Monsters are more than their stats

[kilpatds]

Designing a 3rd Ed creature was like constructing a jigsaw, whereas designing a 4th Ed creature is like sculpting.

Y'know, I was thinking something similar. Only not jigsaw for 3e, but Lego.

I like this analogy. Because while I'm pretty good at making things out of LEGO, I'm a very poor modeler given raw clay.

 

[Celebrim]

I'd rather have rules I don't need than need rules I don't have.

QFT. Apparantly opinions on this differ, but I don't find ignoring things to be nearly as big of a chore as making them up from scratch.

 

[Lizard]

Fourth Edition comes out and says "these rules aren't how the world works, they approximate the PCs' interactions with things." So you get the most important thing, IMO, that rules should provide, a consistent framework for players' decision making. But, they don't necessarily dictate how the world itself works.

That's the beauty of PCs being special. The world doesn't have to operate as if all the people are under the PCs' rules. Take how hit points work. You don't have to base your armed conflicts around how combat occurs with PCs. You can have that wound point based world you talked about in D&D. And, it doesn't contradict anything.

That just gives me a headache. I do not like Schrodinger's World, which works one way when it's being observed by PCs and another way when it isn't. The world should not know who is and isn't a PC.

Obviously, a lot of people do like this. So be it.

 

[FourthBear]

For myself, I definitely place abilities to be used in rapid, immediate encounters such as combat on a different shelf than those needed out of such situations. As a DM in combat or deathtraps or natural disasters, I want abilities that are quick to read, rule on and lead to interesting table play. I don't want play to slow down because I've got to pick up rulebook X or read through two paragraphs of text to adjudicate an ability. Of, if I do, the effect on the table game had better be damn well worth it.

Out of combat abilities can be far more relaxed in their descriptions and effects. However, I also tend to alter these abilities to suit my world building and specific adventure building very frequently. Specifically, I don't find the charm person abilities of the succubus in previous editions very satisfying. As many have noted, as described in 3e they often wouldn't suit their purpose as written. They would be detected too quickly (heck, a single character with a good sense motive would spot it, even in a completely non-magical society). They are too easy to circumvent via magical countermeasures, which should be standard in a consistent magical society. And they tend to suck away any sense of wonder once you've got them, IMO.

I would much rather open such abilities up such that a temptress (of succubus nature or not) might use skill, mind-altering potions, diabolical rituals, weird parasitic creatures or any number of other possibilites to achieve long term control. I've never had a problem coming up with such things out of combat. It's *in* combat (and similar situations) that I prefer not to have to rule on the fly. I'd prefer that they kept out of combat power descriptions to a minimum, so as to decrease expectations on both sides of the DMs screen about what is prescribed in any way.

 

[DandD]

You don't build a world with game rules. You play a game with them. For world-building, there is physics and social studies classes in universities. In real life. I'm not going to pretend to have a working world if I play the settlers of catan, or D&D for that.
Sometimes, D&D-rules just get into the way and hinder the actual goal of the game itself. That's what happened with the 3.X-rules.
And now, some people have been conditionized to follow such crude and unrealistic attemps in world-simulation, by using game rules for a pen-and-paper-rpg nonetheless...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That just gives me a headache. I do not like Schrodinger's World, which works one way when it's being observed by PCs and another way when it isn't. The world should not know who is and isn't a PC.

The world doesn't know that. Only the DM and the players know that. And they cannot not know it. Why does all this stuff always happens to the PCs? I mean, okay, clearing a kobold nest sounds reasonable. But why do they also solve the murder of Mr.Nearlyharmless. And fight the Orc Raiders. And defend a caravan. And stop the Vampire Baron. And help the king assemble an army to fight the giant invasion. And fight against Orcus and his attempt to take the place of the Raven Queen? How do they always end up in such a mess? Why do they never retire?
For PCs, the world does work differently. But the world itself doesn't know it. They just know that this stuff happens to the PCs. The players and the DM understand that this happens because they are playing the game, and the show game must go on!

 

[Torchlyte]

QFT. Apparantly opinions on this differ, but I don't find ignoring things to be nearly as big of a chore as making them up from scratch.

It's not like the 10 lines of text is being sacrificed for simplicity. The space just goes to adding other content.

The world doesn't know that. Only the DM and the players know that. And they cannot not know it. Why does all this stuff always happens to the PCs? I mean, okay, clearing a kobold nest sounds reasonable. But why do they also solve the murder of Mr.Nearlyharmless. And fight the Orc Raiders. And defend a caravan. And stop the Vampire Baron. And help the king assemble an army to fight the giant invasion. And fight against Orcus and his attempt to take the place of the Raven Queen? How do they always end up in such a mess? Why do they never retire?
For PCs, the world does work differently. But the world itself doesn't know it. They just know that this stuff happens to the PCs. The players and the DM understand that this happens because they are playing the game, and the show game must go on!

Interestingly enough, try replacing "PCs" in all these arguments with "heroes." It makes the whole "PCs heroes are special" aspect stronger.

 

[LostSoul]

Seriously, how can anyone look at the much lower granularity of 4e and say it gives you MORE options?

It seems to me that 4e will focus on resolving conflicts between PCs and monsters, NPCs, and the environment. When you have a solid resolution system that resolves conflicts and doesn't pretend to model the world, you can apply the system in many more places.

There is nothing I can't cover with a skill challenge.

There is nothing I can't cover with "Roll attack vs. Defense/skill vs. DC or Opposed skill check".

I can do the same thing in 3.5, but: I don't know how spells/feats/class abilities will tie into it, and the text doesn't support it - I'd have to house rule in order to get there.

 

[drjones]

I consider monsters to be less than their stats. Stupid worthless monsters, pshaw, you make me laugh!

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Y'know, I was thinking something similar. Only not jigsaw for 3e, but Lego. Lego's great. I love Lego and I'm so jazzed that my wee ones have started liking it too.

But, when you make something out of Lego, it's blocky and has all sorts of extra bits that you probably wouldn't have if you used another medium. So, yeah, Lego's great, but, if you want something that doesn't have all those right angles, then modeler's clay is maybe better.

Do you know how to sculpt? Well enough for personal use, perhaps? Maybe well enough to get in a showing or sell for a reasonable price?

Throw a lump of clay (and tools) and a pile of Legos in front of Average-Person-On-The-Street. See which one they go for. Then have them try to create something specific. See which they prefer.

If your analogy holds, 4e assumes that even new DMs are latent sculptors that can mimic classical Greek works from memory or rough sketches. Of course, the degree of 'mimic' is a reasonable topic for debate, but it appears to assume a bit much in any case. While 3e monster design can be rough and blocky, with a bit of practice, you get consistency, and a rather easier time modifying on the fly.