Monsters are more than their stats

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I think the designers said "No one cares about anything but combat...lets not give them anything else."

That's a mightily strange comment; where do you get this from?

 

[D'karr]

I think the designers said "No one cares about anything but combat...lets not give them anything else."

That is a little ridiculous but that is what exaggeration gets you.

I have the exact opposite thought on the combat-only, "monsters live for 5 rounds" attitude. I think it's a giant step backwards in game design. Not only does it turn everything into DM fiat and encourage railroading plots, but it makes sharing content much more difficult, as everyone will have different ideas about how things "work" outside of combat. It's one thing to say "This book deviates from the RAW as follows..."; it's another to have no rules at all.

There is a difference in rules and RULES. One of them serve to guide, the other serve to restrict.

The use of combat rules for out of combat actions usually ends up as an impediment, an obstacle, or a way for players to abuse the system.

Take a look at the spell FLY in 3.0 and take a look at FLY in 3.5. You will notice that a conscientious restriction was placed to avoid out of combat use or to restrict it. Because as it was it was too good for its level. Enter OVERLAND FLIGHT a higher level spell that can be used in combat or completely out of combat.

For a quick example -- in my D20M campaign, I wanted to have an aboleth lurking in a sunken freighter offshore, controlling his minions in San Francisco to steal valuable pages from a magic tome. The problem -- as written, the aboleth didn't have the range I needed him to have for the plot. The solution -- he had an artifact which greatly enhanced his control range. Having hard rules for a creature's non-comabt powers does not constrain a creative DM (especially in a game like D&D), but it does provide a very helpful baseline from which to work.

3e was the first version of D&D where I felt the designers were saying "We're giving you the tools to build a world." In 4e, as in 1e and 2e, the designers seem to be saying, "We're giving you the tools to stage a fight scene."

If you want to play Amber or Nobilis, play Amber or Nobilis.

So you created something to cover the fact that the rules constrained what you wanted to do with a creature's power. The artifact is a plot device.

How is that any different than a DM creating something to cover something the rules are silent about or is covered by fluff (evocacriptions). The creating in this case is still a plot device.

One case is because the rules run counter to what you want. The other is because it doesn't require rules (combat rules). I'd rather have an open ended system than one that restricts me and I have to find ways to "break the rules"

 

[Mort]

If you don't like something, that's fine, but why put deliberately blatantly false statements out there? Even from the little we've seen, the 4e designers have put more thought into out of combat concepts than core 3e.

Two obvious examples:

1) rituals - the separating of magic as it seems so far is a clear nod that not only combat matters - Keith Baker has stated magewright's in ebberron actually have an elegant mechanic to use as opposed to the tacked on 3e feel (heavily paraphrased but the point is valid

2) The skill resolution mechanic - even the small amount presented (as in escape from Sembia) shows very clear thought toward out of combat skill resolution. Yes, you could do something similar with 3e - but here it seems it will be codified in the rules.

Not to mention the heavily touted (but not yet seen) social mechanic.

All in all your post just rings completely false.

I think the designers said "No one cares about anything but combat...lets not give them anything else."

I have the exact opposite thought on the combat-only, "monsters live for 5 rounds" attitude. I think it's a giant step backwards in game design. Not only does it turn everything into DM fiat and encourage railroading plots, but it makes sharing content much more difficult, as everyone will have different ideas about how things "work" outside of combat. It's one thing to say "This book deviates from the RAW as follows..."; it's another to have no rules at all.

For a quick example -- in my D20M campaign, I wanted to have an aboleth lurking in a sunken freighter offshore, controlling his minions in San Francisco to steal valuable pages from a magic tome. The problem -- as written, the aboleth didn't have the range I needed him to have for the plot. The solution -- he had an artifact which greatly enhanced his control range. Having hard rules for a creature's non-comabt powers does not constrain a creative DM (especially in a game like D&D), but it does provide a very helpful baseline from which to work.

3e was the first version of D&D where I felt the designers were saying "We're giving you the tools to build a world." In 4e, as in 1e and 2e, the designers seem to be saying, "We're giving you the tools to stage a fight scene."

If you want to play Amber or Nobilis, play Amber or Nobilis.

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

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.

well actually is one of the thing the I most want back from 1st ed

the problem of 1st ed were others (a mess of system barely connected IMO)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think the designers said "No one cares about anything but combat...lets not give them anything else."

