Rule of 3: 10/31/2011

[I'm A Banana]

In the 4e MM I learn that Lolth was formerly a god of fate. I learn that goblins and bugbears may have been bred by hobgoblins in the distant past, when the hobgoblins ruled an empire. I learn the history of the Abyss.

I don't think any of the above is related to monsters being only opponents to be fought in combat. I do think that it relates to the idea that story elements for monsters should feed into the broader mythic history of the game that frames the conflicts that drive the game. At least in my view, this is not a design mistake but a design virtue.

Those are good examples of the fluff that did make it in, and it's not bad story information. There's no real objection from me to that being included.

Of course, the 4e MM also teaches you that with a DC 20 Nature check you, too, can know that bears claw things. Perhaps the less said about that the better, though.

The talk here is about the ratio. The cascading effects of "Combat is central" and "Monsters are for fighting" yields a book largely filled with fighting stats, not with the cultural relationships between bugbears and hobgoblins.

I may be wrong, but I phant'sy that I see those in group (1) as falling mainly in group (B) while those in group (2) fall mainly in group (A). If so, that may be a very interesting observation.

I may be an outlier, but I'm 2-B in your scheme. I think a game needs mechanics for what the players do, and that those mechanics should be diverse enough to handle many different types of challenges -- not simply combat challenges.

I want good rules for how to resist a succubus's temptation, a solid system for using player abilities to uncover a succubus's true nature, and the rules to follow her back to the ruins beneath the old castle where she was originally summoned in an interesting and challenging way, topped off with a great climactic encounter between her and all of her willing servitors that runs smooth and cinematic.

Combat's a key portion of that adventure, but it's only one portion of that adventure. The succubus's other qualities -- temptation, deception, dungeon protection, allies, etc. -- are mechanically important to me. I don't want to DM handwave all the rest of the game that is not on a grid.

Those things naturally need a context, and that context is the story information. Story information tells me why I should want to feature the creature in an adventure, why I should want to use it narratively, what purpose it serves in the world of the game. A succubus should not just be a combat stat block and lip service flavor text indicating that she is a manipulator.

Actually... it sounds as though the real dispute here is not whether it's right or wrong to want more fluff or less fluff in a Monster Manual... but rather the motivations and intentions of the guy who wrote the article.

I personally think the real dispute is about some core 4e design goals, and how those goals might not be what some people want D&D to be.

Rich Baker, as much as he is in a position to talk about those goals, is merely the person talking about them. His stated reasons I completely understand, and acknowledge as legit. I don't think that is all there is, though I think that might be all he can reasonably talk about in a Rule-of-Three article.

I have had the impression that most of these claims (that 4e's MM had no story elements, or fewer story elements than the 1st ed AD&D or 3E Monster Manuals) come from non-4e players, but certainly KM doesn't fit that description, and obviously neither do you.

My claim is a little...orthogonal.

The 4e MM has some story elements. I do take some exception when it outright replaces older story elements, but the claim that it has "no story elements" isn't literal so much as it is a description of how it doesn't meet the needs of some people (myself included).

So a precious few story elements exist in the MM. However, the purpose of the 4e MM is pretty clearly to provide stat blocks for minis combat. That is what it spends the vast majority of its word count doing. I believe that purpose is flawed.

Here, a comparison with older editions is worthwhile, because it shows that an MM isn't just about things you fight -- it is about interesting encounters. Now, it often wasn't as focused and efficient on that as it could have been, and that's a problem I would've LOVED 4e to solve. Instead of turning dryads into shrubbery monsters, they should've provided me with interesting ways to use the dryad that existed when 4e was being made: social encounters recruiting it to aide the party in fighting the goblins in its wood, or in asking it to stop sending treants to attack the nearby logging village. Exploration encounters to get through the forest despite the pernicious faerie magic therein. Investigation encounters when the party discovers that the dead loggers have been killed by some powerful druidic magic. Companion stats for when the elf druid in the party decided to recruit one for an adventure.

