General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Dude. I have no problem with epic quests to get rid of a god, in any setting. I'm just saying Tiamat =/= Takhisis.
Cheers,
Cam
Sorry I wasn't saying that as if I thought you were... It was more of a comment on how well I think the system meshes with established storyteling ideas, and methods.
It's not a "new idea" per se, but it is a great use of an established concept in a game setting... If that makes sense.
I should also note that I liked the statement in the core books that the gods' true nature is "beyond any physical form" which is exactly how we've presented the gods of Krynn in the MWP sourcebooks. They don't have a single physical body, like some giant superhuman monster sitting out in the Astral Sea waiting to get attacked by somebody. They can manifest an aspect with which to interact with mortals, but there is no "true" body to kill.
This thing with Tiamat seems like a reversal of that approach, which is a little sad. Good for the people who are into epic hero vs. god combat, but enh.
Our main concern is, "Who will people want to fight, who will make the most compelling battles, and who will best fit in books we're doing."
Why? D&D is not a combat simulation game. Books as in novels, or rulesbooks?
If it is people to fight, then I think the gods detailed should start with those in the PHB. They are already in the books and someone might just want to have a story around a battle between the gods even if PoL design doesn't intend for ti to happen.
Quote:
Tiamat's an easy one. If you like fighting dragons, here's the mother (in more ways than one). She's got five heads for five times the combat prowess. We're doing Draconomicon all about chromatics, and she's all sorts of chromatic.
Yeah. In a game about Dungeons and Dragons the god(dess) of dragons is a good opponent to have in plot and battle.
Quote:
We'll probably be avoiding good an lawful good deities, just because it's less likely you'll fight them. Who really wants to put Pelor in his place in their game?
I might, so might many others. What difference do alignment really matter in why you fight for anything anymore. I thought the alignment movement was to get away from the dreaded focus on alignment and allow for more freestyle play without being bound to some code or morals that nobody every agreed upon anyway.
Quote:
Seems awfully boring.
To you maybe, but what of people who want to play the antagonists of the game world, or anti-heroes or any number of other reasons they may want to fight with ANY deity as there story has laid out for them.
Quote:
Now who wants to fight Bane or Tiamat or Torog? Those are more in the "big D&D monster who wants to kill you" mode. We might put out stats for non-evil, non-chaotic evil gods in books they really fit in, like Corellon in a book about the Feywild or the Raven Queen in a book about the Shadowfell or whatever, but it's still less likely.
There aren't many deities who are just too tough to take on. Especially with the evil/CE deities, we wanted ones that looked like you might be able to take them down.
Then to keep balance within the game level 35 seems to be a good place for all deities. This would further support PoL in that the gods really don't interfere with the mortals because they are pretty much at a stalemate. Two or more would have to work together to push their view over another deity to dethrone him....maybe that is just what the purpose of the PCs turns out to be.
Interesting reasons so far, and this thread has been something interesting to watch, but I wanted to ask those questions. Even though I am not one of them, maybe the D&D Insiders might get answers to those questions sometime in the future.
I should also note that I liked the statement in the core books that the gods' true nature is "beyond any physical form" which is exactly how we've presented the gods of Krynn in the MWP sourcebooks. They don't have a single physical body, like some giant superhuman monster sitting out in the Astral Sea waiting to get attacked by somebody. They can manifest an aspect with which to interact with mortals, but there is no "true" body to kill.
This thing with Tiamat seems like a reversal of that approach, which is a little sad. Good for the people who are into epic hero vs. god combat, but enh.
Cheers,
Cam
Well you can still have that as true with this approach. The epic quest prior to combat could be to trap the god in one of its forms, in this case Tiamat's Dragon form.
We'll probably be avoiding good an lawful good deities, just because it's less likely you'll fight them. Who really wants to put Pelor in his place in their game? Seems awfully boring. Now who wants to fight Bane or Tiamat or Torog? Those are more in the "big D&D monster who wants to kill you" mode. We might put out stats for non-evil, non-chaotic evil gods in books they really fit in, like Corellon in a book about the Feywild or the Raven Queen in a book about the Shadowfell or whatever, but it's still less likely.
