Revisionist game publishing

[pawsplay]

Intentionally obtuse?
Something about being a PC != evil
makes it very likely a Kobold PC would be extremely different
religiously don't you think....

I was under the impression that in 4e, being an Unaligned worshipper of an evil deity was no problem.

 

[FireLance]

How does that logically conclude with PC kobolds, or even just NPC kobold characters, being unable to see in kobold communities?

Let's talk principles, instead of continously harping on the usual examples.

The PC/monster divide is more an issue for the "game" part of D&D. While the specifics may vary from campaign to campaign, some abilities which are okay for monsters are considered to be not okay for PCs. This is not something new to 4E. Even in 3E, some monsters were not given an official level adjustment, and those which had a positive level adjustment could not be played from 1st level without mechanical changes that effectively made them weaker versions of the base race (at least, until the PC gained enough levels to "catch up"). In even earlier editions of D&D, it was suggested that players who wished to play monsters would have to make do with lesser versions: for example, players who wanted a giant or ogre character would have to play one who was smaller and weaker than typical for its kind.

Because of this, "monster" PCs tend to turn the "PCs are exceptional" dial up to 11. If racial ability X is too good for a PC (or a PC of level below Y) to have, than a PC will almost by definition have a weaker version of racial ability X (or, where this is level-dependent, until he reaches level Y). Now, how the DM and players choose to flavor this to make it reasonable and plausible in-game is another matter entirely. Making the PC a typical member of an alternate race/sub-race/crossbred race is one way of doing this, but it adds yet another shade of color to the already fairly crowded racial palette of D&D. Hence, many DMs and players simply make the PC a member of his race, but with special characteristics (those which make him suitable as a PC) which are different from a typical member of his race.

Actually, now that I've typed this all out, I wonder what the fuss is about.

 

[Garthanos]

I was under the impression that in 4e, being an Unaligned worshipper of an evil deity was no problem.

You can be.... but are you most likely to be? The most likely storyline for a PC kobold will be both isolated from and rejected by and rejecting the culture of evil of their birth... it is entirely reasonable that Kobold darkvision is a mystical phenomena and something gained and supported by their community resources and culture, lifestyle and religion. Maybe all in combination... the magic initiated by a religious leader and requiring ongoing time in the dark and maintenance by acts of evil. We hide from the sun and do human sacrefices each new moon to maintain our connection to the dark goddess and she blesses us ... care to join in?

And generically speaking it is entirely plausible for a PC to be dramatically different than other members of their race... especially if that race has a dramatically non-heroic nature and a dramatically different life style.

And in magical universes...an internal/psychological transformation... very reasonably may have an impact on the physiology of the individual. (its a primary law of magic)

 

[ExploderWizard]

It boils down to this is a different game. It also boils down to the same fact that monsters/npcs are built differently than PCs.

That concept has never been a problem. A monster is a monster. It does not need class/levels or anything like that.

History is riddled with species that have examples of being special, and not forming another species entirely.

I could really care less about the "real" scientific examples of such things. Logic and consistency within the game world is the goal. We have owlbears created by an insane wizard's experiment and thats good enough of an explanation for me.

Are you saying that by having 1 PC (or even a handfull of them) kobold in the world that is different is somehow unbelieveable? I think the opposite.

A PC anything can be different from the norm for its kind. Heck, even NPC monsters can be different from the norm sometimes. The problem issue arises from a claim that all PC versions of a given race have to be different simply by virtue of being a PC. "Being a PC" has no meaning as far as the fictional environment is concerned.

So differences in individuals is not unbelieveable at all. Differences in individuals simply for the sake of metagame claptrap isn't unbelieveable either its just stupid.

Maybe having darkvision is one of the reasons WHY they are not with the other Kobolds. It doesn't matter. Or it just could be an oversight or mistake in the original entry that is not fixed. Is a kobold with a 20 or 22 strength a problem? it is outside their racial abilities after all.

The fact is that there are not PCs walking around in the default assumption of the game. PC Kobolds, Minotaurs, or whatever non default race you would like are even a lot less.

