Monsters are more than their stats

[Lacyon]

Deriving a world from the rules is a large part of the fun of DMing, at least for me. "Looking at these facts, what kinds of worlds can I build? If I change one thing, what else changes?"

I get a lot of enjoyment out of that, too. Frequently, though, I find myself having less time to wander that path than I'd like. A system with better support for ad hoc decision-making has begun to appeal to me.

And if I decide that I want to go back to deriving worlds from rules, I still have all my 3E books; I'd prefer not to buy them a second time.

 

[KidSnide]

A question for folks who seem bothered by rituals:

Did it bother you in 3E that a villian could have a magic item that performed the plot-necessary mechanics? Because 4E seems to be treating rituals and magic items in pretty much the same way. There will be a bunch of each in the book, and you can make up more as necessary.

And, really, why not? If casting a teleport ritual doesn't come at the cost of a cone-of-cold, is there really a difference between knowing a /ritual/ of teleport and having an /item/ of teleport? As far as I can tell, the only difference is that you can sell (or lose) an item of teleport while you can (presumably) teach someone else a ritual of teleport without losing it yourself.

It seems to me that there will probably be some sort of long-term charm ritual in the book. As a player facing a succubus, I expect to either face that ritual or some "secret devil" ritual that isn't in the book (but may be in that "infernal magic" supplement on my DM's shelf) that also has coherent rules that I need to discover in the game.

Which leads to the second half of my question: Do you think 4E will be different than what I've described? And, if so, how? And, if not, what is bothersome about this scenario?

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

What the hell is everyone seeing in this that I'm not? Where's the Awesome? I feel like I'm watching people get gifts from the Wizard of Oz. "Dudes! You ALWAYS had the power to Just Make Stuff Up! It was within you all the time!" I can't get excited about 4e letting me do what I've always been able to do, while taking away the tools I can use when I don't want to just wing it, or the worldbuilding inspiration I've found in detailed mechanics.

QFT. There's nothing in 4e I want and a bunch of stuff I can do without.

 

[DandD]

Yep, that's what I feel about 3.X too, which is why I dislike playing it as a GM.

 

[TwoSix]

What the hell is everyone seeing in this that I'm not? Where's the Awesome? I feel like I'm watching people get gifts from the Wizard of Oz. "Dudes! You ALWAYS had the power to Just Make Stuff Up! It was within you all the time!"

The difference is in 3e, making stuff up was, while not expressly against the rules, also not the default assumption. I always knew there were skill points I should be allocating or PrCs I should be applying to give the monsters the abilities I wanted them to have. Could I deal with it? Sure. But it bugged me to have to do it.

In 4e, on the other hand, "Just Make Stuff Up" (tm) is the RAW, which makes me feel much better while playing.

 

[Mallus]

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?

Great points. D&D has always treated protagonists differently. Specifically, in ways that increased the likelihood they remain the protagonists (ever more so with each new edition).

For PCs, the world does work differently.

Especially since most other characters in the game world don't have access to character classes and leveling. One physics for PC's ("No worries, it was just a 100ft fall!"), another for NPC's ("Nearly beloved, we are gathered here to pay our final respects to Nearsighted Ned").

The players and the DM understand that this happens because they are playing the game, and the show game must go on!

This seems to get lost in these debates. The rules and the setting are just tools for emulating serial adventure stories.

 

[MichaelSomething]

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.

As a lurker and reader of your posts Lizard, I get the feeling you and 4e is like a vegetarian in a BBQ joint. Your not gonna stop them from eating meat and they'll never get you to try the ribs. Just grab some potato salad and get out before all the pig and cow makes you sick.

Also, can we get some examples of monster blocks that have descriptive text that provides inspiration? It would be nice if we had real monster blocks to compare too.

This product also seems to be worth mentioning...
http://paizo.com/pathfinder/pathfinderChronicles/v5748btpy82r5
This just seems to be very relevant to the topic

 

[I'm A Banana]

"Just Make Stuff Up" (tm)

Hahahahahahaha, I like that I helped start this trademark.

That's all. Back to your regularly scheduled re-hash.

 

[Just Another User]

Tangent: You know what charm needs that it has NEVER had in any version of the game, and has always made it (in my mind) a half-baked spell? A description of what happens to the subject when the spell wears off. Does the subject realize he was magically manipulated and now HATES the caster? or does he have fond memories of good times with the caster, in which case he probably still feels some residual affection for the caster? or are his feelings somehow reset to the point before the casting took place? This makes a huge difference in how charm works in non-combat situations, and merits at least a sentence in one of the 6 or so previous editions.

I don't remember if it was a rules or from some number of Dragon or just an home rule but i always played it that it depended on what you asked the subject to do. If it was something in the limit of reason he just thought it was his own idea, even if he could wonder why he did it, if it was something unreasonable, let's say something against his nature, that forced some extra soaving throw he'll understand he was under some magical compulsion and hate you to death.
Just my 2 cents

 

[Just Another User]

And you think this isn't a corner case?

Show me then. Poll the collective posters here at En World and ask how many times they've attempted to take a succubus alive. EVER. I'll bet dollars to donuts that less than 5% of respondents say yes.

That just because before 4e succubus had magical ways for ethereal travel and teleport. To capture one was very difficult, except maybe at high levels when you could do everything she can, only better . In 4e all you need to keep a succubi prisoner is a net and some strong rope, I strongly doubt you can do rituals while tied up, so she can't escape. Oh, yes and a blindfold to avoid domination. And you have a good reason to do it because she can do things you can't do and you want to learn how or that she does them for you.