I didn't need a war dryad. I needed a better instruction manual for the existing dryad. If the D&D game could give me that, and could support that with interesting story material for inspiration, I think I'd have a solid monster book. 4e's MM is the big war elephant in the room, though. The things therein are for fighting. That, for me, is necessary but insufficient.

To a similar extent, the powers structure is also part of this problem, what with the "attacks and combat utilities" being the only interesting and varied rules bits that players get to use, but that's a whole other kettle of fish (though certainly related).

 

[pemerton]

my approach to the rules is hardly the norm. I like to run my games "loosey goosey". Sometimes I start a game session with nothing but a handful of notes and a cold beer. I enjoy ad-libbing. Running a game on-the-fly yields all sorts of serendipitous surprises.

I run a fairly loose game, but I find that robust mechanics - whether of the Rolemaster or the 4e variety - help me.

Instead of turning dryads into shrubbery monsters, they should've provided me with interesting ways to use the dryad that existed when 4e was being made.

I don't have any strong view on dryads as such - I think I've never actually used them in over 20 years of GMing, and the encounter that I wrote up nearly a year ago that uses them has still not come into play in my game.

But I wouldn't have objected to some skill challenge ideas for negotiating with dryads, or other faerie creatures. Some other encounters I haven't run yet, but have been ready to run for a year or so, would involve this. (I have an adaptation of the HeroWars scenario Demon of the Red Grove ready to run as soon as my players take their PCs through a magical tower they have heard of into the Feywild, and in the lead up to that encounter envisage a social encounter or three with various fey beings.)

The 4e MM has some story elements.

<snip>

However, the purpose of the 4e MM is pretty clearly to provide stat blocks for minis combat. That is what it spends the vast majority of its word count doing. I believe that purpose is flawed.

<snip>

To a similar extent, the powers structure is also part of this problem, what with the "attacks and combat utilities" being the only interesting and varied rules bits that players get to use, but that's a whole other kettle of fish (though certainly related).

But I have never got this vibe from the 4e MM. I have got the vibe that it's job is to provide thematically gripping antagonists for a game of high fantasy conflict, in which combat (resolved using minis or tokens on a map) is the premiere, although far from sole, form of conflict resolution.

Now you might think that I've just used some fancy words to describe "stat blocks for minis combat", but I don't agree. The 4e MM is, for me, full of creatures that just leap of the page in terms of the story possibilities they present, and the way I might incorporate them into my game. I've probably used no more than half the monsters I would in principle have liked to include in my game.

Even creatures that have been much-derided on mechanical grounds, like the wraiths and spectres with their action-denying auras, have produced gripping play at my table, with the PCs straining to decipher the incessant mutterings of a mad wraith . . .

None of this can contradict your experience with, and impression of, the book. Those are what they are. But I do think it reinforces Kzach's point:

I think it's harsh to say that they were errors. I feel they took risks, some bold, some not so bold, in order to expand the game and their understanding of the market. They learned what worked and what didn't work and that alone makes it not an error to have experimented.

I think this is right. You might say that WotC should have done better market research, to work out that there were more of you and fewer of me. But personally I'm glad they published what they did, because I got the best RPG books I've ever bought from TSR/WotC. (If only the DMG had been a bit better than it is. If it had better advice on how to use skill challenges - comparable to what is found in books like HeroWars, HeroQuest and Maelstrom Storytellilng - then you would be able to use skill challenges to run your succubus or dryad encounters, as I have used them to run comparable hag encounters.)

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmm, perhaps the real question is 'What Do You Want In A Monster Book?'

I actually preferred the Monstrous Compendiums of 2e to the Monster Manuals of either 1st ed. or 3e.

For 3.X I preferred the excellent Monsternomicon by Privateer and the setting specific aspects of the Creature Collections by S&S. I want flavor text, I want descriptions that can act as a springboard when I am writing down an adventure.