Do you think that more players will want to fight evil gods and thus need a statblock for them versus games featuring non evil or even good non-deific antagonists for whom the support is rather slim at this point? God slaying is probably a pretty small fraction of the D&D playerbase. Beyond that, I can't say I particularly like the rather one sided "play the game the way -we- play the game" approach in which there's good and super good and they're only supposed to fight evil and super evil. It's a bit shallow IMO, but obviously you guys felt differently.
Quote:
There aren't many deities who are just too tough to take on. Especially with the evil/CE deities, we wanted ones that looked like you might be able to take them down.
Again I have to disagree with that. The list of 'who are you capable of killing' ends up being populated almost entirely by the list of 'who does the game say you are supposed to be fighting under its playstyle mandates'. Rather makes it difficult to have moral ambiguity in campaign conflicts when the evil spectrum is weighted to be targets by design [and I won't get into conflating chaos with evil, or law with good, that's another debate entirely].
__________________ "I can just see the 4e adventure anthology "Tale from the Limited Staircase"." - Ken Marable
I think it is less what WoTC views as "the way to play" and more. Okay, we have this amount of resources available to us, this much space in the books, etc, etc. We need to make as much content as possible that appeals to the widest audience.
The majority of D&D campaigns are more good or neutral oriented and thus the likelihood of having to go into combat against good or neutral gods is significantly diminished.
I am certainly fine with this approach, and I am someone who is more likely to have neutral-evil campaigns and characters then good-neutral.
Dude. I have no problem with epic quests to get rid of a god, in any setting. I'm just saying Tiamat =/= Takhisis.
Cheers,
Cam
Blame the 1e MotP for saying they were the same individual. Even Planescape tried it's best to seperate the two of them, but it's been like fighting a tide on the issue since the late 80s.
__________________ "I can just see the 4e adventure anthology "Tale from the Limited Staircase"." - Ken Marable
I think it is less what WoTC views as "the way to play" and more. Okay, we have this amount of resources available to us, this much space in the books, etc, etc. We need to make as much content as possible that appeals to the widest audience.
The majority of D&D campaigns are more good or neutral oriented and thus the likelihood of having to go into combat against good or neutral gods is significantly diminished.
I am certainly fine with this approach, and I am someone who is more likely to have neutral-evil campaigns and characters then good-neutral.
That sounds more like someone sticking their fingers in their ears because they don't want to hear someone say that they want to play the bad guys that fight the good guys.
Where really is the dichotomy of good and evil/bad if thee is no chance o fighting them both?
It puts more emphasis on alignment and what they mean to say that the PCs are only and always the good guys, and the enemies are then by default always the bad guys, and mistakes cannot be made because of the perfect alignment oppositions.
No monster should take more than a single page to write up. If you are allowed to fight one, you should be allowed to fight all, and for those wanting to create their own deities, evil or good, they should have a frame of reference within the game rules for doing so, and that means they need to see both sides of the equation, even if the players are always meant to be good, and fighting the evils of the Rainbow Brite word.
That doesn't mean it doesn't take space to include these things, but deities should be in their campaign specific materials, as well as the generic deities book for those deities that are generic. If you only have the time to make one deity to fight against, why did you waste the time doing that, because you know people will want more, and how do you know if two are balanced against each other if you only have one to weigh in on?
I don't think the widest audience wants to be the goody-two shoes fighting all the naughtiness in the world. I think throughout the game the widest audience wants to be able to choose rather than be railroaded by anyone (DM, company, another player, etc).
That's after her godhood is stripped from her and you know it!
Don't remind everyone about that arbitrary plot point which came out of nowhere. It's embarrassing.
As for whether or not you should kill gods in Dragonlance, Raistlin did solo a deity, and he was doing so by drawing her divine essence into the mortal world where he would have fought her in the form of a big 5 headed dragon. He had to go through a series of steps to place himself in the position to do so, which pretty fits in with the guidelines for killing a god presented here. So I'd say using the stats for Tiamat, if you wanted to give Takhisis a proper send off with a party of heroic demigods facing her, this would be the way to do it.
