[High level monsters and powers] What can Graz'zt actually do?

[DLichen]

I can see where the 3e guys are coming from, but I don't really feel that it is a matter of the rules but of presentation.

The 4e rules can support monsters doing cool things out of combat, but the 4e books have pretty much failed to deliver on that account. If you want Orcus to be a big bad manipulator, all you can do is whip up the story and hope it is good. Big Bads with the capital Bs really should have more fluff and samples with their entries so that DMs have something to build off of.

The Draconomicon for some example has some really cool flavor ideas and background which I feel should have been in the monster manual entries on dragons to flesh them out a bit.

Edit:

I also see a lot of parallels between this and the removal of crafting rules. On one hand, it's cool to have a set of rules that make a blacksmith a blacksmith. On the other hand, nearly none of the PCs ever used it, the rules were flawed, and it was generally a waste of space. Remove it in 4e however, and now if one PC says he wants to have a smithing background and handcrafted his set of dwarven armor, any PC with a weakling wizard can claim to do the same since there's no rule repercussions. The removal of crafting might have been good for the game in general, but it also leaves a hole where DMs have a hard time arbitrating.

On one hand, it's cool to have rules that tell you which monster can hatch a grand plot, summon an army, bind nations around its thumb, and pretend to be your grandmother with magic. On the other hand, most of the time it's just garbage and DM fudgery. But without it, the game world feels a bit more empty.

 

[YuriPup]

Look I completely expect the GM to be using different rules than the players.

All the time.

Sitting at the table its 5 brains vs 1 brain (in my case). The other brains should be deeply knowledgeable about what they are able to do. I on the other hand will be no more than a generalist on 95%+ of the mobs I am controlling, will miss tricks and synergies that are there in the first place and so forth.

There are times, as DM, I /am/ in competition with my PCs--particularly if I want an NPC to get way (so as to become reoccurring), or heaven fore fend, I ever have to capture my PCs (ugh).

I expect DMs/GMs to use handwavium extensively as I have learned that I will rarely correctly predict all the PCs solutions to problems, or how they will find their solutions. I expect that the handwavium will be woven in to the campaign and plot on a reasonable basis but I am sure we have all had plots short circuited by being out thought by PCs.

From the flip side, I know in on SR game, we spend 3 weeks planning how to extract the target from the clutches of Aztec. In the end, we slung the target under a balloon, explode filled it with hydrogen, and had him whisked away by air elementals.

Then we asked the GM how /he/ expected us to do the mission (as we were fairly sure he didn't envision our plan)--he said front door, guns abaze.

 

[LostSoul]

My point - and others have said it better, so sorry to just rehash - is NOT that you can only say "no" if there are no rules. It's that when there were more rules, it was easier to say yes. It was easier, because there was already a base to build off of - as opposed to having to build from scratch every time. And when the players knew the world they existed in had set rules that were not arbitrary, it was better for them -and- the story. (It's easier to trust a DM when you know they are also following the same rules you are.)

This makes sense. I think it's bound up in a certain way of playing D&D. I think it's the reason why you have % in lair, the number of creatures that make up an orc warren (even level and % chance of there being an ogre or whatever!), etc. All that stuff.

The idea is that there's a functioning world out there for the PCs to explore.* The DM referees the world as the players explore it. It functions logically and if something strange happens that the players don't expect the DM probably has a good reason for it going on behind the scenes. (Or he has a different worldview - he sees the real world through a different lens - which is why I find this a really hard gamestyle to get right.)

* - This is not simulationism.

So you say "Yes" when it makes sense, when it follows with the world you've created. You say "No" when it doesn't.

I find this means, in practice, much more "No, that doesn't work" than "Yes, give it a shot."

In my last game (4E), the PCs created a cursed magic item. If there had been more detailed rules for creating magic items, they wouldn't even have been able to try. If there had been rules about failing to craft items, it wouldn't have been cursed. If there had been fluff describing the process it wouldn't have been cursed.

I would have had to have said "No" to their idea because it didn't fit with the world.

Without that restriction, I can say "Yes" as long as it's going to be good for the game.

In 4.0 you are MUCH more responsible for creating those "world rules" now. (And my own enigma: why they never mention this in the core books.) This is good for creativity and lack of boundaries, but bad for being completely on your own to decide balance, flavor, mechanics, etc. Which is why 4.0 is so weird, since the "how combat works" rules are SO detailed and SO restrictive - exactly the opposite of the "how the world works" rules, which basically don't exist.

Agreed - though I think 4E can be flexible in combat too.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

This makes sense. I think it's bound up in a certain way of playing D&D. I think it's the reason why you have % in lair, the number of creatures that make up an orc warren (even level and % chance of there being an ogre or whatever!), etc. All that stuff.

