Monsters are more than their stats

[hong]

And if your idea of a fun game is a long series of rolling dice and tallying up successes without any specific actions being taken, then you'll enjoy this.

So find ways to link successes to specific actions (or results). You seem to enjoy thinking too hard about fantasy, so put that workaholic tendency to good use for once. If I can narrate a 100 hp hit on a 10 hp ninja as leaving guts spattered all over the room, you can narrate an Intimidate check of 40 against DC 15 as leaving the poor sod cowering in a heap and offering sexual favours if you just leave him alone.

I think there's more to a scenario than "Difficulty 30, successes required 6". YMMV. This is a good example of what I've been talking about:

30 seconds of combat: Played out round by round in glorious detail, with plenty of special abilities, cool powers, and tinkering with small options to give tiny, but possibly crucial, bonuses.

Three hours of diplomacy: Everyone pick their highest skill, come up with a justification for how it's going to be useful, and roll. Tally your success or failure. All done? Good. Now, lets move on to some butt-kickin'!

1. Of course, there is more to noncombat interaction than diplomacy, but don't let that stop you.

2. The game has rules for mediating noncombat interaction, contrary to popular belief.

3. The level of detail inherent in the rules for noncombat interactions may be lower than for combat. So what? If it ever was a secret that D&D is a game about going into dungeons, killing monsters and taking their stuff, then someone forgot to check their pills.

Even setting that aside, I think it's treating players with some degree of contempt to tell them "Stop wondering how it all works or how this situation occurred! It did! This is the plot! Deal with it and stop asking me 'Why didn't they do this?' or 'Why didn't they do that?' Because if they did, there'd be no plot! That's why!"

Hint: the overwhelming majority of fantasy gamers do not care. If you choose to be offended over little things like a game world that puts flexibility of experience over rigidity of process, so be it. Meanwhile, everyone else will be having fun playing the game, and not caring one whit that the world is populated by plot-device items and magical effects.

It's crappy when authors do it (cough Goblet of Fire cough), and it's crappy when DMs do it.

But you will notice that I am having fun. Are you having fun?

The DM needs to be able to think on his feet more. If the players destroy your plot in ten minutes, make up another. Fast.

Exactly. And it is much easier to do this if you do not think too hard about fantasy.

From the time I was a young child, people have told me not to think so much about all sorts of things, from religion to fantasy. I have never learned to heed their advice. Sorry.

There's always time to change. Don't give up hope now!

 

[Lizard]

You know, I sounds kinda cool if there was a "social combat" system, where characters can gain social powers. But, on the other hand, will this not turn everything into a pure "game", with little imagination involved? I really don't know.
What I know is that 3E social encounters could be boiled down to this: Roll Gather Information, or roll Diplomacy. Occasionally, you'd roll Sense Motive. You don't even have to justify why you're rolling the skill. You just beat the fixed DC. Even if I justified, it was only one roll - there is only so much storytelling that I will (or can) do to cover one roll.
If I have to roll 6 times, I have to come up with more. I can even react to results.

Well, we run things differently. I generally do it as follows:
Everyone roleplays. If I feel the NPC needs to make an important decision, I ask the player to roll diplomacy, or bluff if they're lying, or intimidate, or whatever. Often, I'll ask what the player is trying to do and pick the skill they should use. Any time they wish, players can roll sense motive if they think the NPC is lying.

I've never used the 'one roll turns an enemy into a friend' mechanic, except for dealing with mook guards. I don't know anyone who does.

The bulk of a game session is PCs interacting with NPCs, with dice rolled only at crucial decision points. I think more detailed mechanics would be nice, but 3e provides a decent framework. Maybe 4e will to; I know we've only seen a stripped-down sample.

Well, looking at the Paizo Adventure Paths, there is a lot of stuff for which there didn't seem to be any hard rules. I mean, where is the "Tear apart a dimensional rift so that prisoner demons from the Abyss can invade Oerth"-spell in the PHB?
Most of the rules for anything here were made up, and the players could never have figured out do something like that them self. The only stuff that was important was the fluff describing what happened, and the rules how to stop the whole thing.