What is the point of 30th level if you aren't going to be fighting demon lords, primordials and gods? DLA had the stats for the gods just like any other 1e supplement, and presumably the DM could use them to cap a world shattering campaign. The PC's deserve it after taking 2 years of weekly games to get there. If you don't want the gods to die, retire the campaign at 20th level... or keep them out of the PC's path.
Why? D&D is not a combat simulation game. Books as in novels, or rulesbooks?
It's not, but one of 4e's core philosophies is that you don't need stats for something you won't fight. In many ways, 4e combat statistics don't exist until that creature is in a fight.
Quote:
If it is people to fight, then I think the gods detailed should start with those in the PHB. They are already in the books and someone might just want to have a story around a battle between the gods even if PoL design doesn't intend for ti to happen.
This is another "Zen of 4e" thing. Creatures' statistics are not there so creatures can fight each other. They are there so they can fight PCs. In 3e, creature stats are kind of an absolute way they interact with the world; 4e stats are the way they interact with the PCs.
Quote:
I might, so might many others. What difference do alignment really matter in why you fight for anything anymore. I thought the alignment movement was to get away from the dreaded focus on alignment and allow for more freestyle play without being bound to some code or morals that nobody every agreed upon anyway.
To you maybe, but what of people who want to play the antagonists of the game world, or anti-heroes or any number of other reasons they may want to fight with ANY deity as there story has laid out for them.
I don't think it's a game designer's job to come up with everything any group of PCs will want to do.
I do think it's a safe bet that, out of the subset of gamers for whom fighting gods is interesting, many more will need statistics for Tiamat than for Pelor.
I do think it's a safe bet that, out of the subset of gamers for whom fighting gods is interesting, many more will need statistics for Tiamat than for Pelor.
My Paladin doesn't want to be god of chromatic dragons.
God of the Sun though? He's all over that.
Pelor, watch your ass!
Also if Wizards doesn't want to make stats and adventures for Evil PCs then that's what the GSL is for. Some brave 3P company will totally make stats for your Paladin of Bane and his buddies to Kill Kord and take his stuff.
It's not, but one of 4e's core philosophies is that you don't need stats for something you won't fight. In many ways, 4e combat statistics don't exist until that creature is in a fight.
Sure, but as said before, who are you going to fight with those newly earned level 29/30 powers?
You get on level of play with them from 29?
That makes the game only really 29 levels of play and a 30th level to look at.
Several deities are already level 35, so why not have more than just Tiamat and Orcus for higher level play?
Quote:
This is another "Zen of 4e" thing. Creatures' statistics are not there so creatures can fight each other. They are there so they can fight PCs. In 3e, creature stats are kind of an absolute way they interact with the world; 4e stats are the way they interact with the PCs.
Talking to the wrong one really about 3rd creature stats.
CR/ECL/etc and I never wanted to look from the DM perspective again.
All editions nothing has stats until they are needed by the players to interact with. So the DM should have to create the stats for everything just in case his players will interact with it?
Quote:
I don't think it's a game designer's job to come up with everything any group of PCs will want to do.
I think it is the game designers job to come up with the rules for dealing with the creatures they created including the deities, at least, in the PHB and setting specific books.
If a group doesn't want to fight Pelor, they don't have to, but what of those who may have a need for their story completion?
Removing the ability to create story elements because of a lack os insight to think someone may want to use something you have built into the foundation of the game as a plot point only furthers the positions that state 4th edition is mostly just a miniature wargame with RPG elements thrown in.
Quote:
I do think it's a safe bet that, out of the subset of gamers for whom fighting gods is interesting, many more will need statistics for Tiamat than for Pelor.
So it is a popularity contest and not all gamers rights are equal to decide how they may want to create their stories?
I don't think that is right at all and goes with the previous poster saying that WotC in some way seems to be imposing their playstyle and story choices on other players, by not throwing together the other gods so you do have something to do with your level 30 character other than retire him or upgrade those level 25 monsters and play with them again until the end of your story.
It just makes the potential of the game a bit lacking to offer only one side of the cosmology as a probable or likely opponent.
If WoTC is supposed to cater to all gamers right off the bat, then where are my damn Psionics and technology!
To put it another way, WoTC has to address the majority first before building up less-needing components, and they are less needed since well less players/DMs need them.
