Monsters are more than their stats

[Wiman]

I personally want more monsters in the monster manual for my money (multiple varients of the same monster arguement aside because it dosn't belong in this thread), anyone who states that they want all the "fluff" content on how combat abilities work out of combat and also say they want their money's worth is in my mind not looking at this from the correct point of view. To allow the fluff content (which may or may not be in the MM) enough room to spell out exact rules on a charming kiss or a vampires ability to punt out minions like bunnies mating (interesting and useful enough) means they would have to have equivalent fluff on explaining a goblin's mating rate, or why hobgoblin warcasters have a link with electricity spells....not that interesting or useful to me personally but still someone out there might want to know and might drag out the "for my money's arguement". I'm happy with more monsters especially in the first installment of the monster manual for fourth edition, for my money if I wanted exact specification on a group of monsters that would be extra as it is my interest (not every gamers) to look at the equivalent of a slayers guide to <insert monster> 4th edition.

To be fair it dosn't hurt to have more information concerning abiltities, but required to make a game fun or easy to run.....any DM who says they don't have time to make up a little fluff in 4th edition, well I guess they didn't have time to make up the creatures and encounters in 3rd either....maybe it's time to give a player of yours who does have time a swing at the DM position.

 

[Mort]

If you want a game where the DM has not even a baseline rule for things and everything works as he wants it to work for a given plot and doesn't need to work the same way before or after, play a diceless game.

If you want a game where part of the fun/challenge of DMing is working within the rules -- if you feel, as I do, that the greatest obstacle to creativity is the *lack* of boundaries -- then play D&D/GURPS/Hero/BESM/Other 'traditional' games.

Various playtesters and other WoTC people have stated that there is a baseline off of which mechanics are based and that the DMG provides lots of guidelines on how to adapt that baseline in many situations. It may be a good idea to actually look at the rules before calling them all liars.

To expand on what I've said:
"Succubus can control people", with nothing more, gives me nothing to work with. No ideas, no plots, no gimmicks, no hooks. It's *boring*.

It's overbroad not boring - boring is giving 1 and only 1 way for something to work. Again I'm willing to at least look at the rules before panning the game re: a mechanic we have yet to be shown

"Succubi can control one person absolutely, provided they speak to that person alone for at least five minutes a day"...now, THERE'S a plot hook. By giving a baseline, and knowing that baseline is the 'standard' for the world, I can do a lot with it. I can use it as written. I can decide that this particular succubi has used a ritual so that she only needs to talk with her slave one day a week, and so when the PCs cunningly plot to keep her away from the king and the king still doesn't get better, they decide she's not a succubus ater all. I can create weaker or stronger succubi. I can create a succubi who can control Cha bonus thralls. Perhaps most importantly, if I want to use someone else's content, I can be sure they're working from the same assumptions, and if they change them, they call them out clearly and explain why they were changed and what benefit is gained.

Again giving only one way for something to work also has many problems.

But a raw statement of general ability gives me nothing. Nada. Bupkis. I might as well just make my own monster from scratch. It turns all "control people" monsters into the same things. Succubi control people. Mind flayers control people. Aboleths control people. Vampire Lords control people. What allows you to create different plots from these creatures is differences in how they do it -- how many people? How long? How is the control maintained? How total is the control? If each one is distinct, each one breeds different stories. And, yes, I can make all of it up myself

I disagree - the raw general statement "X controls things through charm" explains the shtick the rest are just details that can be filled in at need (and I'm at least willing to see how if/how they fill in the details before complaining about it).

-- but then what am I spending 75 bucks for? Pretty pictures?

As noted earlier, you seem to be willfully ignoring the statements of several people "in the know," specifically about non-combat support etc. It's one thing to say "X sucks"; it's another entirely to say "X sucks," have someone respond "we've addressed X better in this edition but haven't shown it yet" and then keep saying "X sucks." Why keep complaining until you can actually judge (It's usually more persuasive to say "I've tried X and it sucks," than "I've never tried X but know it will suck.")

 

[bramadan]

I have never understood the obsession the DnD players (and until recently designers) had with covering every possible human affair with rather heavy handed game mechanics.
In our own world plenty of powerful men were thoroughly controlled by seductive women who did not have any "mechanical" - meaning pseudo-magical - way to affect that control.

