Game Day mini = Spined Devil

[BryonD]

Not to just ride on coat tails, but Orcus rather nicely stated the things that concern me.
When the 4E announcement came out, I was very strongly pro 4E.

But I've become concerned that they are stripping all the life and dimension out of the game. It is like making the game easy for a brand new DM to run by following a script is more important than keeping the world dynamic.

IME the uninitiated will have some bumps in the road, but then they become "truly initiated". But if everything becomes cookie cutter then the ability to learn and grow will be undercut. And the ability for good dms to really work the system will be diminished.

Those "story things" are an important part of what makes the game.

I heard the same type comment in the last podcast when someone said something to the effect of "only a really good DM could make a fight with orcs different than a fight with gnolls." I'm all for helping new DMs learn. But if the plan, as it sounds, is to build into the system "the way" that gnolls fight, then you might move a new DM up to a 3 from a 1 on the gaming quality scale, but you just might lower the top threshold from 10 down to 7.

And, IMO, even if you turned 1s into 5s and the only cost was turning 10s into 9s, that would be too grave a price. If someone has the potential and desire to be a good DM, they will get there. And usually it doesn't take all that much experience.

I would jump at a chance to play in a D&D game DMed by Piratecat. If the game was Descent, then it wouldn't really matter much to me who was running the game. Descent is fun, but no game of Descent, no matter how well played, is ever going to be as fun as a really well run game of D&D. I'm not claiming that 4E will be like Descent. That is just an extreme example. But any motion in that direction sounds quite bad.

Here is hoping I'm worried about nothing. But the statements so far have created this concern.

 

[Adso]

I dont understand what you are "just say'n".

Clark

Fair enough.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I dont understand what you are "just say'n".

I believe what he is trying to say is that when someone who isn't really into D&D, who plays it very rarely or who plays it for the first time is running an adventure they purchased from the store and the PCs open up a door and there is a monster behind it. The DM looks at the monster, they see a big long sheet of information about it.

And that sheet of information says "disguise self at will" and "25% chance of summoning another demon" and "Charm Person 1/day". And that DM is left wondering "Can disguising himself be useful in combat somehow? How does the spell work?" and "What type of action does it take to summon a creature? Does he want to risk a 25% chance to do something this round?" and "Can charming someone be useful in a combat? How does the mechanics for it work? What can someone do while charmed?"

Experienced people know that the above abilities are just plot hooks written into the monster's description. They know that the reason that a monster would disguise himself isn't for a combat advantage but as a reason to allow the monster to infiltrate the military. They know that the demon summoning power is short hand for "this creature may have demon allies who owe them a favor and will come to their aid." They know that charming is a lot like disguising in that it sets up adventure hooks and plots, but isn't so good for combat.

I believe that's what he means by "story things have been masquerading as combat rules". Whether you are a DM that looks up the monster on the fly or preps in advance, you need to look up all of the abilities of the creature if you don't know what they are. So, you spend valuable prep time trying to figure out how Charm Person works since you don't know or haven't used it in a while only to find out that you planned on using this monster in 4 rounds of combat and it was never going to use it.

 

[Adso]

But I've become concerned that they are stripping all the life and dimension out of the game. It is like making the game easy for a brand new DM to run by following a script is more important than keeping the world dynamic.

IME the uninitiated will have some bumps in the road, but then they become "truly initiated". But if everything becomes cookie cutter then the ability to learn and grow will be undercut. And the ability for good dms to really work the system will be diminished.

Those "story things" are an important part of what makes the game.

The goal is not to take away toys, but rather to make toy both simpler for the new or casual DM and more dynamic for the experienced DM.

So, what is the spined devil missing?

Well the Summon Baatezu...and that ability has always been either useless or problematic. Not only has it never worked very well in the rules space it was allotted (spell-like ability) it’s a real story killer, as DMs are pushed toward fudging that roll to fit their narrative or live with the fact that an encounter with these lawful icons is really friggen random.

Here’s my novel approach—if you want more spine devils in an encounter, put more devils in an encounter! If you want them to gate in, have them gate in—the resource of Hell can make it happen in a variety of ways, it doesn’t have to sit entirely in the monster's ability entry. This ability should have always been on the encounter-design/story-design side of the D&D fence, and it wasn't purely because of legacy. Devils had it from the go, for reason that are thematic but strangled by bad rules (IMO). Don’t let the rules hamstring the story, rather let them serve the story and play.

Yes, I know, it’s an interesting design stance for a developer to take.

Then there is the ever-edition-shifting array of spell-like abilities devils have had. Now I am not saying that all devils should not have spell-like abilities, but I don’t know if all of them or even most of them need it. I think it might even be better to say something like “many devils are versed in the arcane arts” and give the DM guidance for making devils that do this in ways that serve the play and story of a campaign. In this way devil encounters can have just as much variety they need for an encounter or a story, not what the designer thinks you have to have each and every time. Having cooler devils of a type is always neat, it’s another reason to start monsters simply, it makes it easier and more fun the run the better ones.