The monster as a PC should be rather rare. There might be disadvantages to playing one that outweigh the benefits. The DM and the player should think about the effect of playing one and how the campaign will change because of it. Once all that gets worked out to the satisfaction of both parties then a monster PC is born. Playing a monster should be substantially different than just playing another PC race. If the choice of playing a kobold were essentially the same as playing a halfling then just play a halfling and wear a kobold mask, the end result is pretty much the same so the choice is really meaningless.

If you want to change the default assumptions, feel free. It is, after all, a Role Palying Game, and one of the staples is that your game is different than mine, on some kind of scale.

I do. Which leads us to........

Now the Character Builder, to me is a fail by having 2 Minotaur races that PCs can take. The one from the MM should be replaced in favor of the other one. In fact, I like that things get updated on a regular basis with the application. That way, we can apply the fixes evenly.

The problems with this I have posted earlier upthread. I would like to change the default assumptions. In order to make the game my own I have to abandon the software tools (until more customization is possible).
Once that is done, all the convenience of prepping for play has been lost and there is no good reason to keep using such a rules heavy set.

 

[FireLance]

The problem issue arises from a claim that all PC versions of a given race have to be different simply by virtue of being a PC. "Being a PC" has no meaning as far as the fictional environment is concerned.

As mentioned in my post above, this is a game consideration. Within the fictional environment of the game, it is also more plausible for the direction of cause and effect to be reversed: the monsters aren't exceptional because they are PCs; they may be used as PCs because they are exceptional. This can mean better than the norm (in the case of most of the PH races) or weaker than the norm (in the case of the "monster" races).

EDIT: Incidentally, within the fictional evironment of the game, there is no "PC version of a race" since, as you have pointed out, "being a PC" has no meaning. There is simply a member of a monster race with characteristics which are (presumably) weaker than most of the rest of his kind. Whether the individual is unique or the defect is fairly common is something that can vary from campaign to campaign.

 

[catsclaw227]

Now the Character Builder, to me is a fail by having 2 Minotaur races that PCs can take. The one from the MM should be replaced in favor of the other one. In fact, I like that things get updated on a regular basis with the application. That way, we can apply the fixes evenly.

The problems with this I have posted earlier upthread. I would like to change the default assumptions. In order to make the game my own I have to abandon the software tools (until more customization is possible).
Once that is done, all the convenience of prepping for play has been lost and there is no good reason to keep using such a rules heavy set.

I don't understand. If some of your players like the CB and find the existing options perfectly acceptable for making PCs why would you need to abandon 4e just because you can't fully customize the CB? If you are having the problem because of a particular PC that can't be created, then do that one PC by hand and be done with it. People have been making PCs that way for years.

As stated, you can customize the CB a bit. For example, if you want a human to have darkvision, just add it as a custom racial feat in CB and then add it to the human. There's no known mechanical modification necessary, so just add it and you are good to go.

And as a DM, I rarely use CB for prep, and the other DDI tools are extremely helpful, so I don't know why the CB's limitation in customization would make you want to quit 4e? In my experience, the convenience of prepping for play hasn't been lost at all.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As mentioned in my post above, this is a game consideration. Within the fictional environment of the game, it is also more plausible for the direction of cause and effect to be reversed: the monsters aren't exceptional because they are PCs; they may be used as PCs because they are exceptional. This can mean better than the norm (in the case of most of the PH races) or weaker than the norm (in the case of the "monster" races).

EDIT: Incidentally, within the fictional evironment of the game, there is no "PC version of a race" since, as you have pointed out, "being a PC" has no meaning. There is simply a member of a monster race with characteristics which are (presumably) weaker than most of the rest of his kind. Whether the individual is unique or the defect is fairly common is something that can vary from campaign to campaign.

So a player who is actually interested in playing a monster as an adventurer can just take a hike because the system will have a fatal exception error?

