Playing Frankenstein - 4 Tips for Designing Better Computer RPG Monsters
There is an interesting series over at Wizards of the Coasts site about the thought process that went into designing the monsters for Dungeons & Dragons 3.5, more paticularly the new Monster Manual V (which I haven't picked up yet, but being a monster junkie, I know I will).

A third article is forthcoming, but you can read PART I and PART II.

Some of the information here is pretty tightly related to making a pen & paper game system, but many of David Noonan's points are just as valid (with modification) for creating a stable of computer RPG monsters. Here are some ideas adapted from his articles:

#1 - Make Every Monster an Exciting Encounter
This is a tough one in a computer RPG, because the level of automation of combat (even in a turn-based game) means there is going to be a LOT of repetition of monsters. So I guess the key here is to make sure that battles between different types of monsters is as different as possible. This can be done through their abilities, or even just through their AI and behaviors (remember how annoying those Fallen / Carvers / Devilkins / etc were when they'd run away in Diablo 2?)

The plan should be to give every type of monster a noticeable quirk or difference.

#2 Categorize the monsters, and use that to help guide you through the process
David Noonan opted for seven "categories" of monsters (well, six plus one) which he took pains to keep somewhat evenly represented. This helped keep the monsters roughly separated in terms of style.

For Monster Manual V, his categories were Brutes (monsters which relied on straightforward melee combat), Artillery (monsters which were most powerful attacking from range), Masterminds (monsters which served as the "big bad" for entire adventures, being both smart and social), Lurkers (monsters which used ambush tactics), Mooks (monsters which were most powerful grouped with each other), Decathlete (monsters that can perform several of these roles well), and "Special" (a catch-all category).

This at least helps keep monsters different on a rough level. Then you can go through the groups and make sure the monsters are well differentiated from each other. Most stand-alone single-player RPGs don't have a monster list of hundreds, so there shouldn't be too many monsters in each category to distinguish.

#3 Make it Easier on th DM (or, in this case, the AI) to Run
While computer RPGs don't have to worry about making the poor, overworked DM's job easier, his suggestions can apply almost as well to AI. Players complain endlessly about wanting better AI, even though they rarely understand what they are talking about, which developers fight constantly with making AI more interesting and believable.

But what many players really want isn't more accurate and intelligent AI, but rather interesting and clever AI that responds well to the player's actions. A few simple, memorable, and unique behaviors go a long way towards achieving this goal, where a huge suite of behaviors to be used in combination with all monsters does not. For example, an enemy NPC who spends every round healing party members if any of them is wounded will be far more memorable and interesting than true "AI" that might try and select more appropriate spells every round from their vast spell libraries.

#4 - Make the Most of a Few Simple Mechanics
Almost every RPG has, at its core, a very simple game mechanic in combat. It's a race to be the last to run out of health. But good RPGs have several mechanics (AKA "gameplay") that makes that particular journey more interesting.

Noonan here talks about a couple of new mechanics that they used variants of across multiple monsters in the Monster Manual V. One, for the lack of a better term, could be called an "exit strategy" mook - a creature which leaves the other surviving members of its party more powerful when it is destroyed. This is a major shift in the usual pattern of combat, where the enemy groups become weaker as their members are eliminated. Another one is the "tiered monster" approach - creatures that have their abilities change based on their current health levls. As he points out, these straightforward mechanics - with variations - led to a lot of new creature ideas.

This applies so strongly to CRPGs it should probably a given for most experienced designers. The point is to keep the number of truly unique, exceptional cases down, and really maximize the behaviors and capabilities you already have. It's up to the designer to figure out how he can create whole new gameplay out of minor variations to existing rules. Exploit the mechanics you've got to the fullest you can!

But yeah, don't be afraid to throw in a couple of zingers that have completely unique cases from time to time. Rules are made to be broken...

Disclaimer
Yes, yes, I know. An RPG is about a world, story, and characters. But since its a game and not a novel, you need to spend as much energy making the game "mechanically interesting" (what people usually refer to as "gameplay") so that the player isn't just grinding through hours of meaningless boredom in order to enjoy snatches of story. Wouldn't it be awesome if every combat stood out in the mind of the player?

Your Turn!
Okay, now I know you guys have a lot of great ideas of your own, either as an RPG player or maybe even a designer yourself. What would you add to this list?



(Vaguely) related monstrosities:
* How to Make a Better RPG With Procedural Content
* RPG Combat Design
* RPG Design: The "Brute Force" Problem
* The Evolution of Computer RPGs

Read or Post Comments on the Forum!

Labels: Game Design, Roleplaying Games

- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 6:00 AM (Permalink)