But I also do not mind the time taken to prepare a scenario, for me that is part of the fun.

And I fully realize that this is not the case for everyone. For those folks who just want to quickly stat up an adventure having nothing but the stats would be a better approach.

However, the result is a game that I have no interest in. 3.X and Pathfinder require a greater investment of time, but it is an investment that results in games that I want to run. Otherwise I can dust off Warhammer Quest, pour a pint of beer and microwave some pretzels.

The Auld Grump

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I have that information easily from the 4e MM1, which does not tell about the bulette's dietary habits. It has a bite attack, it burrows(most burrowing creatures use claws for this), it is Large, and there is a picture. What else would a creature with these features eat, if not anything it could catch? Plant matter might be an option, except herbivores rarely have razor sharp teeth and use their bites as a primary attack form. <snip>

Bulettes eat "horseflesh and halflings—the accompanying illustration shows a bulette grasping a horse in one claw while defending itself against three knights. However it disliked the taste of dwarves and would not eat elves, dead or alive."

Bulette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Good to be the elf in the party...not so good to be the halfling.



More seriously, though, without this sort of information, you get "here's a monster that attacks everyone for relatively the same reasons (it's evil, it's stupid and hungry, etc) rather than a monster that goes for the party's horse first, halfling second, dwarf second to last, and elf last. This is information that can inform tactics, can make a combat different (changes the motivations and style of the monster), and make the creature (and thereby the world) seem more real.

I dunno...as a DM, I like to "roleplay" my monsters, even the Bulettes, in the sense that I like them to have a motivation based on more than "kill adventurers".

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't have any strong view on dryads as such - I think I've never actually used them in over 20 years of GMing, and the encounter that I wrote up nearly a year ago that uses them has still not come into play in my game.

Yeah, my point is, of course, bigger than dryads or succubi specifically. Perhaps if you had an interesting way to run a noncombat encounter with a dryad right in the book, you'd be more inclined to use it? Or at least adapt it to some other "nature fey" that the party might encounter?

I've got some issues with Skill Challenges specifically, but whatever method they use to present noncombat challenges, things like pixies and dryads and succubi and celestials and rust monsters should be doing that, instead of appearing in combat. Not every creature in the MMs of previous editions was there to be hit with a sword until it stopped moving.

But I have never got this vibe from the 4e MM. I have got the vibe that it's job is to provide thematically gripping antagonists for a game of high fantasy conflict, in which combat (resolved using minis or tokens on a map) is the premiere, although far from sole, form of conflict resolution.

It's the only conflict resolution scenario that appears throughout the MM. If Aboleths bend humanoids to their will, where is the conflict where the party must resist their pernicious psychic influence? If Astral Stalkers are bounty hunters, where's the challenge of the party avoiding detection by a living weapon of the gods? If Atropals are sealed away beneath ruins, what kinds of people might seek its resurrection? If Blood Fiends are....wait, Blood Fiends are a pretty bad example, since all they care about is killing, so I guess combat is really the only way to use them? What can I do with the party warlock when they attempt to make a pact with a Phane, since it makes pacts?

That's a telling lack of useful encounter information, outside of minis combat.

And then there's the simple weight of the word count. If the stat block takes up more space than the description and lore, then it is really a hint. Rules exist for what the party is expected to do. What is the party expected to do with the Terrasque? Well, the rules for fighting it are pretty robust. The rules for putting it back to sleep after it has stirred from its slumber are...nonexistent. Guess what the party's doing with it!

There's also the fact that every single monster is angled to be motivated to fight in minis combat. Angels of Battle? They serve gods by fighting. Angels of protection? They protect things by fighting. Angels of Valor? They help out gods by fighting (oh! And sometimes awarding a magic item...yaaay). Angels of Vengeance? They kill things with fighting. And that's just the Angels, who, one would think, might include at least a handful of creatures to...Observe? Ally with? That a cleric could recruit? Announce the birth of Dungeon Jesus (he's a level 99 Prophet!)?

