4e Has Less Raw Content: Fact!

[LostSoul]

I wasn't talking about reskinning...I was talking about using the monsters outside of combat in world creation.

There seems to be a lot in the MM about using monsters to create adventures and campaign hooks.

Looking at the Trog entry, I can see a bunch:

• Trogs who come up to the surface to gather victims for Torog, the King That Crawls
• Trogs fighting with each other, and the PCs in the middle
• Trogs as the vanguard to worse threats from the underdark
• Trogs held captive because their egg warren has been captured
• Trogs taking slaves - and they don't normally do this! Why the change?

I would say that holds up well to the 3.5 MM.

 

[Hussar]

Fair enough. Why does WOTC tell me that all these creatures are only good for combat? How much use is the 4E MM to those who do not run combat intensive games? I have not seen the FR 4E supplement and can't comment on its contents but my best guess is that all the fluff that was left out of the MM isn't here either where it "should" be. Can anyone with the supplement shed some light on this?

What do you need a Monster Manual for if it's not for stuff to kill?

I've never bought into the idea that the Monster Manual is some sort of bizarre National Geographic catalog of critters in the world. As that, it makes about as much sense as a rubber hammer.

Granted, I loved reading the old 2e Monstrous Compendium entries. They made fun reads. But, I don't buy gaming books for their reading value. I buy them for what they bring to my table.

 

[ExploderWizard]

What do you need a Monster Manual for if it's not for stuff to kill?

I've never bought into the idea that the Monster Manual is some sort of bizarre National Geographic catalog of critters in the world. As that, it makes about as much sense as a rubber hammer.

Granted, I loved reading the old 2e Monstrous Compendium entries. They made fun reads. But, I don't buy gaming books for their reading value. I buy them for what they bring to my table.

Our difference is that I too use the MM info for stuff to kill but not ONLY for stuff to kill. There are some creatures with interesting cultures and habits that are fun to roleplay as something other than sword fodder. Monsters can be challenging adversaries or useful allies in ways that are not strictly combative.

Monsters are NPC's, and to me that role means they have goals and motivations of thier own. Sometimes that goal leads directly to combat (especially for unintelligent creatures that see the PC's as food) sometimes conflict without combat (negotiation) and at other times cooperation ( with intelligent creatures whose goals do not directly conflict with those of the PC's)

This is type of play that 4E has left behind. Interaction with monsters has been officially declared "unfun" unless initiative is being rolled. The style of play that the 4E MM supports isn't wrong or bad, just a waste of paper for my preferred playing style.

 

[Benimoto]

This is type of play that 4E has left behind. Interaction with monsters has been officially declared "unfun" unless initiative is being rolled. The style of play that the 4E MM supports isn't wrong or bad, just a waste of paper for my preferred playing style.

I must have missed the official announcement then. I've read the 3e and 2e Monster/Monstrous Manuals fairly recently, and there is next to nothing in either of them about cooperation or negotiation with adventurers. Most of it is filled with monsters that essentially exist to fight. To avoid being directly repetitive, the writers describe the monsters with a whole thesaurus of "aggressive", "hateful", "predatory", "territorial", "xenophobic", "sadistic", etc., but nearly every monster is described as being there to fight adventurers in one way or another.

When I made up the Cliffsinger tribe of lizardfolk in my 3e campaign, I basically ignored the entire entry about lizardfolk being aggressive, warlike, shamanistic creatures that live in the swamp. I imagined that particular tribe as a peaceful, primitive group, that lived in mountain hot springs and waterfalls and were led by storytellers. About all I used from the 3e MM entry was that creatures called lizardfolk existed, what they looked like, and that they were good swimmers who spoke Draconic.

The 4e Monster Manual cuts a lot of stuff about how "hill giants can have tan or brown skin and brown or black hair" or "kobolds tribes have 30% noncombatants and one egg per household". And it has more combat stat blocks. I admit, some of the descriptions were entertaining, and the Monster Manual is less entertaining without them. But I don't think it's trying to declare a whole playstyle "unfun" or anything.

 

[Hussar]

Our difference is that I too use the MM info for stuff to kill but not ONLY for stuff to kill. There are some creatures with interesting cultures and habits that are fun to roleplay as something other than sword fodder. Monsters can be challenging adversaries or useful allies in ways that are not strictly combative.

Monsters are NPC's, and to me that role means they have goals and motivations of thier own. Sometimes that goal leads directly to combat (especially for unintelligent creatures that see the PC's as food) sometimes conflict without combat (negotiation) and at other times cooperation ( with intelligent creatures whose goals do not directly conflict with those of the PC's)

This is type of play that 4E has left behind. Interaction with monsters has been officially declared "unfun" unless initiative is being rolled. The style of play that the 4E MM supports isn't wrong or bad, just a waste of paper for my preferred playing style.