The idea is that there's a functioning world out there for the PCs to explore.* The DM referees the world as the players explore it. It functions logically and if something strange happens that the players don't expect the DM probably has a good reason for it going on behind the scenes. (Or he has a different worldview - he sees the real world through a different lens - which is why I find this a really hard gamestyle to get right.)

* - This is not simulationism.

I for one would like to know when and why simulationism became wrongbadfun. I for one rather enjoy the playstyle.

So you say "Yes" when it makes sense, when it follows with the world you've created. You say "No" when it doesn't.

I find this means, in practice, much more "No, that doesn't work" than "Yes, give it a shot."

In my last game (4E), the PCs created a cursed magic item. If there had been more detailed rules for creating magic items, they wouldn't even have been able to try. If there had been rules about failing to craft items, it wouldn't have been cursed. If there had been fluff describing the process it wouldn't have been cursed.

I would have had to have said "No" to their idea because it didn't fit with the world.

I would think that whether or not the players' idea fits with the world is system independent. Either it is possible to make items or it is not. Either it requires special abilities (rituals, feats, etc) or it does not. Either the PCs have those or they do not. (In 4th edition, the players generally can't make magic items without the appropriate ritual and without being the item's level or higher). Either it is possible to make cursed items or it isn't.

Consequently, I have difficulty taking the claim that you would have had to say no to the PCs' idea if you had any rules regarding the items at face value. I presume that since you said yes it either means that their idea fit the world and was possible within the world given their resources or you don't care whether or not the idea fits the world. If the former is the case, then there would be a way to work with more formal rules to accomplish the goal and it could well have led to a fun adventure. If the latter (which seems to be the preferred and perhaps only playstyle supported by 4e), I think it is shortsighted. For my part, the feeling of being a part of a consistent world that reacts appropriately to my character and his/her actions is a big part of the fun of the game. I would rather come up with ideas that fit the world and have a world react appropriately than have the answer to all my ideas be yes and be left with a world that is not consistent and does not make sense.

 

[brehobit]

Thanks to all in this thread.

This is the first time I've felt there were people who understand* what the pros and cons of 4e really are.

Lizard's essay in particular almost had me standing up and clapping.

Mark

*where understand means "agrees with me"

 

[LostSoul]

I for one would like to know when and why simulationism became wrongbadfun. I for one rather enjoy the playstyle.

I didn't mean to imply that simulationism was wrong or bad. I like it, it's fun. I don't think I'm very good at it, which was the point I was trying to make (and failing) when I said "which is why I find this a really hard gamestyle to get right."

My point is that, just because you have a world that you're running and basing your decisions on what makes sense for that world, that doesn't mean it's necessarily simulationism.

I would think that whether or not the players' idea fits with the world is system independent. Either it is possible to make items or it is not. Either it requires special abilities (rituals, feats, etc) or it does not. Either the PCs have those or they do not. (In 4th edition, the players generally can't make magic items without the appropriate ritual and without being the item's level or higher). Either it is possible to make cursed items or it isn't.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.

Let's say you're playing in a world with no magic item creation. Those secrets have been lost to time. Cool. The rules, however, say that PCs can create magic items and they tell you how.

The DM makes a decision here; does he go with what makes sense for the world or with the rules in the book? Whatever ends up being used at the table, that's the system in play.

If it's predefined (by the rules or the world, either way) then you've decided that it can be done or that it can't be done. That's why I think it's harder to say "Yes" to ideas the players come up with. If you've already decided how things work, and the players try something that goes against it, you're going to have to say "No" in order to maintain consistency. (Nothing wrong with that; you probably should be saying no, though it's good to consider that there are always trade-offs.)

Consequently, I have difficulty taking the claim that you would have had to say no to the PCs' idea if you had any rules regarding the items at face value.

Probably a good idea, since I did have rules available and I ignored them. I'm not sure if that should be considered a house rule or a ruling.

I presume that since you said yes it either means that their idea fit the world and was possible within the world given their resources or you don't care whether or not the idea fits the world. If the former is the case, then there would be a way to work with more formal rules to accomplish the goal and it could well have led to a fun adventure. If the latter (which seems to be the preferred and perhaps only playstyle supported by 4e), I think it is shortsighted.

The case in my game (and gameworld) was that I never really thought about magic item creation except that I knew you needed to use a ritual (Enchant Magic Item or whatever) to do so. That's about it.

When the PCs wanted to try, I said, "Yeah, cool, go for it." It fits the world; it's a magical place, you can always try to do something with magic, even if you're not really ready, but the consequences could be dire.