In the end, I think that you can have a simple, very thematic monsters fulfilling legacy and story roles without being slaves to out-dated or just plain bad legacy mechanics. It’s the theme that makes the monster interesting on the narrative side of the game. In short, the rules should serve theme in the best possible way, not the other way around.

Just say'n ;-)

 

[Imaro]

The goal is not to take away toys, but rather to make toy both simpler for the new or casual DM and more dynamic for the experienced DM.

So, what is the spined devil missing?

Well the Summon Baatezu...and that ability has always been either useless or problematic. Not only has it never worked very well in the rules space it was allotted (spell-like ability) it’s a real story killer, as DMs are pushed toward fudging that roll to fit their narrative or live with the fact that an encounter with these lawful icons is really friggen random.

Here’s my novel approach—if you want more spine devils in an encounter, put more devils in an encounter! If you want them to gate in, have them gate in—the resource of Hell can make it happen in a variety of ways, it doesn’t have to sit entirely in the monster's ability entry. This ability should have always been on the encounter-design/story-design side of the D&D fence, and it wasn't purely because of legacy. Devils had it from the go, for reason that are thematic but strangled by bad rules (IMO). Don’t let the rules hamstring the story, rather let them serve the story and play.

Yes, I know, it’s an interesting design stance for a developer to take.

Then there is the ever-edition-shifting array of spell-like abilities devils have had. Now I am not saying that all devils should not have spell-like abilities, but I don’t know if all of them or even most of them need it. I think it might even be better to say something like “many devils are versed in the arcane arts” and give the DM guidance for making devils that do this in ways that serve the play and story of a campaign. In this way devil encounters can have just as much variety they need for an encounter or a story, not what the designer thinks you have to have each and every time. Having cooler devils of a type is always neat, it’s another reason to start monsters simply, it makes it easier and more fun the run the better ones.

In the end, I think that you can have a simple, very thematic monsters fulfilling legacy and story roles without being slaves to out-dated or just plain bad legacy mechanics. It’s the theme that makes the monster interesting on the narrative side of the game. In short, the rules should serve theme in the best possible way, not the other way around.

Just say'n ;-)

Emphasis mine...

This seems counter to your argunment as I've understood it. You're advocating replacing rules (whether good or bad is subjective and not really my point)...with handwaving. Now instead of the summon ability (which yes does throw an unexpected, but not wholly uninteresting loop for the players or DM depending on what the roll is) the rules are serving theme in the best possibe way by saying esentially...just make it up. Not sure if this is actual streamlining for actual play or just foisting off responsibility for making a monster interesting onto the DM. Is this really easier for new DM's to do without causing problems in their campaigns? Not sure I would agree.

Personally I was hoping that the abilities would not be so much taken away as their mechanics streamlined for easier mechanical implementation. The vibe I'm getting is if it isn't combat based it doesn't belong on a monster. Yet I would argue this is where new DM's probably need the most support.

This seems to be taking the game in a purely combat-focused direction as far as monsters are concerned...yet with the sparse info we've recieved about a new social system...some of these abilities that are being dismissed could actually have more importance if this new social system pans out. Especially with devils supposedly being corrupters.

 

[BryonD]

The goal is not to take away toys, but rather to make toy both simpler for the new or casual DM and more dynamic for the experienced DM.

Fine.

It doesn't sound like you are doing that.

And I didn't see anything in your post to make me think so. And , imo, the "novel approach" you suggested could also be called "how good DMs already do things in 3X". You can't take credit for giving me something I already have.

And I'm not just talking about the spined devil. I'm talking about the big picture.

I apologize if that sounds terse. Maybe someone else can say it better. But I am concerned. And obviously I don't expect you to change the slightest thing for my personal sake. But I can hope that the point I am making will resonate somewhere.

 

[Scribble]

This seems to be taking the game in a purely combat-focused direction as far as monsters are concerned...yet with the sparse info we've recieved about a new social system...some of these abilities that are being dismissed could actually have more importance if this new social system pans out. Especially with devils supposedly being corrupters.

Don't forget, however, that this particular monster is designed to be a skirmisher.

His abilities and options should emphasize that role. He and a few of his pals, swoop in and harass the PCs while a squad of Brutes waits up the hill.

He's not designed to be a corrupter of men. He's just part of Hell's army.

My guess is that the Devils designed as masterminds, and leaders will have much more interesting abilities related to more then combat.

 

[Adso]

Emphasis mine...