The players who play less common-genre trappings for now will have to use more their own ideas and make things up. That is what I am currently doing with my technology, Loa-Vodoun magic, etc. I know these things are less major interests in D&D and thus don't expect any kind of major support off the bat.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if a ways down once the majority of evil-neutral Gods have been done up, WoTC will start looking at good-neutral Gods since they will then have appealed to the majority of the gamers and can start catering more to specifics.
Do you think that more players will want to fight evil gods and thus need a statblock for them versus games featuring non evil or even good non-deific antagonists for whom the support is rather slim at this point? God slaying is probably a pretty small fraction of the D&D playerbase. Beyond that, I can't say I particularly like the rather one sided "play the game the way -we- play the game" approach in which there's good and super good and they're only supposed to fight evil and super evil. It's a bit shallow IMO, but obviously you guys felt differently.
Wow. So far gods and god-killing have taken up one page in only one of the 4E books (by my count). So your argument that "god slaying is probably a pretty small fraction of the D&D playerbase" is so far reflected very well in the 4E books, considering that one single page has thus far been dedicated to it.
I think your argument is lacking in perspective.
__________________ Iain Fyffe
Original member of the Rouseketeers!
I have played 4E. And just like all other editions of D&D, it is awesome!
no one quotes me in sigs - Crothian
For some reason, this doesn't fill me with rage. I must be interwebbing wrong. - Cadfan
Also if Wizards doesn't want to make stats and adventures for Evil PCs then that's what the GSL is for. Some brave 3P company will totally make stats for your Paladin of Bane and his buddies to Kill Kord and take his stuff.
Right on!
I see loads of people saying they think 4e should have had this or that... seems ripe with possibility for a 3pp...
Sure, but as said before, who are you going to fight with those newly earned level 29/30 powers?
You get on level of play with them from 29?
That makes the game only really 29 levels of play and a 30th level to look at.
Several deities are already level 35, so why not have more than just Tiamat and Orcus for higher level play?
Huh? I'm perplexed how this even relates to what I wrote at all.
And there's not much for high-level play yet, period. Most everything is concentrating on levels 1-20.
Quote:
Talking to the wrong one really about 3rd creature stats.
CR/ECL/etc and I never wanted to look from the DM perspective again.
All editions nothing has stats until they are needed by the players to interact with. So the DM should have to create the stats for everything just in case his players will interact with it?
I repeat - "Huh?"
This isn't about CR/ECL/anything. I was explaining why you don't need stats to have two gods fighting one another, in response to your point.
Quote:
I think it is the game designers job to come up with the rules for dealing with the creatures they created including the deities, at least, in the PHB and setting specific books.
If a group doesn't want to fight Pelor, they don't have to, but what of those who may have a need for their story completion?
If a DM is one of a tiny handful who wants their characters to fight Pelor, he can make up the stats. Really, 4e has good guidelines to start with, and he can use Tiamat and Orcus as examples. Once again, I don't think there's an onus on the designers to stat out every god that anyone might want stats for at any point. They're concentrating on the most likely ones.
And what the heck do you mean by this...
Quote:
Removing the ability to create story elements because of a lack os insight to think someone may want to use something you have built into the foundation of the game as a plot point only furthers the positions that state 4th edition is mostly just a miniature wargame with RPG elements thrown in.
How has 4e removed any ability to create any story elements?
Quote:
So it is a popularity contest and not all gamers rights are equal to decide how they may want to create their stories?
Whaaa?
Gamers can create whatever games they want. WotC, on the other hand, can and should only produce supplements that will sell, and people who want to run unusual games might need to make up a few stat blocks. I have yet to see WotC commanding you to play Good characters.
I don't see how this is even remotely surprising. Much like with your exact-scale crouching dwarf minis, the designers cannot and should not cater to every corner-case.
There will probably be an "Evil PCs" supplement eventually. Alternately, some third party can make one with the GSL.
Quote:
I don't think that is right at all and goes with the previous poster saying that WotC in some way seems to be imposing their playstyle and story choices on other players, by not throwing together the other gods so you do have something to do with your level 30 character other than retire him or upgrade those level 25 monsters and play with them again until the end of your story.
It just makes the potential of the game a bit lacking to offer only one side of the cosmology as a probable or likely opponent.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