I don't use published adventures, so I don't know. And, sure, I've done that sort of handwaving, but it's a PITA, because players want to know how it works according to the rules, and just mumbling "magic rituals....yadda yadda" isn't very satisfying to them. The broader the rules, the easier it is for me to say "Well, it's a lot like X, but due to...uh..sunspots...it's actually Y". Then the players have a strong conceptual framework. It's easier to fudge 10% than 90%.

If I was a better DM, I would do so. And I'll promise, I'll try to improve, get better improvising, get better at thinking on my feet more. But it would be nice if someone gave me some more advice on how to do it, or if there were some guidelines that helped me improve myself. Maybe you could write something down? Or maybe I'll wait what the DMG 4E will have to offer. (And I suppose I should also look at the CoC d20 book, rumours say it has a ton of good advice.)

Then I think you'd be supporting more hard-and-fast rules for out of combat abilities, instead of "make it up". That way, when you are forced to improvise, you have something to use, instead of saying, "Well, OK, let's have you meet a vampire...oh, wait, there's nothing in here about how vampires operate when they're not being attacked by PCs...let me decide on the 'physics' of vampires, then we can have an adventure with one."

Think as much as you like, but there is stuff where you can over-analyze. If it's about your immortal soul or how you behave towards others, it might be worth thinking a lot. If it's about how to have fun pretending to be an elf, do only the thinking that helps you having fun. That's my advice.

Worlds that don't survive even a seconds introspection give me headaches and ruin my fun. If I'm in a game and the plot hinges on people acting contrary to how the world 'works', and this isn't a Big Honkin' Clue The Something Is Up, I stop having fun.

This is fun:
Player 1:"Hey guys, according to my research, aboleths can't control people at this range. This one can. What's going on?"

Player 2: "Well, maybe it's not an aboleth...just something pretending to be. Or maybe there's something else going on. Hmm. I do a research check. Got a 30!"

DM:"You spend four hours at the library well everyone else looks bored and edgy. About the time they're about to kill you, you do make something of a discovery. You don't find too much on aboleths, but you do learn that mind flayers make artifacts which greatly enhance the range of telepathic abilities. BTW, just to remind you, you did find aboleth slime on the guy you killed."

Player 1:"Well, that means it probably is an aboleth, or a really elaborate hoax. Hmm. I wonder if this one has made a deal with a mind flayer, or stolen a mind flayer artifact...you know, old squid-face down at the pub owes us for not killing him. Let's extract some information from him." (Begin fun roleplaying with cowardly mind flayer)

This is not fun:
Player 1:"Hey guys, according to my research, aboleths can't control people at this range. This one can. What's going on?"

DM:"Look, just go to the damn lair and kill it already. I changed the rules. Deal with it."

 

[hong]

I don't use published adventures, so I don't know.

Tee hee.

Then I think you'd be supporting more hard-and-fast rules for out of combat abilities, instead of "make it up". That way, when you are forced to improvise, you have something to use, instead of saying, "Well, OK, let's have you meet a vampire...oh, wait, there's nothing in here about how vampires operate when they're not being attacked by PCs...let me decide on the 'physics' of vampires, then we can have an adventure with one."

If you cannot represent it as stat/skill Atk vs stat/skill Def, give up now.

Worlds that don't survive even a seconds introspection give me headaches and ruin my fun. If I'm in a game and the plot hinges on people acting contrary to how the world 'works', and this isn't a Big Honkin' Clue The Something Is Up, I stop having fun.

The plot hinges on people acting consistently to how the screenplay works. This is a big honkin' clue that it isn't real life. There are other paradigms to use besides real life.

 

[DandD]

According to your made-up "not-fun"-example, I would simply guess that Player 1 didn't succeed at his research-check. Also, the GM must be kinda pissed because nobody paid for his part of the pizza, and he didn't have time to prepare because he's tired from the night before. Well, no problem.

 

[WhatGravitas]

This is fun:
Player 1:"Hey guys, according to my research, aboleths can't control people at this range. This one can. What's going on?"

Player 2: "Well, maybe it's not an aboleth...just something pretending to be. Or maybe there's something else going on. Hmm. I do a research check. Got a 30!"

