Monsters are more than their stats

[DandD]

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?

That's what you call the "Forgotten Realms". It just happens that due to a glut of novels, the campaign setting had so much appendage that people felt intimidated to play there, or just found it totally ridicolous, which is why they created and played in their own campaign setting. D&D is first and foremost a rules-encyclopedia for dungeon-hack'n'slashs. Campaign settings are modular and can vary from playgroup to playgroup, unlike games like Shadowrun, Middle-Earth, Warhammer Fantasy RPG, Vampire, or The Dark Eye (which failed in the US, haha), where they do have a tied-in campaign world with a metaplot going on.

 

[Mirtek]

or The Dark Eye (which failed in the US, haha),

Is there a place in the world where it did not fail?

That's what you call the "Forgotten Realms".

I call it the D&D meta-setting from which all those references to cherished common ground between people who never played on the same table (not even the same continent) come from.

Sure, other groups just didn't care and played in their own custom settings, but millions of players were united under the same meta-setting. When Eric Mona (I believe it was him, don't remember) writes about how he discovered that mentioning the "Rod of Seven Parts" or "The Hand of Vecna" or "Dragotha" sparked the same gleam in the eyes of completly different people, it all came from this shared meta-experience.

D&D had build it's own mythology over 30 years and then it's replaced by run-off-the-mill concepts you can find in every second fantasy setting background and that's supposed to be unique

 

[DandD]

Is there a place in the world where it did not fail?

Appearently, it's still the top-dog in Germany. But then again, who cares about "The Dark Eye"? Haha.

I call it the D&D meta-setting from which all those references to cherished common ground between people who never played on the same table (not even the same continent) come from.

Well, the "D&D-meta-setting" for 3rd edition was Greyhawk...

Sure, other groups just didn't care and played in their own custom settings, but millions of players were united under the same meta-setting. When Eric Mona (I believe it was him, don't remember) writes about how he discovered that mentioning the "Rod of Seven Parts" or "The Hand of Vecna" or "Dragotha" sparked the same gleam in the eyes of completly different people, it all came from this shared meta-experience.

Yeah, but that's all Greyhawk-stuff, isn't it?

D&D had build it's own mythology over 30 years and then it's replaced by run-off-the-mill concepts you can find in every second fantasy setting background and that's supposed to be unique

Well, what do you mean with run-off-the-mill concepts?

 

[Shadeydm]

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.

No this is important information just like how the Succubus controls the King is important information because at some point she may decide that the PCs are too great a threat and then you have to face the question of why can't she do the same thing to one of the PCs? This is why we need this infomation, the answer shouldn't be "um well just because" or "um just because I don't know how she did it in the first place".

 

[Rel]

hong, I think you make a lot of really good points. But the problem is that you don't seem to be able to make them without being snarky to the point of rude. We need you to at least try to do so. If you try and fail...well we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But if you don't try at all then I have some bad news.

 

[Piratecat]

Hong, out of the thread, please. Look for an email from me.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

You know, the concept of the PCs "gaining control" of a succubus is interesting. What do they do with it?

I can't believe you just asked that question! LOL!!

 

[AllisterH]

I come down somewhere in the middle of this...On the one hand, something like "Can a succubus charm you in combat" is relevant information but say for example, the 3.5E version that had "Tongues" as a spell-like ability.

TONGUES? Really, is any DM really going to say , "Oh, I can't have this backstory because the succubus can't speak Elven?"

That to me is an example of fluff I don't need.

There's also an aspect of that it seems like spell-like abilities trump actual non-magical abilities a.k.a skills. For example, looking at the 4E succubus, couldn't she have simply seduced him via her SKILLs? She does have Bluff and Diplomacy scores of +15

 

[jasin]

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

Actually, with a parallel shadow-world of the dead and a parallel fairyland and devils as divine servants exiled to Hell for a terrible offense, in many ways it feels less like it's own brand of fantasy than before. And that's a good thing.

 

[Derren]

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.

Nothing in D&D, even in 3E is really rigid. The DM can always change things without anyone arresting him.
So its not a issue of having a rigid framework, but to have suggestions about what the monsters can do outside of combat. If you don't like it you can still change it, but if that information is missing the DM always has to make something up.
At best this amounts to the exact same work as in 3E in the case that the DM did not like the suggestion. In the worst case it means a lot more work for the DM as the suggestion would have been good.