Why CR 6 or less?

There's tons of monsters at CR 6 or less already in the Beastiary(19 at CR 6 itself). I'd rather see interesting monster stats for CR 12 or higher (only 44 total in the entire Beastiary - 17 of which are dragons).
I'm not saying, i'm just saying.

EDIT: by the way, Congrats to all of the top 16 - especially the 4 i voted for that actually made it. well done.

A properly fleshed out CR 12+ monster needs way more than 700 words. I think for the judges sanity, there has to be a fairly low level limit.

Also, it becomes much harder to figure out if a creature is balanced at the higher levels. Something that eats level 15 fighters may be useless against level 15 wizards, or vise versa, and that's a huge pain for contestants, judges and voters to see.

Because more games takes place in levels 1-10 than 11-20, thus a CR 6 monster is useful to more games.

Because it's easy to stick a bunch of crazy powers on a monster and pick a high CR for it, and difficult to create a balanced low-level monster.

In other words: to challenge the contestants.

I understand Sean's stated reasoning, though I do echo the OP's sentiments; if not for the contest then....for some other venue.

I could very well understand a lack of "CR 18-40" stuff, but I think CR 12-15 ranges could use a little more love.

This is the RPG Superstar design challenge, not the "fill a needed monster niche design challenge." ;)

Because more games takes place in levels 1-10 than 11-20, thus a CR 6 monster is useful to more games.

My personal gaming experiance obviously deviates from your stated "more games" norm. over 20 years gaming and at least 65% of those games took place at level 10+.

Because it's easy to stick a bunch of crazy powers on a monster and pick a high CR for it, and difficult to create a balanced low-level monster.

In other words: to challenge the contestants.

I disagree with this, and think the opposite is true. Low level monsters are fairly easy to design and balance due to the lack of "crazy powers" available. A well-balanced high CR monster, however, is much more of a design challange BECAUSE of the overwhelming number of cool abilities and the temptation to do exactly what you said.

Just my 2 cents...perhaps thats why you're a professional game designer, and i'm not. lol

The only problem with the relatively low CR is that some of the winning entries are definitely not of a low CR (the Astrumal and Haga come to mind). This means that those monsters will almost definitely not be fleshed out in the contest, and that is a shame for their creators.

Maybe during round 4, us looky-lous will stat them out for them.

I have a feeling that the judges also want to see whether the contestants can actually identify which of the monsters are appropriately CR 6 or less...

Being overambitious while trying to work within specified limitations has been a pretty common issue amongst previous RPG Superstar contestants, after all. My guess is that Sean et. al would like to see some ability in avoiding this potential misstep.

By the way, Sean didn't just pull that out of his behind. You guys may not know this, but we as judges all work together to discuss the challenge for each round. We discuss the various design decisions behind them and what is being tested. In fact, we discussed these various things--is CR 6 too low, will it omit some of the advancing monsters as a practical reality, etc (frankly, I raised those two exact points and I was convinced by subsequent discussion that it was the best idea). We talked through all of that stuff and all felt that the contest parameters led to the best challenge for the round. It requires tighter design decisions and it limits access to gonzo powers which have the ability to wow just by their power level. Its hard to do that at CR 6. I disagree that low CR monsters are easy to design. They may be easy to design at a non-superstar filler monster level, but not at a superstar level. And that is what we are looking for. So if you all have questions and concerns, I appreciate that. But please know we all as judges discuss and debate the parameters of the challenge for each round and we have talked about these issues and more. Not to say you cant discuss or raise them. Just know that we already have. :)

Interestingly, there are more famous wonky low CR monsters (Nimblewright, That Damned Crab) than there are famouns wonky high CR monsters. I guess it's harder to balance things at low CR when the PCs are quite fragile ...

I have heard a statistic thrown around that the overwhelming majority(70 maybe 80%) of campaigns never get past level 12/13(Please don't post your level 40 6 year campaign story, as there clearly are exceptions). This is, I assume, why there are an abundance of low-level modules and creatures, and why many Prestige classes are available at level 3-5. Anyways, a good writer has to be able to write and design at level 1-20 and beyond. So why not level 6?