DM:"You spend four hours at the library well everyone else looks bored and edgy. About the time they're about to kill you, you do make something of a discovery. You don't find too much on aboleths, but you do learn that mind flayers make artifacts which greatly enhance the range of telepathic abilities. BTW, just to remind you, you did find aboleth slime on the guy you killed."

Player 1:"Well, that means it probably is an aboleth, or a really elaborate hoax. Hmm. I wonder if this one has made a deal with a mind flayer, or stolen a mind flayer artifact...you know, old squid-face down at the pub owes us for not killing him. Let's extract some information from him." (Begin fun roleplaying with cowardly mind flayer)

This is not fun:
Player 1:"Hey guys, according to my research, aboleths can't control people at this range. This one can. What's going on?"

DM:"Look, just go to the damn lair and kill it already. I changed the rules. Deal with it."

You can do both in 3E, both in 4E.

See, how do the players know about the range of the aboleth's mind control range? Either through in-character knowledge (which you can still give in 4E) or through metagame knowledge (which is different from roleplay, eh?).

Cheers, LT.

 

[Lizard]

Tee hee.

What, you're saying I *do*? News to me...which was the last published adventure I ran?

If you cannot represent it as stat/skill Atk vs stat/skill Def, give up now.

You're talking combat. I'm talking worldbuilding -- or at least bounds-setting. The part where you FIGHT the vampire is just the finale. The fun part is the buildup, and for that you need more than combat stats.

The plot hinges on people acting consistently to how the screenplay works. This is a big honkin' clue that it isn't real life. There are other paradigms to use besides real life.

True, but there has to be internal consistency. If John McClane jumps through plate glass windows without fear four times, he can't stop the fifth time and say "Hey, wait a minute! Jumping through plate glass will hurt!"

And if every vampire you've met takes a week to make a spawn, you can't have one which takes a minute -- not without some explanation beyond "I changed my mind".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, we run things differently. I generally do it as follows:
Everyone roleplays. If I feel the NPC needs to make an important decision, I ask the player to roll diplomacy, or bluff if they're lying, or intimidate, or whatever. Often, I'll ask what the player is trying to do and pick the skill they should use. Any time they wish, players can roll sense motive if they think the NPC is lying.

I've never used the 'one roll turns an enemy into a friend' mechanic, except for dealing with mook guards. I don't know anyone who does.

If the internet counts for "knowing", now you know someone. Yes, we're not happy with the solution either.

The bulk of a game session is PCs interacting with NPCs, with dice rolled only at crucial decision points. I think more detailed mechanics would be nice, but 3e provides a decent framework. Maybe 4e will to; I know we've only seen a stripped-down sample.



I don't use published adventures, so I don't know. And, sure, I've done that sort of handwaving, but it's a PITA, because players want to know how it works according to the rules, and just mumbling "magic rituals....yadda yadda" isn't very satisfying to them. The broader the rules, the easier it is for me to say "Well, it's a lot like X, but due to...uh..sunspots...it's actually Y". Then the players have a strong conceptual framework. It's easier to fudge 10% than 90%.

Magic Rituals or Magic Artifacts are perfectly accepted explanation among us. As long as we're allowed to do something about it, everything is fine.

Then I think you'd be supporting more hard-and-fast rules for out of combat abilities, instead of "make it up". That way, when you are forced to improvise, you have something to use, instead of saying, "Well, OK, let's have you meet a vampire...oh, wait, there's nothing in here about how vampires operate when they're not being attacked by PCs...let me decide on the 'physics' of vampires, then we can have an adventure with one."

That was never a problem situation for me. Unless I really haven't prepared any idea of what the Vampire might be doing when he's attacking the PCs. I certainly never did need to look at the rules for this, except to find out which skills he could use (in interaction with the PCs). That's not something 4E changes.

Worlds that don't survive even a seconds introspection give me headaches and ruin my fun. If I'm in a game and the plot hinges on people acting contrary to how the world 'works', and this isn't a Big Honkin' Clue The Something Is Up, I stop having fun.

This is fun:
Player 1:"Hey guys, according to my research, aboleths can't control people at this range. This one can. What's going on?"