The designers said more like "Outside of combat, people do all kinds of crazy stuff. It's impossible to put all this into rules. Let's not do it, then."

I have the exact opposite thought on the combat-only, "monsters live for 5 rounds" attitude. I think it's a giant step backwards in game design. Not only does it turn everything into DM fiat and encourage railroading plots, but it makes sharing content much more difficult, as everyone will have different ideas about how things "work" outside of combat. It's one thing to say "This book deviates from the RAW as follows..."; it's another to have no rules at all.

For a quick example -- in my D20M campaign, I wanted to have an aboleth lurking in a sunken freighter offshore, controlling his minions in San Francisco to steal valuable pages from a magic tome. The problem -- as written, the aboleth didn't have the range I needed him to have for the plot. The solution -- he had an artifact which greatly enhanced his control range. Having hard rules for a creature's non-comabt powers does not constrain a creative DM (especially in a game like D&D), but it does provide a very helpful baseline from which to work.

You know, the only part that benefitted from the rules here is the fact that the rules seemed to suggest that Aboleth could have Minions they control. But since their abilities for this did not suit your needs, you had to change it anyway.
The same could have been done without any predefined rules. Just an entry in the fluff. "Aboleth typically use telepathically controlled minions to do their work".

That is actually what was true for the 3E Mind Flayer. But there, it was pretty annoying to have such a line, since most monsters explicitly had all their non-combat stuff in their long list of spell-like and supernatural abilities.
But in 4E, we just need to unlearn that everything in fluff must also be represented in crunch. As long as something does not directly influence the interaction with the PCs, leave it out of the stat block and leave it to the flavor text.
You do not need the rules to explain the interaction between NPCs. It will not hurt the playability of the game, and (see also your own example) the DM is free to change this stuff anyway. Only when things begin to affect players you have to use rules, otherwise you can't "play" the game, and you sure as hell can't do it in a fair and balanced way.

 

[Cadfan]

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.

While I would normally agree with this post, and while I generally agree with the ideas in the post, I disagree strongly with the application of those ideas to this specific debate.

The exact nature of how a succubus is using her wiles and her powers to manipulate powerful men doesn't belong in the succubus entry. It belongs in the adventure module. And if you haven't got an adventure module, then its your job as the DM to work it out. This is plot device territory, or maybe monster tactics territory, but not monster rules territory.

Demanding to know exactly how a succubus is using her powers and wiles to control a powerful man is like demanding to know the exact process by which a necromancer is questing for ultimate power. The rules shouldn't spell it out because it should be different each time. The rules can point you in the right direction (the succubus is using some form of seduction, the necromancer's efforts probably involve the undead) but beyond that its yourp problem.

 

[Zweischneid]

The exact nature of how a succubus is using her wiles and her powers to manipulate powerful men doesn't belong in the succubus entry. It belongs in the adventure module. And if you haven't got an adventure module, then its your job as the DM to work it out. This is plot device territory, not monster rules territory.

To me, this seems to be a rather arbitrary call for what is "the DM's job" and what should be in the books (aside the fact that both should do the same, as the books serve to help the DM do his job).

One could easily conceive the opposite approach where the succubus entry describes the exact nature of how a succubus is using her wiles and her powers to manipulate powerful men, whereas in the adventure module, stats and mechanics are provided to simulate this general concept in a specific scene/adventure geared towards a specific level of players. And if you haven't got an adventure module, than its your job as the DM to work out the mechanics such as hitpoints, attacks or charm powers to go with the concept.

After all, it takes less than a fraction of a second for me to rule that a creature has X hp and Y AC.. putting that in a book largely is a waste of paper. It takes far longer to build interesting plot hooks.

There is no territory other than plot device territory in gaming, because monster rules only make sense for monster which in turn make only sense as obstacles for players which in turn only make sense if players have reason to confront those obstacles.

 

[MerricB]

There is no territory other than plot device territory in gaming, because monster rules only make sense for monster which in turn make only sense as obstacles for players which in turn only make sense if players have reason to confront those obstacles.

Indeed... and the primary confrontation with a monster is in combat. Thus, the succubus (to use an example) has charm/dominate powers that manifest in combat.

However, when the succubus seduces the king... no PCs in sight. You don't need rules for that; you need a concept. I hope 4e has such suggestions, but - let's face it - we also have a vast array of fantasy literature and mythology to also give us inspiration.

