Monsters are more than their stats

[Imp]

Yes, dm's modify creatures and say "This one's different". But how is that different from the 4ed approach of skipping past the 1st layer of rules to a philosophy of use something suitable? If the only succubus my players meet is a one-off from the basic creature does it matter what the original statblock said? And more importantly, isn't the fact that the players approaching said one-off succubus have fewer expectations about the encounter and thus have more options available more entertaining?

The rigidity of the 3.x system was stifling and the nattering of rules-obsessed (as opposed to story-obsessed) players is something I greatly look forward to chucking into the nearest bonfire. And oh! how I will dance.

But this is a function of will. Two threads over we have people debating the minutiae of 4e's 6-hour-rest, a topic made for DM handwaving if ever there was one. Will that change after 4e's out for a few years? Who knows but I'm a little pessimistic.

Books are nice but they can't make you do stuff or free you from your chains or whatever all by themselves. So the topic here is sort of silly. Any monster in any edition can be more than its stats if you want it to be.

I'll say this: the argument that DMs will know what to do with a succubus in non-combat situations just because of its name seems off-base. Especially for new DMs, not everyone has years of running monsters under their belts. Having some sort of concrete suggestions for how a succubus goes about succubussing – which can be arbitrary, that's something about magic, having things not work according to common sense makes things seem magical – anyway, some sort of concrete process for a succubus's charm to work is the sort of thing you want a reference for, even as just a starting point.

 

[ryryguy]

Exactly. 3.5e's philosophy was "Give a bunch of rules and then build a world around them." If the succubus could only charm someone for 24 hours, then you needed to know that so you could plan an adventure where the succubus goes back to charm the person every day.

Certainly, this helped write adventures before. Since the game would essentially write an adventure for you in some cases.

4e takes the opposite approach. It says "Design a world and then use these rules in order to play in it." If it is better for your plot to say that the succubus has to charm the mayor again every day in order to give the PCs a chance to figure things out, then that's the way it works.

There seem to be two objections to this approach. (I haven't read the whole long thread, and I'm paraphrasing.)

First, it may be okay for the DM to alter a succubus' charm power to suit a story, but a strong rule is desirable as a baseline for both the DM and the players; making exceptions to the standard power based on (custom) explicit rules is also helpful for the same reason. This is opposed to "just making it up".

Second and relatedly, players need to be able to have at least some sense of the bounds of the succubus' ability to help them to make decisions about how to deal with it; "just making it up" can be frustrating and unfair to them.

M.O.'s post suggests ways that 4e may be able to transcend these points...

In response to the first point: these kinds of baselines may well be better located in the realm of adventure design rather than creature or power design. Removing them from specific powers and creatures helps you to use those powers and creatures to tell the kind of story you want to tell, giving the DM so much more flexibility. This doesn't mean that there are no guidelines, that you are just "making it up" willy-nilly. The guidelines have been moved to a different domain, one where it seems like they may more properly belong. Mixing up the rules across the combat and story domains brings the danger that what serves one well may serve the other ill. Instead of patching them up on an ad-hoc basis, why not just cut the connection?

(I'm assuming/hoping here that the 4e books will be providing some guidelines for powers and rituals in adventure design, that it's not just "make it all up!".)

In response to the second point: definitely, if the bounds of the succubus' power aren't easily determined, the players are going to get frustrated, so good adventure design requires that they do have avenues to figure stuff out. The broader skill use that has been described sounds like a great avenue for that; surely there will be more methods. Also, I think worries that all these "adventure powers" being relatively freeform will confuse players over the long haul are misplaced. Obviously, a DM should try to keep some of this stuff consistent across the campaign; if the succubus' "adventure domination power" works in a particular way in one adventure, it should tend to work the same way in later adventures, too. Exceptions in later adventures are possible but also need to be pretty well telegraphed to players and not used as a "gotcha".

And if that means that the succubus "adventure domination" works differently across campaigns, is that a bad thing? If anything I think it's a good thing, keeping the game fresh, avoiding Monster Manual memorization induced boredom, which I don't think even the "strong baselines" advocates want to see.

It suggests the DM take a more active role in running the game instead of a more passive one. Previously it was possible for the DM to do almost nothing but follow the rules and see what happens. 4e encourages thinking "What do I WANT to happen?"

One last thing about the above quote... but isn't 4e being advertised as easier to DM, or easier for novice DMs? Perhaps this is not inconsistent. Perhaps WotC believes that the difficulties for novice DMs lie more in rules confusion, frustration in trying to figure out how to make what they WANT to happen happen in a restrictive framework. As another poster speculated, perhaps the creative stuff is less difficult for the typical novice DM than the statistical / rules encyclopedia stuff?

 

[Professor Phobos]

"Making stuff up" is apparently bad these days, I guess...?

 

[Lackhand]

"Making stuff up" is apparently bad these days, I guess...?

It can be.

A box that says "Some assembly required" is fine.

An empty box that says "some assembly required" isn't.


I think there's enough stuff in the 4e box, but some people disagree and instead generic food metaphor.

 

[DandD]

Add in Video Games and Anime/Manga/Yvan eht nioj to complete the generic food metaphor.

 

[VannATLC]

A great deal of the problems people seem to have with this kind of percieved information gap, is cookie-cutter-monster syndrome.

The succubus can do X. Different Succubi are likely to use different methods. They all go into combat in much the same way, although likely with different tactics.

Half the problem is in the DM/Players perceptions that X must always act like its species.. not like an individual.

Acknowledge the fact that one aboleth may have trained its abilities in one thing, and another a different way.. both have the same baseline, with regards to combat, but have different fluff.

Laying out extra fluff trivialises the fact that creatures are unique.

If your creatures are not unique, you really well might as play WoW.

 

[Steely Dan]

Designing a 3rd Ed creature was like constructing a jigsaw, whereas designing a 4th Ed creature is like sculpting.

Now which one is more creative?

 

[Hussar]

Designing a 3rd Ed creature was like constructing a jigsaw, whereas designing a 4th Ed creature is like sculpting.

Now which one is more creative?

Y'know, I was thinking something similar. Only not jigsaw for 3e, but Lego. Lego's great. I love Lego and I'm so jazzed that my wee ones have started liking it too.

But, when you make something out of Lego, it's blocky and has all sorts of extra bits that you probably wouldn't have if you used another medium. So, yeah, Lego's great, but, if you want something that doesn't have all those right angles, then modeler's clay is maybe better.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

My analogy was also food one:

3e: It is a microwavable dinner. Everything you got is there, just need to throw it in the microwave, but it can taste awful afterwards if it doesn't cook right in the microwave. Though sometimes seasoning can save it.

4e: Home-cooking. You got all the ingredients to make a amazing meal, but if you don't make it properly it could taste bad. However, if made properly it is amazing and you can always make smaller, more simple meals with just less of the ingredients.

 

[jackston2]

Maybe we need to step back from some of these monsters and see them all afresh, like the wide eyed and wonder struck.

The Succubus, like many DnD monsters, has accumulated tons of baggage from 3e, to where she has developed into a very specific monster with a strong DnD identity that is very different from the classic Succubus: in DnD she is expected to dominate wills, directly controlling player characters in combat and mind warping kingdoms out of combat.

But if a non-gamer was told to imagine a Succubus, he'd think of a corrupter of innocence, an alluring, transient she-devil who causes people to make the wrong choices in the heat of the moment and then slinks away smirking into the night, the exact opposite of a mesmeric hypno-magician who seeks to control a nation for a long time.

Maybe the Succubus shouldn't ever permanently dominate a King.