I disagree with this, and think the opposite is true. Low level monsters are fairly easy to design and balance due to the lack of "crazy powers" available. A well-balanced high CR monster, however, is much more of a design challange BECAUSE of the overwhelming number of cool abilities and the temptation to do exactly what you said.

Just my 2 cents...perhaps thats why you're a professional game designer, and i'm not. lol

It's certainly not "easy" to design and balance(this competition shows that) at any level, and more difficult to make a CR4 monster stand out from other CR 4 monsters. In creating a low-level creature from scratch, you are playing "The Price is Right": creating an appropriate level of difficulty without going over and destroying your nascent PCs. At higher levels, the players are resilient enough that a creature with a CR that is actually 1 or even 2 higher shouldn't be a big deal. At level 4, a creature that is presented at CR 6 but actually CR 7 or 8 is a TPK, and nobody wants a level 4 TPK.

I've some thoughts on this, but I don't want to shoot myself in the foot so I'll shut up until after voting.

I'm fine with any limit they throw at the contestants. I certainly didn't see the CR limit coming, and I doubt many people did. In that respect, it keeps the contestants on their toes. It also keeps the contest more interesting for the rest of us.

My only worry is that, with some of the creatures probably un-stattable (is that a word?) at CR6, it forces some overlap for round 3. The worry comes from the fact that 2 or 3 contestants may choose the same creature. They all may have perfectly decent stat blocks, but end up splitting votes.

Clark and/or Sean:

Just curious... Do the judges have every challenge planned out in advance, or do you create them as the contest progresses?

I may be in the minority, but I think there is a way to stat the Astrumal as a CR 6 opponent. The author's description gives it away.

Just curious... Do the judges have every challenge planned out in advance, or do you create them as the contest progresses?

The entire contest is planned out in advance. Sometimes we make a small change (we did for R3, in fact), but the course of the whole thing is planned, including nabbing guest judges.

And note that the R2 rules say:
Is there a limit to the power of a submitted monster?
No--your monster may be as weak as a goblin, as powerful as an ancient red dragon, or anywhere in between. However, you may want to pick something in the lower half of the power scale. One, it's easy to make a big scary powerful monster, harder to make an interesting lower-powered monster. Two, powerful monsters tend to have a lot of abilities and that may make you run over the 300 word limit. Three, lower-CR monsters tend to appear in more games because few games get to the highest levels, and that makes lower-CR monsters more useful. Four, lower-CR monsters tend to have stat blocks that are easier to design (hint, hint).

Emphasis mine. ;)

Speaking purely as a fan and observer (which I can do now), that rule disappoints me. I think many of the top 16 monsters would be just plain better (more iconic, more in line with their flavor text, and a better fit for their intended roll in the game world) if they were above CR6, and will probably wind up scaling a few of them up myself for use in my game.

I think with the possible exception of the haga all the Round 2 entries which advanced their designers to Round 3 could fit CR 6 or lower, although some may require scaling back or down and (given the word count) losing complicated group powers such as hive minds. (And even a haga hatchling with very limited divination powers might be possible, although that might be deemed too much of a deviation from the original concept by the judges and/or voters.)
I think a lot of hive minds may go however if monsters which had them are statted, as they are potentially complicated things which eat into word count.

Speaking purely as a fan and observer (which I can do now), that rule disappoints me. I think many of the top 16 monsters would be just plain better (more iconic, more in line with their flavor text, and a better fit for their intended roll in the game world) if they were above CR6, and will probably wind up scaling a few of them up myself for use in my game.

Actually, I'm not disappointed by that rule at all. I think it was very cagey and cool that Paizo included it.

What I am disappointed by, however, is that some of the contestants either ignored that rule (and its accompanying advice) or didn't realize what they had proposed might not work at a lower CR. In that respect, it means some of the contestants created monsters that clearly won't make for good statting at CR 6. And yes, that means it disappoints the fan/observer that they won't get to see each creature statted up. But that's not the rule's fault. It's the competitors fault for not applying the rule to bring us something that would be easy enough to fit within the later round's CR requirement. And while they couldn't have had any pre-knowledge there would be a CR 6 cut-off, they did have plenty of warning with the (hint, hint) that they'd be required to stat it.