Even if mechanically stat-block represents all the "extraordinary" things succubus can do she is still - by her very nature as succubus - seductress extraordinaire.

King has saved her from her abusive uncle single-handedly, forgetting for a moment he is a king and brawling like a school-boy when he saw the old man whipping the pretty lass.
She has this amazing combination of innocence and desire, amazing body that she seems vaguely self-conscious about. For an experienced man such as king it is impossible not to notice the physical reaction his very presence has on her, covered with just a touch of embarrassment. King, noble man that he is, would have never dreamed of imposing himself on her but it was obvious how young lass was whittling away without his presence and how every little touch, smile and compliment from him would make her beam. He has installed her therefore as the Queen's lady in waiting making it easy for him to spend time with her - completely innocently of course.

Furthermore, she is always willing to listen to his plans and ideas, particularly to the ones that the council (timid old man that they are) always advises against. Young lass *understands* him - she even inspires him to come up with ever greater plans, making him not only a better man but a better ruler as well.

In the issues of sex, she is obviously dying to offer herself to the king but only her modesty and respect for the Queen are holding her back. Queen is old and frigid though and King understands that it is his duty to initiate young lady into the joys of bedroom. Maybe not this month, but very soon time will come when she will melt under his touch and he will get to explore that amazing body so far semi-hidden under beautiful, tasteful garments she is always wearing. In his boring everyday life it is this sort of thinking that keeps the King awake at night and gives him something to look forward to.

Now some band of stinky mercenaries claims that this apple of his eye is a Demon. Into the dungeon with them !

Not how above is accomplished without a single magical effect and yet would be *hellishly* hard spell to break. As long as she is playing her cards right kings little lover-to-be can hold the moral high ground while influencing the king and remaining effectively untouchable by anyone.

I can write any number of different scenarios whereby a "perfect" woman would have king entirely under her control without him ever realizing it, yet more where he would realize that she is in control and relish it, and additional dollop where he sees her in control but feels powerless to stop it and afraid/embarased to ask for help. All of that with her having absolutely no means of magical mind control.

 

[Mort]

I have never understood the obsession the DnD players (and until recently designers) had with covering every possible human affair with rather heavy handed game mechanics.
In our own world plenty of powerful men were thoroughly controlled by seductive women who did not have any "mechanical" - meaning pseudo-magical - way to affect that control.

Even if mechanically stat-block represents all the "extraordinary" things succubus can do she is still - by her very nature as succubus - seductress extraordinaire.

King has saved her from her abusive uncle single-handedly, forgetting for a moment he is a king and brawling like a school-boy when he saw the old man whipping the pretty lass.
She has this amazing combination of innocence and desire, amazing body that she seems vaguely self-conscious about. For an experienced man such as king it is impossible not to notice the physical reaction his very presence has on her, covered with just a touch of embarrassment. King, noble man that he is, would have never dreamed of imposing himself on her but it was obvious how young lass was whittling away without his presence and how every little touch, smile and compliment from him would make her beam. He has installed her therefore as the Queen's lady in waiting making it easy for him to spend time with her - completely innocently of course.

Furthermore, she is always willing to listen to his plans and ideas, particularly to the ones that the council (timid old man that they are) always advises against. Young lass *understands* him - she even inspires him to come up with ever greater plans, making him not only a better man but a better ruler as well.

In the issues of sex, she is obviously dying to offer herself to the king but only her modesty and respect for the Queen are holding her back. Queen is old and frigid though and King understands that it is his duty to initiate young lady into the joys of bedroom. Maybe not this month, but very soon time will come when she will melt under his touch and he will get to explore that amazing body so far semi-hidden under beautiful, tasteful garments she is always wearing. In his boring everyday life it is this sort of thinking that keeps the King awake at night and gives him something to look forward to.

Now some band of stinky mercenaries claims that this apple of his eye is a Demon. Into the dungeon with them !

Not how above is accomplished without a single magical effect and yet would be *hellishly* hard spell to break. As long as she is playing her cards right kings little lover-to-be can hold the moral high ground while influencing the king and remaining effectively untouchable by anyone.

I can write any number of different scenarios whereby a "perfect" woman would have king entirely under her control without him ever realizing it, yet more where he would realize that she is in control and relish it, and additional dollop where he sees her in control but feels powerless to stop it and afraid/embarased to ask for help. All of that with her having absolutely no means of magical mind control.

