D&D 4E 4e Monster List - Dwarven Nosepicker & Elven Butt Scratcher

[BeauNiddle]

You do know that Hong is the resident joker don't you. Given a choice between an informative reply and a joke he will choose the joke every time. Replying to every line he writes will get you nothing but an early grave from stress.

A DM's time is limited, given the choice between playing with a DM who spends his time coming up with interesting encounters and stories and a DM who spends his time working out exactly how critter X came by ability Y then I'd prefer to play with Hong IYKWIMAITYD

 

[Primal]

You do know that Hong is the resident joker don't you. Given a choice between an informative reply and a joke he will choose the joke every time. Replying to every line he writes will get you nothing but an early grave from stress.

A DM's time is limited, given the choice between playing with a DM who spends his time coming up with interesting encounters and stories and a DM who spends his time working out exactly how critter X came by ability Y then I'd prefer to play with Hong IYKWIMAITYD

Oh, I'm well aware of that -- I've only rarely seen him post anything which would make actually sense, but that's his choice.

The fact that I prefer a consistent and clear-cut D&D rules set derives from the fact that it makes my life a lot easier with players who like to find out what makes different people/monsters "tick" (in the mechanical sense). Not to mention that in my opinion it's far easier to design encounters if the same rules cover everybody. I don't think it should mean that I'm not capable of designing "interesting" or "fun" encounter.

The thing is that if D&D had always been a rules-light system and less gamist in nature, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

 

[pemerton]

You can get the same story through gamist, simulationist and narrativist styles. Of course you can use narrativist style to play D&D -- it just isn't an optimal system for doing that. I was talking about implementing *mechanical* elements from systems that encourage narrativist play into a gamist system like D&D, which is tricky at best.

I don't think it's necessarily as tricky as you suggest. Both gamism and narrativism benefit from mechanics that facilitate player decision-making and player control over the gameworld.

Ron Edwards notes T&T as an early RPG that is apt to facilitate narrativist as well as gamist play.

 

[pemerton]

The thing is that if D&D had always been a rules-light system and less gamist in nature, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Narrativist systems need not be rules light (eg HeroQues) and gamist systems can be rules light (arguably T&T). So I don't quite get what you're saying here.

 

[Primal]

Narrativist systems need not be rules light (eg HeroQues) and gamist systems can be rules light (arguably T&T). So I don't quite get what you're saying here.

I'm referring to the fact that D&D has always been a rules-heavy system that has encouraged gamist playing style. As such, it has a long legacy and all players have expectations about about what D&D mechanically and thematically is. Trying to implement mechanical elements that would encourage narrativist play in D&D would be very tricky and the end result would probably not feel "like D&D" to most players.

This is also related to your first reply to my post. Shortly put, if you're trying to create or modify a gamist system so that it'd have mechanical elements that would encourage narrativist play, you really need to understand what you're going after thematically and mechanically. I'm definitely not saying that in could *not* be done -- as I noted in my earlier post, Conspiracy of Shadows has both gamist and narrativist mechanical elements.

 

[Pinotage]

The problem is that classes quickly swamp race differences. Whatever minor difference there is between a Gnoll and a Lizardfolk is completely effaced once you make them a Gnoll Rogue 10 and a Lizardfolk Rogue 10. Even two races as different as Ogre and Kobold are going to feel pretty similar once you slap 10 levels of Cleric on them.

Some good points. I wonder, thought, whether the 4e design methodology isn't basically 'disallowing' higher level humanoid races. By this I mean I suspect that 10th level gnoll soldiers, 10th level ogres and 12 level lizardfolk or whatever, are not going to be around. By keeping the levels low, you maintain more of the racial features. I'm not sure how one goes about obtaining racial features at higher level even in 4e, but by then I would imagine that class would supercede race. Particularly if you're talking a fairly common, everyday, race. That's not to mean it loses its racial features entirely, just that the class abilities become more powerful.

