Changes to Devils and Demons

[Lancelot]

Already answered.

Hyuk huk. Nice. Forgot all about that one...

Well, that settles it for me. If 4e doesn't bring back the flumph, it's dead to me. DEAD, I say!!!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

a) since when does logic have anything to do with demons (in their historic and current incarnation at least) which are embodiments of chaotic evil - they don't HAVE to make sense, sicne chaos allows all sorts of forms, even hot human looking women demons. *

That's not the point. If it doesn't make sense to new players, it needs to be justified somehow or junked. (IMO, and apparently the O of the 4E design team.)

b) has anyone actually heard a potential new player say "this D&D game is just too complicated, I can't tell demons apart from devils, and espeically those women ones - they're just the same, so how can some be demons and some be devils"? Personally, I think clearing up tough rules and makeing the game more faster are ways to get new players into the game easier, but this change is not going to impact new players in any way.

As someone who's brought in a half-dozen players in the last two years, I will state with absolute conviction that a large number of D&Disms that many veteran players don't even notice cause new players to say "whaaaa?" When bringing folks into my Midwood campaign, it was the D&Disms, not the setting-specific stuff, that regularly stopped the game for a round of "whaaaaa?"

A previous Design & Development article mentioned WotC watching newbies play with just the books from behind a one-way mirror. While they had fun, they got a lot of it backwards and they had a whole lot of "whaaaa?" moments.

"Whaaaa?" moments should always be intentional, and the result of a DM intentionally slinging a curveball, not because of the cruft of a 30 year old game.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Making devils human but diabolic looking is a good way to do things, but description wise I think that makes them mostly succubi and arch devils and not a lot of anything they were before. I really don't see bone devils fitting in for example.

Make them emaciated pale humans with tiny horns and a barbed tail with a scorpion tail tip, perhaps?

 

[Gentlegamer]

I honestly don't think that D&D's legacy of lore and cut-and-paste, wedge-the-square-peg-into-the-round-hole mythos actually does do the game any favours. In fact, I think it's quite the opposite - that it alienates, or at least confuses, newcomers. So, for my part, yes. Throw the 30 years of flavour out the window - those of us who want it can put it back in, and it makes the game more accessible.

The D&D universe (and multiverse) is a beautiful synthesis of many different sources that makes something unique. Rather than alienate, newcomers to the game with some familiarity with some of those sources have an instant starting reference point for the "flavor" of the game.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I will be interested to see the details of this backstory.

Personally, were I to use this in a campaign, the god would have been an extremely LG deity who snapped and began killing other deities (primarily neutral and other good deities) that did not measure up to his high standards. His angelic servants, horrified at his actions, realized eventually that they were the only ones who could stand up against this perversion of justice and finally mustered up the courage and power to move against him, though not before he had slain eight other deities and absorbed their realms into his own.

And now this god is imprisoned in an icy lake at the bottom of Hell, with his three-faceted head chewing in each mouth the greatest traitors of all time . . .

 

[Mephistopheles]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about on this one. We still have our previous materials and can do whatever we want at our own tables. I'm fine with them changing some of this stuff up. More potential ideas in the inspirational cook pot for me.

(As an aside, this move does make one thing very clear: the 4E designers have been charmed by Erinyes (I don't know the plural for it but it doesn't matter because they no longer exist), their first order to proclaim that Erinyes no longer exist to cover up the plot, and then to go on to reorganize the ranks of devils and demons so that they make sense. When such a sensible and logical operation of organization is inflicted upon the hordes of the Abyss the Blood War comes to an end and Hell is victorious. Touche Asmodeus!)

 

[Hammerhead]

Could there be any doubt that the Lord of the Ninth wins? I mean, he's the frickin' Yankees of the Hells (although his prestige class kind of sucks).

 

[Gentlegamer]

Bah! A good skald always takes what is familiar and builds his story from that. It's not like they are going to copy text verbatim out of any religious texts. It's still a new story, but built on a somewhat familiar foundation.

Shakespeare was copying old stories for most of his work. Do you consider him lazy as well?

Quite right! Plots are common property. Shakespeare's "Comedy of Errors" is a take on Plautus's (a poet of the New Greek Comedy genre) "The Brothers Menaechmus," for instance.

Recall in the film, "Shakespeare in Love," that after hearing the outline of a plot for an upcoming play, a listener replied, "Oh, I've seen that one." To which was replied, "Yes, but this time it's by Shakespeare!"

 

[Minicol]

That's not the point. If it doesn't make sense to new players, it needs to be justified somehow or junked. (IMO, and apparently the O of the 4E design team.)

A previous Design & Development article mentioned WotC watching newbies play with just the books from behind a one-way mirror. While they had fun, they got a lot of it backwards and they had a whole lot of "whaaaa?" moments.

QUOTE]

Ah, ah, now that's interesting !
I have not seen the article, but getting things wrong in the start and learning your error later, can actually be quite fun.

When I started playing 1e, we made lots of horrific mistakes, which we corrected next session after a little rules talk.

We keep hearing how 4.X will be more "newbie-friendly". Laughable.

Let's be honest for two seconds : DOES ANYBODY THINK THAT EVEN WITH A "BETTER" 4.X or 5.X or Y.X EDTIION ANY NEW PLAYER CAN LEARN A THREE HUGE (200+) BOOK SYSTEM WITHOUT ERROR ?????

In any events, it is bad to let newbies on any RPG game without some outside help.

So this argument makes no sense at all to me.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Let's be honest for two seconds : DOES ANYBODY THINK THAT EVEN WITH A "BETTER" 4.X or 5.X or Y.X EDTIION ANY NEW PLAYER CAN LEARN A THREE HUGE (200+) BOOK SYSTEM WITHOUT ERROR ?????

In any events, it is bad to let newbies on any RPG game without some outside help.

So this argument makes no sense at all to me.

Just because some error is inevitable, why is it a bad idea to minimize the errors?

And there has to be a Player Zero. Not everyone can learn the game from someone else. If nothing else, there simply aren't enough gamers scattered evenly across the world and advertising that fact in case someone wants to learn the game from them.