So, in retrospect, it's certainly flashy, attention-getting, and potentially vote-getting to produce a higher powered monster. Sometimes that inspires the mind's eye and attracts the adoration of the voter. But, if it makes it harder to execute (much like my Gulga Cench concept vs. stat-block last year), you don't necessarily do yourself any favors.

Personally, I think the interesting thing this year is that if one of the designers ignored the (hint, hint) and crafted a higher CR "concept" for their monster, they don't take on any of the risks of having to stat it, because Round Three's rules expressly forbid them from statting their own creature. Hence, anyone who developed a high CR "concept" for their creature has just left a potential landmine for the other competitors who might choose to try their hand at statting it. Thus, I guess we get to see how many of the contestants have the design-chops to realize there's a few "trap" monsters out there that might sink them if they try to stat them at CR 6.

Regardless, I like how the whole thing has played out. It makes for good popcorn-munching drama for the contest. Rock on, Paizo!

And that's just my two-cents,
--Neil

Another thing to keep in mind, and one of the reasons I quite like the restriction of setting the CR at the lower end of the scale: an RPG Superstar has to be able to pull off great and creative design for whatever the publisher asks them to do... even if, at times, that requirement might seem to be strange or unworkable. If you come up with an idea for a super powerful monster, but then learn that the game you're writing for can't use a super powerful monster, it's an interesting design challenge to rebuild that monster with as much flavor intact while adhering to the requirements.

In other words, to echo Sean: It's to provide a challenge to the contestants.

And personally... I think it's easier to design interesting and balanced powerful monsters than it is to design interesting and balanced lower level monsters. So THAT'S part of the challenge too.

Of course, it would have been cool as well to say "your monster must be CR 20 but also has to be 700 words long." I got hit with that challenge MANY times in developing high CR monsters for the Bestiary (which actually had a monster word count cap of 550 to 600), and it's NOT easy.

I got hit with that challenge MANY times in developing high CR monsters for the Bestiary (which actually had a monster word count cap of 550 to 600), and it's NOT easy.

And that's where Appendix 3 in the Bestiary comes in handy.

And yes, that means it disappoints the fan/observer that they won't get to see each creature statted up. But that's not the rule's fault. It's the competitors fault for not applying the rule to bring us something that would be easy enough to fit within the later round's CR requirement.

No, I'm pretty sure it's the rule's fault. As you yourself note a line or two later, none of the contestants knew that this rule was coming. You simply can't blame them for it.

"Hint, hinting" that doing a low-CR monster will be easier isn't the same as saying "you shouldn't do a high-CR monster". Designers like Posener and Mcgee may have viewed this as a challenge, and a chance to set themselves apart from the pack (and they were perfectly in their right to do so- its not their fault they drew the wrong conclusion from that little hint-hint).

If you come up with an idea for a super powerful monster, but then learn that the game you're writing for can't use a super powerful monster, it's an interesting design challenge to rebuild that monster with as much flavor intact while adhering to the requirements.

I believe that a good designer will know when to drop the nigh-omniscient giant eagle altogether and come up with a new creature which actually belongs in a given challenge bracket. Which isn't an option here.

Not that it matters much, since they are free to just ignore the higher-powered creatures. It doesn't hurt any of the contestants, it just makes the competition a little less interesting.

James Jacobs wrote:

I got hit with that challenge MANY times in developing high CR monsters for the Bestiary (which actually had a monster word count cap of 550 to 600), and it's NOT easy.

And that's where Appendix 3 in the Bestiary comes in handy.

It is, in fact, the primary reason we created Appendix 3 in the first place, to allow us to do high CR monsters on one page. (Reducing the footprint of a stat block in an adventure was a close second reason.)

Of course, it would have been cool as well to say "your monster must be CR 20 but also has to be 700 words long." I got hit with that challenge MANY times in developing high CR monsters for the Bestiary (which actually had a monster word count cap of 550 to 600), and it's NOT easy.

Absolutely, yes. An interesting challenge, but also a very different one.