(Hmm, I guess I had thought about magic item creation beforehand - and magic in general - the basic, vague idea floating around in the back of my head being that it's possible to "reach too far", to play with forces that you don't yet understand or have control over.)

Now let's say that I had taken the time to define magic item creation and all that stuff in my worldbuilding prep. The player's idea doesn't fit with the world. Tough luck. I say "No."

Which is fine; there's nothing wrong with that (in fact, it can be awesome), but I don't agree with the argument that having pre-existing rules (either in the books or part of the gameworld) means that it's easier to say "Yes".

As for "there would be a way to work with more formal rules to accomplish the goal and it could well have led to a fun adventure" - I guess I consider resolution of a Skill Challenge to be that set of formal rules. But I see what you're talking about (see below).

For my part, the feeling of being a part of a consistent world that reacts appropriately to my character and his/her actions is a big part of the fun of the game. I would rather come up with ideas that fit the world and have a world react appropriately than have the answer to all my ideas be yes and be left with a world that is not consistent and does not make sense.

You bring up a good point. I agree, of course, consistency is very valuable. This is making me think about working within a framework of some kind versus leaving everything "loose" and "open" and the differences between the two styles of play. Obviously, different approaches are going to be more or less rewarding, depending on what you want to get out of play. Working within that framework can be very rewarding (to display your mastery of the system, for example, or to get the feeling that you're there, in a living, breathing world; or both, for that matter), but so can playing it fast and loose (opening the door to player creativity, letting interesting ideas that no one ever thought of before carry play down a different direction).

 

[StarFyre]

FOr us, players never were happy with the planar creatures in 4E....they didn't feel epic enough for what they liked.

I agreed.

What I did was, use part of our custom magic system for them.

THe demons though, to represent the chaotic nature of the abyss (we use a customized cosmology....a mix of 2/3e and 4e with stuff added in for good measure), they have something similar to the wild magic system we use. In a way, very similar to magic in warhammer (when casting a spell in warhammer, if you are rolling more than 1 d6 and you ever roll double 1s, it's a miscast..you then roll 2d6 on another table and very bad stuff can happen, including your wizard model being sucked into the realm of chaos and removed from play for rest of the match).

It brings a very chaotic, wild, unpredictable aspect to demons (espec demon lords who can do them with even more wild results).

The final result..made a couple encounters so memorable, friends still talk about it even the ones that died..heheheh

I'm just glad with all the streamlining, D&D remains one of the best systems for house rules, etc

Sanjay

 

[Donp]

FOr us, players never were happy with the planar creatures in 4E....they didn't feel epic enough for what they liked.

I agreed.

What I did was, use part of our custom magic system for them.

THe demons though, to represent the chaotic nature of the abyss (we use a customized cosmology....a mix of 2/3e and 4e with stuff added in for good measure), they have something similar to the wild magic system we use. In a way, very similar to magic in warhammer (when casting a spell in warhammer, if you are rolling more than 1 d6 and you ever roll double 1s, it's a miscast..you then roll 2d6 on another table and very bad stuff can happen, including your wizard model being sucked into the realm of chaos and removed from play for rest of the match).

It brings a very chaotic, wild, unpredictable aspect to demons (espec demon lords who can do them with even more wild results).

The final result..made a couple encounters so memorable, friends still talk about it even the ones that died..heheheh

I'm just glad with all the streamlining, D&D remains one of the best systems for house rules, etc

Sanjay

I really want to know more about the way you used Wild magic with demons. Could you please elaborate on that? If you don't want to threadjack could you please send me a personal message.

Thanks.

 

[DracoSuave]

I for one would like to know when and why simulationism became wrongbadfun. I for one rather enjoy the playstyle.

Simulationism isn't necessarily a wrong or bad or unfun way to play. It's just not something that Dungeons and Dragons has ever been effective at accomplishing. The closest was 3.x, but even that was far of the mark by a long distance. Everything 'simulationist' in it felt more like a kludge designed to make game balance decisions make sense (which is the opposite of simulationism)

 

[evilbob]

Which is fine; there's nothing wrong with that (in fact, it can be awesome), but I don't agree with the argument that having pre-existing rules (either in the books or part of the gameworld) means that it's easier to say "Yes".

I think you have some very good points, and it leads me to believe that really, it comes down to a style of play preference. Some folks like the more "suggestive" style of 3.5, which gave you lots of pre-built things to work upon, whereas 4.0 leaves it much wider open, which suits others to a tee. Either one doesn't prohibit any particular style or method, I think we all agree; they just play into different strengths.


(For me, the only remaining nagging thought is still: why detail out combat so heavily when the rest of the "world rules" are so un-prescribed. But then again, it doesn't really matter.)