I hope you can understand how someone could come away from the 4e MM with the view that providing minis combat opponents is what it wanted to do primarily. Roughly half the book is dedicated to stat blocks that only have relevance in minis combat. The other half describes why these things will fight a PC party in minis combat. Roughly none of the book is dedicated to dealing with the creatures therein in any other way, or in creatures who are not minis combat opponents, or in dealing with creatures who might be fought in minis combat in other ways, too (or instead!).

I'm not trying to invalidate your experience, either. If you saw the book as a great game supplement, that's a good thing whether or not anyone else did. But the old maxim about any good DM being able to make any rules interesting may apply: it might be more about your skill than it is about the book's quality.

I think this is right. You might say that WotC should have done better market research, to work out that there were more of you and fewer of me.

Yeah, I don't think [MENTION=56189]Kzach[/MENTION] is wrong there. I think the "mistake" comes in when they determined early on in 4e that minis combat was the game's central pillar. I think that this is less true for people the farther away from the "hardcore" you get (and it's not even true for all the hardcores!). There's a lot of hints that somewhere in there they know that combat isn't all the game is about, but then the mechanics act as if that's the only interesting thing you can do with your character, or with your monsters.

This goes back to Monte's previous article about how rules shape gameplay, though he didn't talk about it much there. Rules are there for what you want the player to do. If your rules are 90% about minis combat, that is what the player will do roughly 90% of the time. That's why you need rules for other things that you want the game to support. 4e provides little help in this department, and the help it gives (skill challenges and rituals) is flawed in some pretty fundamental ways, though not everyone has a problem with them.

 

[Balesir]

That's a mischaracterization of my position. I was discussing creature flavor text.

First of all I apologise if I have misrepresented what you meant to say; that was not my intent.

I will note, though, that only the first of the two paragraphs of my post that you quoted was intended as a characterisation of your position. The second paragraph was more an explanation of my position, and it used "story" (in quotes, and deliberately so) in a slightly odd sense as described in the first paragraph of my post.

"Story" itself does need to come through gameplay. Story is conflict, action, and events which includes consequences derived from choices made. However, discreet elements that have setting context need description to be more than just a pile of numbers and should not be whittled down to their scaffolding.

Story, in the usual sense of the word, clearly is a simplified relating of the actions and events of play. But the way I see the concept and phrase "story elements" being used in the WotC article and in this thread seems to be to describe the setting elements of ecology, history, psychology and physiology of the creatures in the game world - as I said in the first paragraph of my post. And it is these elements that I would rather see emerge from campaign design and game play - as well as the story of the game in the more usual sense - than be dictated by the game rules. I want such elements to evolve to explain what happens in the game, rather than having the game railroaded so as to support pre-defined "truths". I realise that this is an option, and not a "correct way to play", however.

While we are on the subject, though, [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] (or anyone), how do you feel about the categorization of PCs and creatures based on their role in combat (striker, defender, minion, brute, etal)? Do you find that helps facilitate "Story?"

I'm fine with it, as far as it goes, for reasons that might become clearer later. The monster stat blocks are, to me, purely there for combat. Do creatures need characteristics beyond this? Sure they do - but those need not be tied to the stat block used for combat (and I'd generally prefer them not to be).

I'm not sure I have ever heard restriction so creatively put.

I take that as a compliment, though it may be meant wryly Games like chess and go allow for breathtaking creativity and invention without ever needing ad hoc rules modifications to allow for them. I find that roleplaying rules, at their best, can work similarly.

I may be an outlier, but I'm 2-B in your scheme.

That is interesting - as I said, my hypothesis was merely speculation. Anyone else care to chip in?

I think a game needs mechanics for what the players do, and that those mechanics should be diverse enough to handle many different types of challenges -- not simply combat challenges.