FYI the above is the exact plotline of the Tudors, on how it could have happened in the time of Henry VIII.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Various playtesters and other WoTC people have states that there is a baseline off of which mechanics are based and that the DMG provides lots of guidelines on how to adapt that baseline in many situations. It may be a good idea to actually look at the rules before calling them all liars.

I'm guessing the DMG will be a good source of fluff. The Monster Manual will be the "go to place" for combat encounters. The monsters are statted to have a short life span, unlike the players. Their abilities are made to reflect that they'll rarely have more than one fight, so they don't have daily powers, or tons of healing surges, etc.

The day to day rituals of a monster are only necessary when they suddenly become not just an NPC ... but a RECURRING NPC. A recurring NPC is capable of much more than the average monster, if only because it gets to exist outside of combat for more than a few moments.

I would guess that the DMG would have a nice section on using monsters as NPCs [there are really three types of characters in the game, PCs, Monsters and NPCs, one has a mixture of abilities, one has combat abilities, and the other has non-combat abilities] and perhaps has appropriate rules for doing so. As we've seen from the templates, it's not possibe to easily take a monster and turn it into a PC, and adding class levels onto a monster is apparently different than just adding class levels to a normal character. Converting a monster to a functional out of combat NPC is either a section in the Monster Manual, or in the DMG ... to have to wedge that into the monster stat blot would require a lot of extra space, especially if it is redundant. Not to mention, while you'll want to have some monster NPCs ... 90% of the time, you are cracking open the monster manual to determine who gets to die at the hands of the PCs today, not who is going to be the central plot hook of the next adventure.

 

[sorites]

I think what's being discussed here is the difference between a Monster and an NPC. I seem to remember Mearls talking somewhere about how Monster powers are designed to be used by monsters, not PCs. And feats are designed for PCs, not monsters. In other words, design informs function.

I am betting that the Monster Manual will give rules for using monsters in combat. There won't be a lot (or maybe any) discussion of out-of-combat powers. If a monster, like the gnome, can be used as a playable race, there will be separate rules for that. You won't convert or adapt the monster gnome to a playable gnome.

Similarly, an NPC succubus will be different from a monster succubus. As others have said, I'm betting the DMG will have more information on how to use monsters as NPCs. Curiously, though, I'm thinking that here, the rules will be more about adapting a monster to an NPC, rather than having a separate NPC version of the monster like they would have for a PC version of the monster.

As for those worried that D&D will have an underlying philosophy of "make stuff up," I don't think that could be further from the truth. I'll be highly surprised if the DM is given an overabundance of handwaving, Rule 0 control. Though I would like to see some of that in 4e; I sometimes got tired of 3.5's "rules carpet bomb" (nice phrase) as someone else in this thread put it.

 

[Zweischneid]

If you want a game where the DM has not even a baseline rule for things and everything works as he wants it to work for a given plot and doesn't need to work the same way before or after, play a diceless game.

If you want a game where part of the fun/challenge of DMing is working within the rules -- if you feel, as I do, that the greatest obstacle to creativity is the *lack* of boundaries -- then play D&D/GURPS/Hero/BESM/Other 'traditional' games.

Um, diceless games are certainly not rule-less games, quite the opposite I fear. What's the hate? A 'rule' is certainly not more or less viable whether it includes number and mathematical equations or not. Infact, I'd argue that dice-based games allow a much wider margin of DM-fiat, as he could (secretly behind his screen if this is frowned upon in the group) interpret results within the margin of dice.. with diceless, that option is closed.

Hate to bring up the ol' chess, but just because it's diceless, doesn't mean there no rules.. the same would applies to Amber or Nobilis.

 

[pawsplay]

Now some band of stinky mercenaries claims that this apple of his eye is a Demon.


Shows what they know.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Now some band of stinky mercenaries claims that this apple of his eye is a Demon.


Shows what they know.

I could actually imagine that happening and whatever Devil is being called a Demon becoming incredibly flustered and angry... Hmm, viable strategy to out succubus?

 

[DandD]

Not necessarily much more than calling a Succubus a witch or an evil nymph. There is no Blood-War-relationship anymore between Demons and Devils, after all.