Monsters are more than their stats
- Thread starter MerricB
- Start date
Celebrim
Legend
I think you are correct.
The question of whether this approach is superior is a more difficult one, in no small part because there probably isn't an objective answer.
I tend to think that the 4e approach runs into big difficulty whenever the play departs from the core gameplay of 'killing the monster and taking thier stuff'.
I think pawsplay is spot on when he questions how this will work when conflict resolution means something other than combat. What happens when the players gain control of the Succubus? Does it immediately lose its fantastic powers to prevent them from falling into the hands of the PCs? Or can the PCs then cast charms which can only be broken be lost mirrors of Pelor?
A few scarce months ago when people were first getting used to the idea of NPCs and PCs using different rules, it seemed to me that the vast majority of defenders of the notion took solace in the idea that all the 'cheating' would be in the PC's favor. That is to say, alot of people interpretted 'NPCs and PCs use different rules' to mean, NPCs are strictly inferior to PCs. At the time I claimed that this would never be the case and that 'NPCs and PCs using different rules' would inevitably return us to the days of 1e when NPCs did fabulous things with ease and only PCs were confined to strict rules that made them slog through the metaphorical mud.
So here we are and people are talking about NPCs doing fabulous things with ease as if such ideas presented no problems at all, and as if the fact that NPCs and PCs not using the same rules wasn't in fact one of the things that annoyed many people away from 1e.
We've been here folks. This is nothing new.
The question of whether this approach is superior is a more difficult one, in no small part because there probably isn't an objective answer.
I tend to think that the 4e approach runs into big difficulty whenever the play departs from the core gameplay of 'killing the monster and taking thier stuff'.
I think pawsplay is spot on when he questions how this will work when conflict resolution means something other than combat. What happens when the players gain control of the Succubus? Does it immediately lose its fantastic powers to prevent them from falling into the hands of the PCs? Or can the PCs then cast charms which can only be broken be lost mirrors of Pelor?
A few scarce months ago when people were first getting used to the idea of NPCs and PCs using different rules, it seemed to me that the vast majority of defenders of the notion took solace in the idea that all the 'cheating' would be in the PC's favor. That is to say, alot of people interpretted 'NPCs and PCs use different rules' to mean, NPCs are strictly inferior to PCs. At the time I claimed that this would never be the case and that 'NPCs and PCs using different rules' would inevitably return us to the days of 1e when NPCs did fabulous things with ease and only PCs were confined to strict rules that made them slog through the metaphorical mud.
So here we are and people are talking about NPCs doing fabulous things with ease as if such ideas presented no problems at all, and as if the fact that NPCs and PCs not using the same rules wasn't in fact one of the things that annoyed many people away from 1e.
We've been here folks. This is nothing new.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
If I've said it once, I've said it twice:
"Make Stuff Up" sucks as a rule.
Specifically, I don't need $90 worth of rulebooks to tell me that I can just make stuff up as I go along. There are much easier, simpler, more flexible ways to resolve these conflicts than 900 pages of rules. I don't want WotC to say "Do whatever you want!" because oh thank you so much for your permission, no.
What I need, what I'm paying for, what I want, are rules.
Specifically so I don't have to make stuff up. I'm a busy man, I'm not playing D&D to write a collaborative narrative, I'm playing it because it is a game of plot resolution. If it doesn't give me a plot to resolve, if it doesn't give me a way to resolve it, it's not giving me what I want to play.
Let's take your example, for, er, example:
As a player, this would frustrate me, because it boils down to "Guess What the DM Wants You To Do!" I'm not allowed to come up with a way to break the king out of the succubus's charm -- the DM comes up with a way, and makes me jump through his hoops. No thanks. I want to use my abilities to direct the resolution of this little plot in a meaningful, unique way. Part of how I do that is by having codified rules for doing it -- if the succubus's charm ends when she dies, and I can know that, or learn that (and there are codified rules for how I would learn that), I can play the game to resolve the task based on my own character's abilities, rather than the DM's hoops.
As a DM, this would frustrate me, because I don't really want to come up with hoops to make the players jump through. I want D&D to give me those hoops pre-made, and all I have to do is set 'em up and knock 'em down. I want the succubus's abilities to tell me how they can be thwarted, so that I can give these pre-packaged to the PC's, and spend my energies worrying about what other encounters make things interesting and what cool new scenes I want to set up, and how to next describe the taste of the fine elven wine that they've been using that is actually poisoned, or whatever.
Tell me what you want me to do with the succubus. In this game of plot resolution, is the succubus a "find the McGuffin" plot? Is it a "kill the Boss Monster" plot? Is it a "uncover the lies" plot? Is it a "remain hidden until help finds you" plot? Is it a "Surprise! You've been tricked!" plot? Design it to provide me with that kind of interesting mini-story, tell me, concretely, how it accomplishes this mini-story, and give me a Rule Zero that says "If you'd rather make stuff up, go for it. Here's what it's designed to do, just so you know."
