Monsters are more than their stats

[hong]

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.

That you require a rigid framework before using a monster is your problem, and one which can be solved simply by not thinking too hard about fantasy.

 

[hong]

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?

Tch. If the players decide to do something different than just rolling for initiative, of course they can. And the presence of the DM allows this possibility to happen, because even people with red circles around their feet do not always act on a shoot-on-sight policy. And the framework provided is quite sufficient to handle these cases, if a little more abstractly than is your preference.

'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.

But you're going to keep complaining about it, right?

 

[WhatGravitas]

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.

But that's mainly your personal opinion. The world level fluff is nice, because it a) gives people a jump start for "just playing D&D", and b) because it can serve as inspiration.

The monster level fluff is very modular and campaign specific. In some campaigns, you never even hear of an aboleth. Or a mind flayer. Or an orc. But if they do feature, then I hope the DM has put some thought into it - and hence has time to "codify" something for that campaign/homebrew world/whatever. And it's a dream for flavouring monsters, fitting the world, a la Pathfinder (see their goblins and so on).

Unless he's just pulling monsters out of the MM at random - but then we're back to square one: If he's just pulling out monsters at random, less fluff-intensive monsters are better, because he can fit it into the current world without worrying about abilities that would disrupt his world design.

Cheers, LT.

 

[hong]

Yep. The world level fluff is some of the most inspiring material I've seen for years. It's certainly the most inspiring fluff I've ever seen for D&D. I actually want to run a game that incorporates all that material, the first time I've ever felt that.

 

[Steely Dan]

Yep. The world level fluff is some of the most inspiring material I've seen for years. It's certainly the most inspiring fluff I've ever seen for D&D. I actually want to run a game that incorporates all that material, the first time I've ever felt that.

Yeah, at this point D&D is it's own brand of fantasy.

So for the first time, I too, am looking forward to running a standard/core setting D&D campaign.

But of course I will continue to DM non-standard campaigns (Planescape, Dark Sun, homebrew etc)

 

[Mallus]

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!

Then as a DM, create an adventure-specific (rough)framework for 'how things work'. This is part and parcel with fantasy plotting, right?.

Relying on an overly complex system of magical measures/countermeasures seems far more contemptuous of the players to me since it 1) demonstrates contempt for players who don't purchase and scour all of the published materials (and it prioritizes 'learning the rules' over learning the world via play experiences) and 2) it shows contempt for anyone playing a non-full progression spellcaster.

At least 'plot-based magic' can be as involving to all the players as the DM wants it to be.

 

[Hussar]

You'd think, but it could simply be a listing of rituals by level with no idea how they were built.

Or it could be exactly what it should be, a set of detailed rules and guidelines. We'll see.

Oh, come on. Do you REALLY think that the designers are that incompetent that they would simply publish a list of rituals with no idea of how they were built?

((You have no idea how hard I'm resisting pointing to other editions here.))

In any event, we KNOW for an absolute fact that there are at least guidelines which will detail the relative power levels of rituals (raise dead ritual) and that monsters will have access to rituals (lich phylactery). So, that's two things that we know right off the bat.

However, I notice that you still failed to answer my earlier question. What is the difference between "Oh, the bad guy has a magic item that lets him do X" and "The bad guy has a ritual that lets him do X"? And, how is one good and another bad?

 

[Mirtek]

Yeah, at this point D&D is it's own brand of fantasy.

I diasgree. D&D has become just annother average run-off-the-mill games.

The old myth-mash gave it something unique, stories of

"Eric of Tyr, mighty warrior from a land of frost and night adventuring together with Scheherazade, the street-urchin who had to flee from her native land of heat, sands and fate to avoid losing her hand after being caught stealing dates at the bazzar, and last but not least Zhou, Master of the Eagle Claw from the temple of the Seren Winds while cutting their way through dense jungle racing to stop Acamapichtli, the tribal witch of the Nahuatls from performing the dark rite to summon Huehueteotl"

gave D&D it's unique brand of fantasy. The "what if all different myhtologies are true (more or less with minor variations) and have to live with each other as neighbors" approach was refreshing.

How is Odin getting along with Tlaloc? What's Kali up to with Gruumsh's eye? Do Thor and Hercules belong to the same armwrestling team?

 

[small pumpkin man]

You'd think, but it could simply be a listing of rituals by level with no idea how they were built.

Or it could be exactly what it should be, a set of detailed rules and guidelines. We'll see.

Ignoring the fact that rules transparency is one of stated goals of 4th Edition which is pretty much followed through by everything else we've seen(which you are), if it's "just" a list of 100 or so noncombat spells, explain how this is a bad thing.

 

[Steely Dan]

D&D has become just annother average run-off-the-mill games.

If you wish to implement it that way, the choice is yours, of course.

My D&D campaigns have never been run-of-the-mill anything.