Player 2: "Well, maybe it's not an aboleth...just something pretending to be. Or maybe there's something else going on. Hmm. I do a research check. Got a 30!"

DM:"You spend four hours at the library well everyone else looks bored and edgy. About the time they're about to kill you, you do make something of a discovery. You don't find too much on aboleths, but you do learn that mind flayers make artifacts which greatly enhance the range of telepathic abilities. BTW, just to remind you, you did find aboleth slime on the guy you killed."

Player 1:"Well, that means it probably is an aboleth, or a really elaborate hoax. Hmm. I wonder if this one has made a deal with a mind flayer, or stolen a mind flayer artifact...you know, old squid-face down at the pub owes us for not killing him. Let's extract some information from him." (Begin fun roleplaying with cowardly mind flayer)

This is not fun:
Player 1:"Hey guys, according to my research, aboleths can't control people at this range. This one can. What's going on?"

DM:"Look, just go to the damn lair and kill it already. I changed the rules. Deal with it."

Okay, and where at this point entered the RAW? DM 2 probably didn't bother describing the artifact (or any reason at all) or where it came from, that's why he reacts a bit.. pissy when the players ask. But that has still noting to do with rules, but a lot with fluff. The motivation of monsters or the history of events are not rules. They are fluff.

If the Aboleth would only contain the fluff information "uses mind control to keep minions", that would just mean that the PCs are not wondering how the Aboleth can do something other Aboleths can't do, but that doesn't mean they won't be asking the question how he can do it at all. There is no change in your scenario.

 

[hong]

What, you're saying I *do*? News to me...which was the last published adventure I ran?

No, I'm saying that what you do clearly has no relevance to how a great many people (most likely the majority) play D&D.

You're talking combat. I'm talking worldbuilding -- or at least bounds-setting. The part where you FIGHT the vampire is just the finale. The fun part is the buildup, and for that you need more than combat stats.

The fun part is in the buildup for persons whose playstyle has no relevance to how a great many people play D&D.

True, but there has to be internal consistency. If John McClane jumps through plate glass windows without fear four times, he can't stop the fifth time and say "Hey, wait a minute! Jumping through plate glass will hurt!"

Internal consistency does not require a rigid framework. It just requires commonality of expectations. Rigid frameworks enforce this commonality, but are unnecessary.

And if every vampire you've met takes a week to make a spawn, you can't have one which takes a minute -- not without some explanation beyond "I changed my mind".

And of such explanations do great plots grow. Said explanation does not need any rules crutch. In fact, because said explanation involves ignoring rules crutches, said crutches are completely useless.

 

[Lizard]

You can do both in 3E, both in 4E.

See, how do the players know about the range of the aboleth's mind control range? Either through in-character knowledge (which you can still give in 4E) or through metagame knowledge (which is different from roleplay, eh?).

Cheers, LT.

True, but this implies in both cases that the facts are there to be known:

3e: Rules state what aboleths can do. DM may decide to alter these rules, but if he's caught unawares or doesn't care, he has something to work from.
4e: (As per OP; we don't know for sure) Rules state bupkis. DM has that much extra work to do before using a creature; players have that much extra learning to do.

What I find interesting is that 4e is full of fluff which *isn't* useful and which DOES have to be changed before play can begin -- world level fluff which affects everything, but it (seemingly) skimps where details are necessary -- in defining how individual creatures work.

How The Dwarves And The Giants Came To Hate Each Other: Useless and annoying.
How Vampires Spawn: Useful and important.

So which do we get?

(Or to use another Real Play (tm) example, compare the Kuo Toa harpooner (MMV) with the 4e goblin picador. Which gives you more meat to deal with edge cases and mechanical questions?)

 

[Lizard]

The fun part is in the buildup for persons whose playstyle has no relevance to how a great many people play D&D.

So, just to be clear, according to you, for most people, a D&D game goes like this:
DM:You're outside a spooky old mansion. What do you do?
Players: We go inside.
DM: OK, inside, there's a vampire! What do you do?
Players: We attack!

Is that really what you're saying?

'Cause, if you're right, there's no point in 4e -- WoW has won, 'cause I can play that style in WoW better and easier than I ever could in D&D.