I've got more entertaining things to do with my time than play 20 Quest(ion)s with the DM or ponder the mysteries of some devil-hooker's super-secret kryptonite.
Shawn_Kehoe
First Post
Kamikaze Midget said:
Counterpoints:
1) Any DM who "bolts onto" a creature design for plot purposes should be more than willing to reward player ingenuity - it comes with the territory.
2) If the DM is adding to the creature mythos, he or she is obligated to ensure the PCs have the clues to figure that out.
Because of this, I don't really see concerns as a player.
I guess the real question is: why does the DM choose to modify the monster? If they are doing so to make it unique or expand it beyond its traditional scope, great! If modification is "required" because the Monster Manual entry doesn't define the creature adequately ... not great.
I think Merric is referring to the former case rather than the latter.
Kamikaze Midget said:
Personally, I think it's horrible design to just expect the players to consult the monster manual to figure their way out of any problem. We may disagree on this, but there should be a place for constructive storytelling, where a DM can tell a story of his own without just copying something verbatim out of a book. If the players can just look in the book and know how to resolve the problem then it isn't really a problem is it? That's lazy storytelling.
Kamikaze Midget said:
Not even last week, people were saying how skill challenges would avoid the pixel-bitching issue by encouraging DMs to say "yes". How quickly we forget.
Leaving out-of-combat powers uncodified does not equate to "do exactly what the DM wants". It means relying on more abstract ways to overcome the challenge than just casting specific spells to negate specific effects. "I use Diplomacy to find out about this gal's background", "I use Stealth to sneak into her bedchamber", "I use Intimidate to bully the guards so they leave us alone" and so on.
Jack99
Adventurer
For me, it is a great change. I loved 2e, (yeah I know, I am weird that way) but it was lacking a smart combat/resolution system. 3e had a great standardized system, but it ended up being so encompassing that it started to interfere with the plots and the roleplay.
4e seems to me to be the best of the two worlds, the more free-form approach of 2e, coupled with the smooth engine of 3e (although modified).
I love what we have seen, and can't wait to play real DND again.
4e seems to me to be the best of the two worlds, the more free-form approach of 2e, coupled with the smooth engine of 3e (although modified).
I love what we have seen, and can't wait to play real DND again.
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
And you do get rules. You get rules that allow you to resolve most of the actual in game actions players can take. If they use their power on a creature, you'll know exactly how it works and what it's effects are. If you want to know how easy it is for a player to climb a wall, I can assure you it is written in the book.Kamikaze Midget said:
There are a couple of design philosophies that went into 4e that I've gotten from the 2 preview books, designer blogs, discussions with the designers at D&D XP, and some insight I've probably gotten from collaberating on writing a 4e mod.
1) There is a DM in the game. Use him/her.
This one is easy. There are times when a game is made better by actually decision from a thinking person instead of rules that either don't cover a situation well or are so complicated that no one can figure them out. Since there is a DM running the game, might as well write rules knowing there is someone there to make those decisions.
2) The rules shouldn't tell the players HOW to play.
The rules should allow the DM to come up with his own DMing style and focus his/her game wherever he/she wants to. If they want a hack and slash game with no plot, the mechanics should support it. If they want a game with no combat at all, the mechanics should support it.
3) The game should allow DMs to come up with their own worlds, their own fluff, their own adventures.
The game shouldn't dictate how a world works and how it doesn't work. If one DM wants to run a plot where a single vampire converts everyone in town in a day and another wants vampires who need to perform a special ritual in order to do it, they both can have their way. If one DM wants to have a world where no one gets brought back to life and another wants one where everyone gets brought back on a regular basis, the rules support that.
ShockMeSane
First Post
Naturally, the hint of irony I find behind Kamikaze's post is that only resolving problems as defined in MM's, or more generally RAW, is that you get a whole different set of problems other than the "I don't want to jump through the DM's hoops" one. Namely, that once you've been playing an edition for a few years, even your more casual players are going to have 3/4ths of the common monsters memorized. Once you get your players going, "Oh, the enemy is a Lich, clearly we need to locate his Phylactery before even considering engaging him", it's as least as bad as having to find a DM created "Mirror of Pelor" scenario.
I certainly understand the nature of the complaint, but there is a better middle ground for both players and DM's. Having DM'd many, many games over the years of course I have found some of the fluff in the MM valuable... once. If a Succubus ever dominated the King in one of my campaigns, the best answer as a DM, as it is in every scenario, is one of multiple choices. Will the PC's think of all the options? Will I as the DM think of them? Probably not on both accounts, but some of the most fantastic adventures I've ever run have come from a player's solution to a problem being one that I both found feasible and unexpected.