I want good rules for how to resist a succubus's temptation, a solid system for using player abilities to uncover a succubus's true nature, and the rules to follow her back to the ruins beneath the old castle where she was originally summoned in an interesting and challenging way, topped off with a great climactic encounter between her and all of her willing servitors that runs smooth and cinematic.

Combat's a key portion of that adventure, but it's only one portion of that adventure. The succubus's other qualities -- temptation, deception, dungeon protection, allies, etc. -- are mechanically important to me. I don't want to DM handwave all the rest of the game that is not on a grid.

OK, here you hit on a hobby horse of mine (because I basically agree with you), but I put a slightly different spin on it than you.

I would really love to see proper, mechanical rules for all the examples you quote and more; I absolutely agree that the scope for interesting, engaging and exciting sub-games for a myriad of non-combat conflicts has been left fallow to date.

Where I disagree, however, is that these rules - or even the parameters for these rules (in the sense that hit points, "to hit" bonuses and so on are the "parameters" used for the combat rules) - should be tied to specific combat stat blocks. By all means have rules for a manipulative and charming (in the magical sense) creature in combat, and have rules for temptation, deceit and manipulation in "social" ("anti-social"?) conflict and have rules for penetrating disguises, alter-egos and so on. But I would rather not see them all tied together as "the succubus" in the rules. Let the formulation of the conflicts and the individual creatures' parameters for those conflicts be building blocks that can be combined in the game as the DM sees fit, not as the rules writers dictate.

Those things naturally need a context, and that context is the story information. Story information tells me why I should want to feature the creature in an adventure, why I should want to use it narratively, what purpose it serves in the world of the game. A succubus should not just be a combat stat block and lip service flavor text indicating that she is a manipulator.

I don't see the need for this "context" at all. I can tie game elements together to make varied and interesting game world context myself - it's not something I need game designers to do for me. Give me the tools - the system elements - and I will fit them together to make my own model of the (game) world, thanks. I just want a wider range of good, solid building blocks - I don't need instructions telling me what shape they should be used to construct.

 

[Mark CMG]

First of all I apologise if I have misrepresented what you meant to say; that was not my intent.

Thanks but no need. I didn't think it was purposeful and actually figured it stemmed from my own rushing of my previous post, hence the clarifications. I'll think about the rest of your post as I reassess my own position. And, do take the compliment. The turn of phrase gave me quite a chuckle followed by the "phant'sy" topper. Made my day (which might say more about the day, but let's not dwell ).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Where I disagree, however, is that these rules - or even the parameters for these rules (in the sense that hit points, "to hit" bonuses and so on are the "parameters" used for the combat rules) - should be tied to specific combat stat blocks. By all means have rules for a manipulative and charming (in the magical sense) creature in combat, and have rules for temptation, deceit and manipulation in "social" ("anti-social"?) conflict and have rules for penetrating disguises, alter-egos and so on. But I would rather not see them all tied together as "the succubus" in the rules. Let the formulation of the conflicts and the individual creatures' parameters for those conflicts be building blocks that can be combined in the game as the DM sees fit, not as the rules writers dictate.

It sounds, if I'm reading you right, like you'd rather these rules be broad, rather than specific: general rules for social conflict, rather than specific rules for dealing with a succubus's machinations.

So, it would stand to reason that you're more in favor of monster building rules like the 4e DMG rather than specific monster statblocks a la the MM, yea? Same general principle: they are the building blocks to arrange as the DM sees fit.

I think there's room for both, myself. I'd like to see general rules for piercing disguises (which 4e kind of has, in terms of skill challenges and Insight vs. Bluff checks, and the like, though it's very free-form and open), and specific rules for piercing disguises of specific disguised creatures (which 4e currently mostly lacks). I'd like to see general rules for generating monster attack bonus and damage, and specific monsters with specific attack bonuses and damage rolls presented to me.