The aspect which 4e really leaves out is how to unseduce the king. That's not the right verb, but you know what I mean. The trouble with giving rules for this is that we've actually moved into adventure territory. It's a once-off. Most people won't be playing adventures where the goal is "free the king from the succubus" more than once. (Conversely, fighting succubi may well happen more than once). Three possible resolutions:

* Find the magical artefact to break the domination. (The Mirror of Pelor gambit).
* Convince the king by words to break the domination. (The Gandalf/Theoden gambit).
* Kill the succubus. (The Barbarian gambit)

Now, all editions of D&D support the first and third options, although the levels of adventure building advice vary, but it has been implied very strongly that 4e is the first edition to really have superior interaction rules and ways of overcoming encounters apart from combat.

I like having rules for things. I really do. However, there are times when providing strict rules for everything really gets in the way of creativity, storytelling and fun. Polymorph and Wish are two areas that really suffer in 3e as a result. Polymorph because unintended interactions break it, and Wish because legislating to make sure it isn't broken takes all the mythological resonance away from the spell. (I can use Wish to cast any 7th level spell I like? What a waste!)

There are times when you have to say, "This is not something we can do properly. We must leave it in the hands of the DM and the players". That's the approach to 4e Wish. Let's make it a plot device, so that when it does turn up - and it's not as a learnable spell, AFAIK - it is significant. Alas, Polymorph doesn't admit to the same treatment, as it's something that is heavily used by players, so "nerfing" is necessary... although hopefully it'll still be cool when it appears.

Cheers!

 

[Rex Blunder]

Somewhere in the thread people got the idea that "4e has no fluff". This is clearly false. 4e has a story team that is building tons of fluff - more than ever before since 1e, I bet. (Some people like this new fluff and some do not, but that's another issue.)

The main issue is "4e has no out-of-combat crunch".

My guess is that there is more of this than we are assuming, and both the "4e will allow us to make up our own. finally!" and "why am i paying for incomplete rules" people are jumping to conclusions. I think there will be less than 3e, but more than the "0" that we all seem to have agreed on in this thread.

Since this thread is mostly about monsters, I'll mention the points that occurred to me about them in the context of out-of-combat crunch:

1) We really haven't seen many full monster entries, so we don't know what is in them: most of our monster entries are from Scalegloom Hall and minis cards, which are just the stat blocks. There have been a few monsters released on the WOTC site, which may or not be the full monster entry, or may be edited to hide things they haven't announced yet.

2) The aboleth: I think Mustrum Ridcully is dead on: a "fluff" line about the aboleth's ability to control minions would have been just as useful as minion-controlling crunch that Lizard had to rewrite.

3) The lich: I don't remember there being instructions on how to create a phylactery on 3.5 either. I thought it was some unspecified "horrible ritual" or something. EDIT: I must be thinking of earlier editions. The monster manual does tell the required feats, XP cost, and GP cost of making a phylactery. I guess I'm arguing from my conclusion here, but that seems ridiculous. Really, there have to be core rules for when a player wants to become a lich? Has anyone ever used these rules?

4) The succubus: The first thing that springs to mind is, "Does the succubus REALLY need more out-of-combat controlling abilities?" The succubus can take on the form of a super-beautiful, sexually available woman. She needs what else to get the king's attention?

If she is given some way to cast some Charm on the king, unbreakable without the mirror of Pelor, what's the point of her being super hot? She can look like the girl next door. She can look like an ugly old man, and there's no need to get sex involved at all. The point of succubi is they are supposed to be sexually tempting, not that they can cast a spell on you and control your actions.

I'm fine with her being able to use her devilish feminine wiles to control the king, with an occasional Dominate for key six-second periods: "No, honey, I will not sign this bill to raise taxes, not even for you ... uh... i guess I will after all. Hmm. I thought I didn't want to do that, but... ok, kissy time it is!"

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

Fluff vs. crunch is a side issue. The issue is content. When I pay money, I want work already done for me. I can make up my own rules, or my own campaign background, or my own adventures, for free.

I'm not trying to be obtuse here -- but if you can make up your own rules, campaign background, and adventures, what is there left for you to buy?

I agree on the last two, but it's the rules that are the real pain in the neck to make. However, if you're able to make them up for free, then what does any edition of any RPG have to offer you?