Pinotage

 

[Plane Sailing]

Primal and Hong - considering your recent 'conversations', don't reply to each other in this thread again, please.

Feel free to email me if you don't understand why.

Regards

 

[Lizard]

I think I'm grokking my real problem w/the 4e monster system.

Races stop existing.

There are no goblins, gnolls, hobgoblins, trolls, etc. There are 1 st level strikes, 4th level brutes, 6th level leaders, etc.

Want an "Orc Axewaver"? You don't look at the Orc and apply an "Axewaver" template. You look at the Brute stats, pick the ones you want, and call it an orc. Whereas with the 3x system, there adjustments to numbers based on race -- so even with an elite array, an orc rogue and a hobgoblin rogue will end up different -- from what I can tell, 4e begins with role/level, not race. Race is flavor text. The Orc Axewaver and the Hobgoblin Axewaver and the Gnoll Axewaver can all have 100% identical stats.

Or am I misunderstanding it?

 

[Cadfan]

Yeah, you're misunderstanding it.

Races are back with a vengeance. In 3e, humanoid monster races were ability modifiers plus maybe darkvision or small size.

In 4e, races come with

1: All the stuff races had in 3e, except that rules like "orcs are strong but dumb" is now something the designer is intended to apply rather than something mechanically added to a base set of stats derived from an NPC character class (technically a bad example as I bet orcs are playable in the monster manual and probably DO have official stat modifiers, but its your example and I'm sure you get the idea).
2: Racial powers designed to affect the tactics used by the monsters, and the tactics that work against the monsters.
3: Pre statted out specialists of each race that add specific flavor and tactics, further ensuring that fighting different monsters feels different.

I hated humanoid monster races in 3e. It was such a shallow system. First, you fight kobolds. Then you fight goblins. Then you fight orcs and/or hobgoblins. Then you fight bugbears. You just moved up the ladder, and everything felt exactly the same as the critter before it, except for hit die and whatever context your DM added.

Now, instead of just telling you "hobgoblins are militaristic," and hoping that the DM can pull something off, you've got actual stats for militaristic units hobgoblins. Instead of just saying "kobolds use hit and run tactics," kobolds have actual hit and run abilities.

 

[bramadan]

Item 1: I totally agree with Cadfan here - he puts it perfectly why I like the dnd4 monster mechanism.

Item2: I am not sure since when has simulationist style of GMing (traditionally the most hard-ass of all the styles) become synonymous to pandering to the players.

Here I am with my simulationist hat on, taking Goblin Harpooner:

Fighter: Wow, that harpoon trick was awesome - may I do that if I pick the harpoon ?

Me: It is not really the harpoon that does the trick, it is knowing how to use it. If goblin picked up your sword they could swing it but they sure as hell could not do the marks and all your other fancy stuff.

Fighter: But Gobbo here was doing it - how hard can it be ?

Me: It is his livelihood... It is at least as hard as lassoing a wild horse, fair bit harder probably. I say you can learn it but it will take tons of time.

Fighter: How would you treat it in game terms ?

Me: It is better ability then a feat, on par with your class abilities I would say. He was a second level critter so I would say it is a second level ability for the "Goblin Harpooner" class. You can multi-class into it if you want. I will even wave racial pre-reqs if you want if you agree to run this sidequest that will get you a trainer...

Fighter: Hmm... that is two levels of multiclassing, seems a bit steep. I will miss out on Fighter Skill of Awsomeness...

Me: That is the way the cookie crumbles - shed a tear for poor Gobbo here.

Fighter: Mmm... I think I will pass...

Me: Thought you might.


Now someone tell me why is this not simulationist ?

Every monster race comes with number of its own classes. They have soft racial pre-req based on availability of training / physical features of the race etc...
MM gives us basic insight into those classes. More probably exist but we don't as of yet have rules for them - much as we don't have rules for many human 'classes' such as peasants, inn-keeps, scribes etc...