the unsafe square they are forced into. Success leaves the target prone at the edge of the square before entering the unsafe square.
...and the text for "Hindering Terrain" from the Rules Compendium:
A type of terrain that hinders creatures, usually by damaging them. Examples: Pits, lava, and deep water. A creature can make a saving throw when it is pulled, pushed, slid, or teleported into hindering terrain.
But is it really hindering terrain? I can't help but think that the concept of whether a patch of land is "unsafe" is up to interpretation by the creature. The enemy may not know it's hindering terrain or that it poses a threat, choosing simply to walk safely around it and not get their feet wet. "Pits, lava and deep water" are pretty clearly dangerous, so an enemy would have it in his best interests to avoid them, but the calm waters are visually nothing more than a shallow (no more than a foot deep), crystal clear pool of water. To the naked eye, it's only difficult terrain until something comes in contact with it.
So if I were a player who got pushed in to the water and the DM tells me "make a saving throw", my first question would be "why?" The act of making the saving throw indicates to me that the water *is* dangerous, something that I probably didn't have any idea of beforehand. It immediately ruins the illusion that the water is either harmless or can have a positive effect.
My issue isn't about saving throws during the entire encounter... My issue is with the first saving throw, when a blissfully unaware creature finds themselves ankle deep in really soothing water until they black out.
The way I handled it before is that the first time it happened that person would not get a saving throw, and the hazard would attack normally. If it missed, they would still not know it is "unsafe", so others that went in wouldn't get a save either. But from the first time it hits and knocks out a target, everyone gets a save.
If this were "fourthcore", there wouldn't be a doubt: you're going in whether you like it or not. Actually, the waters probably wouldn't even get an attack roll and knock you on your ass instantly, but that's not quite the case here. 😉
What do you think?
Contest Results (Finally)!
First of all, once again I apologize... This has been a hellish month, and had I known that it was going to end up like this I probably would have handled the contest differently. It is my first contest after all.
Due to my inability to focus in a time of adversity, I put the call out for judges. Four people responded (all of them have chosen to remain nameless), and one of those four never responded to me sending them information, so I'm basing the following results on the other three. Each judge was to take all five entries and rank five of them them in order from 5 (best) to 1 (worst). All three judges' score would then be added and the highest score (out of a possible 15 points) would be declared the winner.
Using that mechanism, after a few days of deliberation on their part, we ended up with a two-way tie for 1st place and a two-way tie for 3rd place.
Due to the delay in prize selection, and adding the fact that I did not choose to be the tiebreaker myself (if I wasn't capable of judging before, I don't consider it proper to be judging now), I have decided to award all four with a prize in one way or another.
After seeing all the entries, I did notice something: Although "standard" and "elite" monsters are pretty well defined and everyone handles them the same way more or less, the "solo" encounter is a whole other story. I've seen multiple ways that the request for a "solo" is encounter was interpreted... Some did a very basic and plain solo creature surrounded by traps and hazards. Others created a sort of hybrid, where it's one creature that goes through three elite stages (once the "elite" version of the monster is destroyed, it's replaced by a different version of it). And others didn't put many mechanics in to the encounter and preferred the story and the potential roleplaying aspects of the situation play out.
So here are the results, as chosen by my crack team of judges, in no particular order except for the prize grouping.
TIE FOR FIRST (no particular order)... Prize: Heroes of Shadow (or equivalent) from Wizards of the Coast
- "The Fountains of Unbearable Grief" by Caoimhe Ora Snow (@dazedsaveends on Twitter): The background story won over most of the judges. It also includes a very detailed encounter area with a variety of different terrains, and the solo itself is quite the intriguing concept.
- "Fountain of Sorrow" by The Id DM (@TheIDDM on Twitter): This was more than I personally expected and reads like a full adventure (it's close to being longer than most the other contest entries combined), complete with an adventure summary, a social scene leading up to the encounter, a random encounter table, custom magic items and more. I would have taken points off for making the enemy my name spelled backwards though, so be lucky I didn't judge it... 😉
HONORABLE MENTIONS, TIE FOR THIRD (no particular order)... Prize: $10 Amazon gift card
- "Ego-Tastrophy" by Jeff Gupton of Blackbyrne Publishing (@BlkbyrnePublish on Twitter): It probably helped that two of the three judges were creative designers, and one of which is a published designer. Very straight up encounter against a golem, but the inclusion of a tactical map was nice. And the judges were simply fascinated with the name of the creature: the "Horace Brigland Borgtite Golem".
- "Lair of the Tentacled Horror" by Raja (NOTE: PDF does not contain the area map; don't have access to it right now, so it will be posted separately soon): The judges liked the concept of a monster that spawned minions repeatedly (similar to SvD's Endless Hordes, but instead of being a separate hazard it's part of the creature's mechanics). Mixed that with a very Cthulhu-esque atmosphere and enemies (cultists and tentacles! Woo!) and it looks quite entertaining. This was yet another submission that went above and beyond presenting more than just an encounter; it included an entire underground system of caverns through which the "tentacled horror" can pretty much move at will. PCs would probably have to slice through several tentacles shooting up from out of the water before the BBEC ("big bad evil cehalopod") shows up.
Thanks to everyone for their submissions. I promise the next contest will be simpler, will be easier for anyone to enter without much effort, and will be decided upon significantly faster.
If you are one of the winners above, please contact me privately (through email or through Twitter DM) to make arrangements.
I may include some of the other submissions in a future post; I don't know yet.
About the Author
Software developer and game designer in Miami, Florida. Currently working on content for Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition, Pathfinder, 13th Age and other systems.
Links
Recent Posts
- In Response to Threat of Arrest
- Everything Is Better With Tentacles – Planning
- We Have Switched Hosts!
- Hey, GenCon People… Please Read This
- Atomic Age – Dice Mechanic