Monsters are more than their stats

[Cadfan]

As I recall, back in the time of the edition wars, grognards bemoaned the loss of "DM power" that resulted from 3E having rules for things that formerly were undescribed in the game. "I can just *decide* whether or not a ranger can climb a tree based on how I'm feeling that day - rather than have the rules *dictate* to me what the chance of success should be." was the general argument.

That wasn't convincing to 3E players back then, but now suddenly when the same idea is packaged as 4E this seems like a good idea? Seems to me like this design philosophy of 4E is going to be very similar to the way I played 1st edition when I was 12. I've spent many years playing some version of DnD that didn't have a complete set of rules for things - such a situation doesn't seem as innovative or exciting to me as it does to some folks apparently. I don't need 4E to dispense with the non-combat rules just so I can make up a succubus with non-standard seduction powers.

There is an enormous difference between the DM just deciding that an NPC ranger has +5 to climb instead of +8, and the DM just deciding that a PC ranger succeeds or fails at climbing the tree. The difference is so enormous that its hard for me to see why there is confusion on this score.

 

[evilbob]

I haven't read through all 11 pages of comments so far (no offense), but to me, the "fewer specific rules" dilemma comes down to one major issue: is your DM an ?

Seriously. The thing that I believe made previous editions potentially annoying (besides restrictive character generation) but also potentially great was that the DM could basically make up any old crap he wanted, and you - as a player - would have to go along. Whether or not this is a good thing ultimately comes down to whether or not your DM was a good DM. Codifying the rules more exactly - a la 3.5 - took some of the "make up any old crap" power away from the DM. This enabled poor DMs to just use the RAW to run adventures without the extra time and worry to develop material, and it also helped "protect" players from overt abuse ("ah, but that red dragon can't just turn us all to stone - it's not that powerful!"). Conversely, it also stymied the DM's ability to make up good original stuff as well, or to effectively fool long-time (read: MM-memorizing) players.

You gotta take the good with the bad. And in this case, open-ended rules allows for extremely wide-ranging plots and devices, constantly fresh material, and potentially great storytelling. It also allows for narcissistic, over-compensating, sadistic s to take out their lives' frustrations on unsuspecting, unassuming (and potentially innocent) players. Heavily codified rules reduce the chance for both.

Which is better? It's really up to the individual/gaming group/DM. Apparently WotC tried B and they're swinging back toward A now.

 

[Lacyon]

As I recall, back in the time of the edition wars, grognards bemoaned the loss of "DM power" that resulted from 3E having rules for things that formerly were undescribed in the game. "I can just *decide* whether or not a ranger can climb a tree based on how I'm feeling that day - rather than have the rules *dictate* to me what the chance of success should be." was the general argument.

I don't want to decide how good the ranger is at climbing trees. Fortunately, he's still going to use his athletics skill roll in 4E to determine that.

That wasn't convincing to 3E players back then, but now suddenly when the same idea is packaged as 4E this seems like a good idea? Seems to me like this design philosophy of 4E is going to be very similar to the way I played 1st edition when I was 12. I've spent many years playing some version of DnD that didn't have a complete set of rules for things - such a situation doesn't seem as innovative or exciting to me as it does to some folks apparently. I don't need 4E to dispense with the non-combat rules just so I can make up a succubus with non-standard seduction powers.

I don't know why you need Succubi to have non-standard seduction powers, unless you want kings to be generally immune from standard seduction attempts. Seduction powers shouldn't be necessary at all.

 

[DandD]

For me, it rather looks like C: a mixture of A and B. Some rules and guidelines more than in A, but not the time-consuming mathematical challenge that was B.

 

[Steely Dan]

But if you want to play a rules-heavy game, why do you play D&D? Wouldn't GURPS be a lot better? There are even more options to take and dials to change.

Yeah, I've never thought of D&D (any edition) as particularly rule-heavy, as far as many other games are concerned, just clunky.

 

[Mallus]

Codifying the rules more exactly - a la 3.5 - took some of the "make up any old crap" power away from the DM.

No it didn't. Because the power to 'just make stuff up' ultimately resides in the player's consent, not the rule set used. The problem I have with 3.x is that when I want to rely on the framework provided by the rules, I find it increasing unmanageable as my group levels.

...and it also helped "protect" players from overt abuse...

The only thing that can really protect players from the DM is a stout hitting-stick and the will to use it.

 

[Mallus]

I think the problem stems from wanting D&D to be the game for everyone and if its not for me it sucks or if its not for you it sucks.

Sure, and that's endemic to D&D as the FRPG with the largest player base. For all intents and purposes D&D is pen-and-paper fantasy role-playing.

 

[vagabundo]

From what I can tell, though, the "unit of interest" in 4e isn't the monster, it's the encounter. An individual 4e monster doesn't have enough fiddly bits, in and of itself, to interest me. But if you consider that a monster is now 1/5th of an encounter (usually), then the total level of customization for *the entire encounter* is enough to look like it might be fun to play with. I can see a lot of fun in setting up the complex interactions and synergies of an entire encounter 'group', fiddling with swapping in an elite for two normals, or adding in minions, etc. Solo creatures (which I don't think we've seen yet) should be pretty rare beasts.

I think you have hit the nail on the head with this one. It is all about the encounter for 4e. I think I got annoyed at 3e as I would intro a new monster and it could fire off 1 or 2 interesting things and the lads would dog pile it and destroy it in 3 rounds.All about the actions I suppose.

It was possible to do complex encounters in 3e but the dynamic was different. I'm looking forward to dogpiling the PCs and (hopefully) them coming out on top, but the fight will look more heroic to me. More 300!!!

 

[Steely Dan]

I'm looking forward to dogpiling

I did that at a furry convention in Vegas.

 

[gizmo33]

Except that 4e still gives you rules to determine whether you can climb the tree or not. Some people just like to make it look like it does not.

That really wasn't my point though - I didn't think anyone was making that case about tree climbing in 4E. Maybe I've misunderstood this issue. I'm using the example of a ranger climbing a tree because it seemed to be a standard example back in the "1E vs. 3E" days and I thought folks would recognize it. The point was - what is the significant difference between the rules not telling you what a ranger's chance is for climbing a tree, and the rules not indicating the significant parameters (duration, level of effect, etc.) for a succubus' seduction ability?

The ranger example, granted, is a case of a PC using a power. But is it really there really that much of a difference with a seduction power? As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, there are circumstances where the PCs might be very much interested in the particulars of how a given monster power works - in the case where the monster is working for them, for example.