I mean, a few examples of how the Domination could be broken:
1) Killing the succubus.
2) Dominating the King with a more powerful mind-effecting spell.
3) Forcing the succubus to reveal her true form in front of the court. (Obvious ramifications here...)
4) Negotiating with the succubus, possibly offering her something more valuable than the King's slavery. This offer may or may not be false.
5) Finding some crazy magic item that breaks Dominate. See Mirror example from earlier post.
And those are just a few ideas off the top of my head, that required virtually no thought. If you want to make it really interesting, is the King so dominated that if the Succubus is slain the spell will remain and he will take his own life or go mad with grief?
I don't really see what all the hooplah is about. The MM apparently needs to contain this level of information for all monsters to make some people happy. These are all plot points that any reasonably intelligent human being can make decisions about on the fly if need be. You certainly don't need a stat-block to tell you how that only when the fourth and second moons are in perfect alignment with eachother, the first waxing gibbous and the second new, can the charm ever be broken.
If you love those kind of details, you can fill them in for yourself with virtually no effort. I realize that when a DM only gives one solution to a problem it creates a poor roleplaying environment for players, as they are forced down the narrow path the DM has carefully laid out for them in advance. But really, I find throwing in the kind of information some people on these boards so desperately crave to create more battles with players than not including it. I mean, when the players have all read the MM's, they know exactly how to break a succubus charm, and it really takes a lot of storytelling power out of the hands of the DM unless he is willing to say, "Sorry, this one succubus is special and doesn't work that way." Which is kind of a weird cop-out on its own. I find it refreshing to be able to use iconic foes and not be trifled with heavily-mechanized fluff.
I certainly understand the nature of the complaint, but there is a better middle ground for both players and DM's. Having DM'd many, many games over the years of course I have found some of the fluff in the MM valuable... once. If a Succubus ever dominated the King in one of my campaigns, the best answer as a DM, as it is in every scenario, is one of multiple choices. Will the PC's think of all the options? Will I as the DM think of them? Probably not on both accounts, but some of the most fantastic adventures I've ever run have come from a player's solution to a problem being one that I both found feasible and unexpected.
I mean, a few examples of how the Domination could be broken:
1) Killing the succubus.
2) Dominating the King with a more powerful mind-effecting spell.
3) Forcing the succubus to reveal her true form in front of the court. (Obvious ramifications here...)
4) Negotiating with the succubus, possibly offering her something more valuable than the King's slavery. This offer may or may not be false.
5) Finding some crazy magic item that breaks Dominate. See Mirror example from earlier post.
And those are just a few ideas off the top of my head, that required virtually no thought. If you want to make it really interesting, is the King so dominated that if the Succubus is slain the spell will remain and he will take his own life or go mad with grief?
I don't really see what all the hooplah is about. The MM apparently needs to contain this level of information for all monsters to make some people happy. These are all plot points that any reasonably intelligent human being can make decisions about on the fly if need be. You certainly don't need a stat-block to tell you how that only when the fourth and second moons are in perfect alignment with eachother, the first waxing gibbous and the second new, can the charm ever be broken.
If you love those kind of details, you can fill them in for yourself with virtually no effort. I realize that when a DM only gives one solution to a problem it creates a poor roleplaying environment for players, as they are forced down the narrow path the DM has carefully laid out for them in advance. But really, I find throwing in the kind of information some people on these boards so desperately crave to create more battles with players than not including it. I mean, when the players have all read the MM's, they know exactly how to break a succubus charm, and it really takes a lot of storytelling power out of the hands of the DM unless he is willing to say, "Sorry, this one succubus is special and doesn't work that way." Which is kind of a weird cop-out on its own. I find it refreshing to be able to use iconic foes and not be trifled with heavily-mechanized fluff.
You know, the concept of the PCs "gaining control" of a succubus is interesting. What do they do with it? Do they go on a charming spree? What on earth could they blackmail such a powerful individual with anyway? That they know who it really is? Why should that matter to it? It has the king under its thumb. Any attempt to claim that the king was being controlled would probably lead to civil war at the very best. And it is something that can shapeshift at will instantly. Into unique individuals. It might just decide to kill the king and take his place. Unless you've got a perfect "Detect Devil" spell, you're not going to be able to prove that it's not the king.
Maybe it would intentionally let the PCs sort of, kind of expose it to split the kingdom in civil war and then just vanish into the war, reaping souls with the promise of a last good time in this era of senseless violence the PCs have plunged the kingdom into.
Whoa, sorry. Tangent.
Maybe it would intentionally let the PCs sort of, kind of expose it to split the kingdom in civil war and then just vanish into the war, reaping souls with the promise of a last good time in this era of senseless violence the PCs have plunged the kingdom into.
Whoa, sorry. Tangent.