Oh, I totally agree. But, I'm wondering why you need the Monster Manual to spell this out for you. The DMG already spells it out pretty clearly in lots of places that creating NPC's is your job as DM. Creating settings is also your job as DM.

Why do you need the Monster Manual to do this as well?

It's not like there's nothing but crunch in the 4e MM. Every creature has its lore section, and there's lots of tidbits scattered around here and there. Granted, it's not 2e Monstrous Compendium, but, it's hardly just raw stats either.

While I agree that the 4e MM doesn't particularly lend itself to telling you loads of details about various creatures, that's not the same as it actively gets in your way of creating interesting cultures for these creatures.

To me, this is a big win. I don't have to do all this rewriting in order to make things the way I want. The players won't have large numbers of preconceptions of how a monster should act either, or at least they shouldn't have, since the 4e MM doesn't really detail that. Which leaves me free to do it myself.

I dunno. Maybe it's because I've played from the SRD for so long. I haven't actually opened my Monster Manual in years. It could just be that I've been playing 3e in a 4e mode for so long that the 4e doesn't faze me in the slightest.

 

[Gothmog]

Monsters are NPC's, and to me that role means they have goals and motivations of thier own. Sometimes that goal leads directly to combat (especially for unintelligent creatures that see the PC's as food) sometimes conflict without combat (negotiation) and at other times cooperation ( with intelligent creatures whose goals do not directly conflict with those of the PC's)

This is type of play that 4E has left behind. Interaction with monsters has been officially declared "unfun" unless initiative is being rolled. The style of play that the 4E MM supports isn't wrong or bad, just a waste of paper for my preferred playing style.

You do realize that nothing in 4e precludes you from using monsters as NPCs and giving them complex motivations, and nothing in 3e or previous editions enables this more than 4e. Roleplaying and using monsters creatively is entirely a DM issue, and has to do with how the DM wants to run his game, and what NPCs and story elements would make for a more engaging campaign; its NOT a rules-specific sort of thing.

For example, last session, the PCs managed to trick/impress a large warband of hobgoblins into helping them attack the keep of a corrupt order of Baphoment-worshipping knights. After scouting the keep, the PCs realized they were in WAY over their heads for a direct fight- I had anticipated they would try to sneak in and try to recover a holy relic the knights had taken. Instead, the PCs approached a nearby warband of hobgoblins as worshippers of Bane (in order to avoid an initial fight with the hobs), and asked for their help in eliminating a group of knights that were corrupted by Baphomet. In order for the PCs to accomplish this, they had to overcome the hob's suspicions, and prove themselves. We set it up as a long roleplaying and combat skill challenge, involving a 1-on-1 duel with a hob champion (the PC lost, but still impressed them), negotiaions with the shaman and warband leader for their aid, and trying to convince the shaman they were actually followers of Bane (this one was tough, but the PC cleric managed to use what he knew of Bane well enough to pass it). The warband leader actually developed a deep respect and admiration for the PC fighter during their duel, and the two have struck up a friendship- unexpected, but the hobs could be highly useful allies in the future. The shaman doesn't trust them, but the prospect of looting the keep for its forbidden and arcane secrets is allaying his doubts for now. The MM doesn't say any of this, but I came up with something that made sense for my world and campaign, and have a deeper and richer world for it.

Likewise, claims that 4e doesn't support roleplaying are completely bogus- the assertion that it is impossible to roleplay in 4e is entirely a failing of the DM and players. 1e and 2e didn't have skills, proficiencies, or feats for roleplaying, yet I recall roleplaying some deep character-driven campaigns using those systems, just as I am using 4e now. All versions of D&D have emphasized combat over all other aspects of the game, but 3e cluttered roleplaying up with feats and skills, and too many times over the years I played 3e I saw people reduce roleplaying to a die roll. I will admit the one failing 4e has in this category right now is that there are not many powers/rituals that were spells in previous editions that could be used more in RP situations, but thats a minor quibble- either wait for expansion books to come out, or write up your own powers/rituals to fill in the gaps (as I did). The onus of roleplaying lies with the DM and players, and if they are incapable of roleplaying, the system doesn't matter.

As for the "unfun" thing, I've not seen anything anywhere in 4e that said this. If anything, 4e says "do whatever you want, its your game."

 

[JeffB]

You do realize that nothing in 4e precludes you from using monsters as NPCs and giving them complex motivations, and nothing in 3e or previous editions enables this more than 4e. Roleplaying and using monsters creatively is entirely a DM issue, and has to do with how the DM wants to run his game, and what NPCs and story elements would make for a more engaging campaign; its NOT a rules-specific sort of thing.