The former is helpful when I'm thinking outside of the box, or when I have a lot of prep time. The latter is helpful as cherries to pick, as instant inspiration, or as a solid baseline.

I don't see the need for this "context" at all. I can tie game elements together to make varied and interesting game world context myself - it's not something I need game designers to do for me. Give me the tools - the system elements - and I will fit them together to make my own model of the (game) world, thanks. I just want a wider range of good, solid building blocks - I don't need instructions telling me what shape they should be used to construct.

Toolboxes are useful to someone with a good vision of what they want to make, but some of us would be just fine having a ready-made product given to us (and perhaps using it in an unorthodox way).

Not everyone has the time or inclination to give the game world context themselves. I know I like to fill my game with improv, which means that I depend upon context already existing. Knowing that kobolds are dragon servitors helps me to link this kobold encounter to some other encounter down the road with a dragon. It gives me paths to follow and backup when I inevitably flounder.

Some do better with a toolbox, and I wouldn't argue against putting in a toolbox for those players, but I wouldn't want to remove the concrete examples, either, since some do better with Legos than they do with a saw, a hammer, some nails, and a block of wood.

 

[Balesir]

It sounds, if I'm reading you right, like you'd rather these rules be broad, rather than specific: general rules for social conflict, rather than specific rules for dealing with a succubus's machinations.

Actually, my ideal would be something with more "parameters", similar to the way combat works. Succubi could have a "social statblock" that defines, within a set of broad, general rules, how a succubus performs in "social conflict". "Powers" might do things such as persuasion, dissuasion, confusion or delay (hesitation). It's an un-ploughed field, as far as good game mechanics go, but I would love to see what sort of crop it could grow.

So, it would stand to reason that you're more in favor of monster building rules like the 4e DMG rather than specific monster statblocks a la the MM, yea? Same general principle: they are the building blocks to arrange as the DM sees fit.

Yes, I am certainly delighted that the basis for monster design is explicit in the DMG, but I like to have the MM as well for just the same reasons you do - convenience!

I think there's room for both, myself. I'd like to see general rules for piercing disguises (which 4e kind of has, in terms of skill challenges and Insight vs. Bluff checks, and the like, though it's very free-form and open), and specific rules for piercing disguises of specific disguised creatures (which 4e currently mostly lacks).

Yeah - I you can sort of say that it gets specific as it is a specific creature's Bluff versus a specific character's Insight, but I would love to see this very significantly expanded upon (and I'm inferring that you would, too?).

I'd like to see general rules for generating monster attack bonus and damage, and specific monsters with specific attack bonuses and damage rolls presented to me.

Quite so - and the same thing for social and other forms of conflict would be absolute heaven.

To the point I was trying to make earlier, though, I don't think that the "combat stat block" and the "social stat block" need necessarily to be bound inextricably together. For some creatures in a scenario you will only want or need one or the other; for others you may need both with the players effectively choosing which conflict to engage in. Only for long-term NPCs or Villains would you really need to tie two blocks firmly to one another. I think I see something like the succubus as an outlier where you might want to suggest a specific "social stat block" that covers all succubi; in general, though, I think the combat and social blocks should be more of a "pick and mix" deal, where you combine any two to get a unique individual where you need one (or just use one alone, where the nature of the encounter is pre-ordained).

Some do better with a toolbox, and I wouldn't argue against putting in a toolbox for those players, but I wouldn't want to remove the concrete examples, either, since some do better with Legos than they do with a saw, a hammer, some nails, and a block of wood.

Funnily enough, I was thinking exactly of Lego as an analogy to my preferences . The tools and wood I think of more in the way of houseruling as a basic necessity to make the game work; the "published monsters only" I think of as more like playing with ready-made models (Matchbox cars, Dinky toys or whatever).

Lego seems the perfect level, to me; easily manipulated building blocks, each complete unto itself, but combinable in a myriad ways to make all sorts of models.