Is this why the rule was implemented? So that the voters were more likely to find themselves comparing apples to apples, rather than having one "400 words of stats, 300 words of description" entry followed by a "680 words of stats, 20 words of description" entry?

Of course, it would have been cool as well to say "your monster must be CR 20 but also has to be 700 words long."

Wow! That would be an awesome Superstar challenge!

I guess they could have told us to stat up a member of the Paizo staff at CR 20 in 700 words or less. Epic Mona!

Speaking purely as a fan and observer (which I can do now), that rule disappoints me. I think many of the top 16 monsters would be just plain better (more iconic, more in line with their flavor text, and a better fit for their intended roll in the game world) if they were above CR6...

Which is why certain R2 monsters probably won't get chosen for R3.

No, I'm pretty sure it's the rule's fault. As you yourself note a line or two later, none of the contestants knew that this rule was coming. You simply can't blame them for it.

When the FAQ gives you two hints about what you "may want to do," and one of those hints actually says "hint, hint," and you don't take the hint, well, you took a risk.

And that's why you have multiple creatures you can stat up this round, rather than being forced to stat up your own potentially-too-powerful monster.

This isn't a "gotcha" rule; there were hints that it was coming, everyone knows there's a twist every year, the challenge for this round still gives competitors plenty of options for their R3 submission, and the contestant is allowed to revise the description of the chosen R2 monster if necessary.

Is this why the rule was implemented? So that the voters were more likely to find themselves comparing apples to apples, rather than having one "400 words of stats, 300 words of description" entry followed by a "680 words of stats, 20 words of description" entry?

Partly, yes.

As James said, sometimes we end up with weird design constraints, like art comes in for a monster and it doesn't look like it should, or a designer's monster turnover is WAY too high-level for the low-level adventure and we have to redesign it at the proper level, and so on.

I like the rule. I would be tempted to stat one of the powerful critters at CR6 just for the challenge (hopefully though someone would tell me KISS :)

There is something to be said about desire though. Creating a higher level critter in the design round is something I will consider when it is my turn. A powerful, colorful, fun critter could leave them wanting more. In a community vote contest I want you to want me more O:).

Remember the other contestants choose whether a particular critter moves on or not. The stat round (which everyone should have known was coming) is one where I would not try to outrun the bear.

I think it's a great challenge. It should be really instructive to see which contestants have a firm grasp of what CR means, what powers are appropriate at CR 6 and how to develop a concept at a different power level than they first thought of it - especially a lower power level, which requires more than reading published guidelines.

And note that the R2 rules say:
Is there a limit to the power of a submitted monster?
No--your monster may be as weak as a goblin, as powerful as an ancient red dragon, or anywhere in between. However, you may want to pick something in the lower half of the power scale. One, it's easy to make a big scary powerful monster, harder to make an interesting lower-powered monster. Two, powerful monsters tend to have a lot of abilities and that may make you run over the 300 word limit. Three, lower-CR monsters tend to appear in more games because few games get to the highest levels, and that makes lower-CR monsters more useful. Four, lower-CR monsters tend to have stat blocks that are easier to design (hint, hint).

That is exactly why I was asking. Hindsight being 20/20, it seems obvious now. This year, instead of just commenting and voting on the entries, I'm studying them, and trying to learn from them. I'm also trying to gain some insight into the judges' psyche...

...so that I'm better prepared for next year (assuming there will be a contest next year).

I guess they could have told us to stat up a member of the Paizo staff at CR 20 in 700 words or less. Epic Mona!

I think you mean, "Epik Mona."

I think you mean, "Epik Mona."

Darnnit! I'll never make superstar at this rate.

James Martin wrote:

I guess they could have told us to stat up a member of the Paizo staff at CR 20 in 700 words or less. Epic Mona!

I think you mean, "Epik Mona."

Actually that's Exxxtreme Epik Mona. Drawn by Rob Liefeld.

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

James Martin wrote:

I guess they could have told us to stat up a member of the Paizo staff at CR 20 in 700 words or less. Epic Mona!

I think you mean, "Epik Mona."