For example, last session, the PCs managed to trick/impress a large warband of hobgoblins into helping them attack the keep of a corrupt order of Baphoment-worshipping knights. After scouting the keep, the PCs realized they were in WAY over their heads for a direct fight- I had anticipated they would try to sneak in and try to recover a holy relic the knights had taken. Instead, the PCs approached a nearby warband of hobgoblins as worshippers of Bane (in order to avoid an initial fight with the hobs), and asked for their help in eliminating a group of knights that were corrupted by Baphomet. In order for the PCs to accomplish this, they had to overcome the hob's suspicions, and prove themselves. We set it up as a long roleplaying and combat skill challenge, involving a 1-on-1 duel with a hob champion (the PC lost, but still impressed them), negotiaions with the shaman and warband leader for their aid, and trying to convince the shaman they were actually followers of Bane (this one was tough, but the PC cleric managed to use what he knew of Bane well enough to pass it). The warband leader actually developed a deep respect and admiration for the PC fighter during their duel, and the two have struck up a friendship- unexpected, but the hobs could be highly useful allies in the future. The shaman doesn't trust them, but the prospect of looting the keep for its forbidden and arcane secrets is allaying his doubts for now. The MM doesn't say any of this, but I came up with something that made sense for my world and campaign, and have a deeper and richer world for it.

Likewise, claims that 4e doesn't support roleplaying are completely bogus- the assertion that it is impossible to roleplay in 4e is entirely a failing of the DM and players. 1e and 2e didn't have skills, proficiencies, or feats for roleplaying, yet I recall roleplaying some deep character-driven campaigns using those systems, just as I am using 4e now. All versions of D&D have emphasized combat over all other aspects of the game, but 3e cluttered roleplaying up with feats and skills, and too many times over the years I played 3e I saw people reduce roleplaying to a die roll. I will admit the one failing 4e has in this category right now is that there are not many powers/rituals that were spells in previous editions that could be used more in RP situations, but thats a minor quibble- either wait for expansion books to come out, or write up your own powers/rituals to fill in the gaps (as I did). The onus of roleplaying lies with the DM and players, and if they are incapable of roleplaying, the system doesn't matter.

As for the "unfun" thing, I've not seen anything anywhere in 4e that said this. If anything, 4e says "do whatever you want, its your game."

Thats the troof!

Great post, and interesting session there with the hobbos

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Otyughs

One of my favourite bits of flavour in my homebrew was inspired by a single sentence in the 3.5 MM: "Otyughs speak common."

In the 4E MM, unfortunately, the Otyugh stat block contains "Languages: --".

Well, tough. Even in 4E, my otyughs speak common!

-Hyp.

Yeah, what were they thinking here? I have always thought it was cool that Otyughs could speak to the PCs. So many comic possibilities!

Ken

 

[ExploderWizard]

You do realize that nothing in 4e precludes you from using monsters as NPCs and giving them complex motivations, and nothing in 3e or previous editions enables this more than 4e.

This is absolutely correct. The stuff you did with the hobgoblins sounded great and not the type of stuff you would find in a MM in any edition. The problem I have with the MM is the number of monsters for the page count being so low and then having little to no non-combat info on top of that.

As for the "unfun" thing, I've not seen anything anywhere in 4e that said this. If anything, 4e says "do whatever you want, its your game."

I don't have access to the books at the moment so I don't want to mis-quote. I shall post examples of what I mean later.

 

[Gothmog]

This is absolutely correct. The stuff you did with the hobgoblins sounded great and not the type of stuff you would find in a MM in any edition. The problem I have with the MM is the number of monsters for the page count being so low and then having little to no non-combat info on top of that.

Thanks- I know my players enjoyed the session, and they were surprised that what they wanted to try worked. The group is mostly unaligned PCs, with one good PC, but the good PC plays kinda fast and loose with the rules (the ends jusify the means, as long as its for the greater good).

You're right that the 4e MM doesn't have paragraphs of non-combat info like the superb 2e MM did, but the 4e MM does have ideas in the lore that are more adventure-design specific. So while we don't get detailed info on the hobgoblin society, we do get some good plot hooks about how to use them, and from that the DM can tie them into his world in an appropriate way.

I don't have access to the books at the moment so I don't want to mis-quote. I shall post examples of what I mean later.

I have the 4e DMG here, and on page 7, under the "FUN!" heading, it says:

"Different people have different ideas of what's fun about D&D. Remember that the "right way" to play D&D is the way that you and your players agree on and enjoy. If everyone comes to the table prepared to contribute to the game, everyone has fun."

Yes, later on the DMG (for example, p 21 under "Passing Time") it states that DMs can gloss over details that don't have much to do with adventuring and heroic action, but those are the preferences of some of the designers- and if you and your group enjoy some of those mundane details (like mine does), then spend some time on those aspects of the game.