This seems counter to your argunment as I've understood it. You're advocating replacing rules (whether good or bad is subjective and not really my point)...with handwaving. Now instead of the summon ability (which yes does throw an unexpected, but not wholly uninteresting loop for the players or DM depending on what the roll is) the rules are serving theme in the best possibe way by saying esentially...just make it up. Not sure if this is actual streamlining for actual play or just foisting off responsibility for making a monster interesting onto the DM. Is this really easier for new DM's to do without causing problems in their campaigns? Not sure I would agree.

Personally I was hoping that the abilities would not be so much taken away as their mechanics streamlined for easier mechanical implementation. The vibe I'm getting is if it isn't combat based it doesn't belong on a monster. Yet I would argue this is where new DM's probably need the most support.

This seems to be taking the game in a purely combat-focused direction as far as monsters are concerned...yet with the sparse info we've recieved about a new social system...some of these abilities that are being dismissed could actually have more importance if this new social system pans out. Especially with devils supposedly being corrupters.

No, what I am saying is D&D (and just about any other roleplaying game) is ultimately a game of two masters.

First and foremost, as the rules go, it is a game of combat. Much of any D&D game, and arguably the most interactive parts, take place within the scope of the combat encounter. You can deny this fact, but I personally think it is an exercise of just that…denial.

Secondly it is a narrative exercise, a way for a DM to make a story with decision points (both obvious and obtuse). I think 3rd Edition may have erred too much for the benefit of the first master. 2nd Edition may have erred to much on the side of the other. I think we can have a good balance between the two.

Monsters have to work consistently in the first part of the game. And they need to work well in the second instance as well, but to figure you can always kill a bird with one stone (i.e. the stat block) is fallacy.

Here's how I split it.

Combat: Spined devils attack with 2 claw attacks +9 vs. AC each 2d4+4 and have a special Spike Rain attack. They fly, are skirmishers, and have 47 hp (bloodied 23)

Story: Devils tend to be organized, when you fight one, you can bet more are close by. Sometimes they are gated into the fray by a variety of diabolical means. Devils tend to be skilled in the arcane arts. In particular, spine devils are wicked, take joy in the suffering of others, and laugh at pleas of mercy.

Combat stats are about the minimum of absolutes, story deals with encounter, adventure, and campaign desig and gives the DM ideas and tools to make a well-themed encounter that gives tools for creating a D&D encounter that feels like a D&D encounter. I would not call that part handwaving…I would call it focused creativity. Handwaving is something more arbitrary...and I don't recommend it. Players will know (or can find out in the course of the game) what these creature are about, but can still be surprised (and thrilled, hopefully challenged) by each encounter with the creature in questions.

 

[Adso]

nd I didn't see anything in your post to make me think so. And , imo, the "novel approach" you suggested could also be called "how good DMs already do things in 3X". You can't take credit for giving me something I already have.

I am not trying to. You are absolutely right, good DMs are already doing this (and should), but we are not helping create good DMs when we make rules that a DM has to work around to make a good and interesting game.

We want to give you the freedom to create a good game without having to fix or sidestep the rules. We want to give new DMs the freedom to create good games without them having to figure out they have to sidestep bad rules.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

No, what I am saying is D&D (and just about any other roleplaying game) is ultimately a game of two masters.

First and foremost, as the rules go, it is a game of combat. Much of any D&D game, and arguably the most interactive parts, take place within the scope of the combat encounter. You can deny this fact, but I personally think it is an exercise of just that…denial.

Secondly it is a narrative exercise, a way for a DM to make a story with decision points (both obvious and obtuse). I think 3rd Edition may have erred too much for the benefit of the first master. 2nd Edition may have erred to much on the side of the other. I think we can have a good balance between the two.

Monsters have to work consistently in the first part of the game. And they need to work well in the second instance as well, but to figure you can always kill a bird with one stone (i.e. the stat block) is fallacy.

Here's how I split it.

Combat: Spined devils attack with 2 claw attacks +9 vs. AC each 2d4+4 and have a special Spike Rain attack. They fly, are skirmishers, and have 47 hp (bloodied 23)

Story: Devils tend to be organized, when you fight one, you can bet more are close by. Sometimes they are gated into the fray by a variety of diabolical means. Devils tend to be skilled in the arcane arts. In particular, spine devils are wicked, take joy in the suffering of others, and laugh at pleas of mercy.

Combat stats are about the minimum of absolutes, story deals with encounter, adventure, and campaign desig and gives the DM ideas and tools to make a well-themed encounter that gives tools for creating a D&D encounter that feels like a D&D encounter. I would not call that part handwaving…I would call it focused creativity. Handwaving is something more arbitrary...and I don't recommend it. Players will know (or can find out in the course of the game) what these creature are about, but can still be surprised (and thrilled, hopefully challenged) by each encounter with the creature in questions.

And this design concept is what i have been hoping for in 4e. Well done - you´re designing my game.