Actually that's Exxxtreme Epik Mona. Drawn by Rob Liefeld.

Why the Mona-hate? I'd not wish being drawn by Rob Liefeld on my ex-wives.

Speaking purely as a fan and observer (which I can do now), that rule disappoints me. I think many of the top 16 monsters would be just plain better (more iconic, more in line with their flavor text, and a better fit for their intended roll in the game world) if they were above CR6, and will probably wind up scaling a few of them up myself for use in my game.

The most iconic monsters in Pathfinder so far are their takes on the Low CR monsters, crazy goblins, multi-colored kobolds, inbred ogres, and the terrifying hobgoblins....

Making a low CR creature interesting is what Pathfinder seems to be about.

It's easy to take a low CR hobgoblin and make it more terrifying by adding 5 levels of rogue plus 2 levels of assassin and/or shadow dancer.

Gorbacz wrote:

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

James Martin wrote:

I guess they could have told us to stat up a member of the Paizo staff at CR 20 in 700 words or less. Epic Mona!

I think you mean, "Epik Mona."

Actually that's Exxxtreme Epik Mona. Drawn by Rob Liefeld.

Why the Mona-hate? I'd not wish being drawn by Rob Liefeld on my ex-wives.

eXXXtreme epiXXX Moana? Drawn by Phil & Kaja Foglio?

And there are level caps on PF Society anyway right?

Drillboss, there's a Level 12 cap, which means that Pathfinder Society adventures probably shouldn't include any encounter that 12th-Level PCs shouldn't stand against.

But designing monsters (and encounters) for Pathfinder Society scenarios is a different ticket than designing monsters for, say, a home game or for inclusion in one of the Adventure Paths.

"Hint, hinting" that doing a low-CR monster will be easier isn't the same as saying "you shouldn't do a high-CR monster". Designers like Posener and Mcgee may have viewed this as a challenge, and a chance to set themselves apart from the pack (and they were perfectly in their right to do so- its not their fault they drew the wrong conclusion from that little hint-hint).

My brain went: "If the other contestants are running away from the bear, maybe I should just turn around and give that shaggy mo-fo a flying kick to the face".

I took "it will be harder to stat up, watch out!" as "this will increases the degree of difficulty for your dive, but you get bonus points if the execution is awesome". Now that someone else might be making that dive, it feels a bit ... hollow.

Drillboss, there's a Level 12 cap, which means that Pathfinder Society adventures probably shouldn't include any encounter that 12th-Level PCs shouldn't stand against.

Dangit!

wads up tarrasque encounter and throws it in the pile with the great wyrm red dragon and balor encounters.

One cool consequence of limiting the CR to a maximum of 6 is that it is more likely that we'll get more versions of the same monster statted out for us.

Dangit!

wads up tarrasque encounter and throws it in the pile with the great wyrm red dragon and balor encounters.

That's awesome.

One cool consequence of limiting the CR to a maximum of 6 is that it is more likely that we'll get more versions of the same monster statted out for us.

How so, Dan? Last week, as an exercise, I statted up just about all the monster concepts, and of the 16 that made it through, I recall only one that I thought was made unworkable with a CR6 / 700 word restriction.

How so, Dan? Last week, as an exercise, I statted up just about all the monster concepts, and of the 16 that made it through, I recall only one that I thought was made unworkable with a CR6 / 700 word restriction.

When all is said and done, I am curious which one was unworkable (to you).

Urizen, or you can drop me a line at

c (dot) mortika (at) gmail (another dot) com

And sent!

But not received.

(Or ... I have been allowed on FaceBook even though I'm not one of the cool kids. You could try contacting me through that.)

Chris, I went ahead and sent a msg via FB. See if that works.

wads up tarrasque encounter and throws it in the pile with the great wyrm red dragon and balor encounters.

So I probably shouldn't suggest to you an encounter of balors RIDING tarrasques and great wyrm reds?

yoda8myhead wrote:

wads up tarrasque encounter and throws it in the pile with the great wyrm red dragon and balor encounters.

So I probably shouldn't suggest to you an encounter of balors RIDING tarrasques and great wyrm reds?

Wads that one up too. facepalms.