If its about the cosmetic qualities then a costume or simple disguise ritual works fine. The assumptions that the PC will have to be the same level as everyone else, playing a regular class, and no "better" or "worse" than any other PC are just that -assumptions.

 

[FireLance]

So a player who is actually interested in playing a monster as an adventurer can just take a hike because the system will have a fatal exception error?

If its about the cosmetic qualities then a costume or simple disguise ritual works fine. The assumptions that the PC will have to be the same level as everyone else, playing a regular class, and no "better" or "worse" than any other PC are just that -assumptions.

And I think we have finally hit on the key reason why our views diverge. I am okay with PC versions and monster versions of the same type of creature because balancing the PCs is of primary importance to me (and, I would assume, to the designers of 4E as well). Within this framework, I will of course try to ensure that there is a plausible reason for the difference within the fictional environment of the game.

However, if it is not of primary importance that the PCs are balanced with each other, then of course there would be no need for PC and monster versions of the same type of creature.

 

[pawsplay]

You can be.... but are you most likely to be? The most likely storyline for a PC kobold will be both isolated from and rejected by and rejecting the culture of evil of their birth...

Why? Most PCs are highly skilled and capable, suggesting they have been a well-integrated member of society. I find your suggestion highly improbable.

 

[pawsplay]

Hence, many DMs and players simply make the PC a member of his race, but with special characteristics (those which make him suitable as a PC) which are different from a typical member of his race.

If PCs of a certain race all possess or lack a certain characteristic, it is not a special characteristic. It is the common characteristic of the sub-population of a race from which the PCs derive. For instance, if a PC kobold lacks darkvision because he was cursed by a deity, and that is the standard for PC kobolds, then the game framework suggests kobolds are, if not frequently, then not infrequently cursed to lack darkvision by the gods. The PC version of a race should be "plug and play;" it should not only provide the balanced, PC version of the race, but the necessary background for incorporating them into a game.

Imagine, for instance, I designed a writeup for Bugs Bunnyans to appear in D&D. Bugs Bunnyans are anthropomorphic rabbit-like humanoids who can instantly disguise themselves, move with sudden bursts of speed, and have exceptional Charisma. They eat carrots and sing pop favorites. Imagine I do a pretty good job of balancing their special ablities, and the race appears in Dragon magazine. Yet the race is probably not suitable for most D&D games, whether as a PC or NPC, for reasons that have nothing to do with balance. The basic problem is that the backstory is problematic. Most D&D campaigns do not have animated cartoons as a player character race. So either I can exclude the race from my game, or I can adjust the backstory so that Bugs Bunnyans fit into the gameworld. By the time I have decided Bugs Bunnyans are not cartoon characters, were created by wizardry, are called Lagamorfs, and have a distant relation to Changelings... they are not Bugs Bunnyans any more. Whatever concept spawned their creation in the first place has (perhaps fortunately for us all) perished.

Nerfed PC kobolds present the same problem. As written, they do not belong in the game setting. There may be one kobold lacking darkvision, there may be several. However, writing up kobolds, publishing them sans darkvision, and saying, "Look, here is your kobold," is not a workable PC race because we don't know WHY they lack darkvision. Reasons can be manufactured by the GM and players, but the PC version of kobolds should explain why they are a viable PC option in the first place. There must be some darkblind kobold phenomenon of which they are a part. For most campaign settings, this is going to involve altering the setting to some degree. Perhaps kobolds commonly (90%+) qualify for darkvision but PCs must take a feat, perhaps being underground does it, perhaps there are "surface kobolds," but any of those suggestions involves, for any campaign that has already featured kobolds in any numbers, probably making some alterations.

Imagine there is a kobold city... is there a "dayblind kobold" section? Do dayblind kobolds carry lanterns and tin cups about? Do dayblind kobolds pay a tax for burning oxygen with their light sources? Are they a scorned ethnic minority? At least one of these things, or some other arrangement, would have to be true... and we have no idea, based on any published campaign guide, which of them is likely true. You might as well call them PC_Race001 as "kobold" because we don't know how they fit in as kobolds, much less the wider world.