The Call of the World Builder

[med stud]

I guess it comes down to the fact that there's no 'wrong' way to use a creature. If you're not familiar with the creature in question, you can use it any way you want, even if it's not in line with what it's supposed to be. My comment wasn't really a complaint or a indication of limitation, just something I though might affect newbie players. It's daunting enough to wade through 100s of pages of material, so it might be daunting for some to use monsters in an 'out-of-combat' sense when you have only the little bit of fluff to go on. Then again, in the WoW age, maybe not!

Pinotage

I don't think WoW has anything to do with it. I imagine that hack-and-slash roleplaying will play a smaller role these days than it did before since I think CRPGs are better for that than PnP-games. I also think people will search PnPs out because they want something more than hack-and-slash. They identify with their night elf hunter, but there is only so much they can do with it within the confines of WoW. Then they see the possibilities in a game where the DM plays the part of the AI, providing a story line tailored for Your character and enemies that behave like thinking creatures instead of the computerized versions.

That was an aside, really. When it comes to new DMs, I think they will do what new DMs did before the age of detailed ecologies for creatures; they will be inspired by the entry and come up with something. I don't see that as particularily daunting.

A theory of mine, which I'm not certain of, is that it is more daunting to have tons of information on a creature provided in a MM-entry. It leaves little room for your own creativity and it's much to read and learn.

 

[Hussar]

To be completely honest, these entries that we've seen for the monsters look an awful lot like what you see in the old Basic/Expert rules. I just happened to be looking at my old books recently, and I was struck at how similar the entries look.

 

[Lacyon]

A theory of mine, which I'm not certain of, is that it is more daunting to have tons of information on a creature provided in a MM-entry. It leaves little room for your own creativity and it's much to read and learn.

The main problem isn't so much that you have to read and learn it (you don't really) - the problem is that if you don't read it and learn it (or you do read it and decide to change it), then a player or observer who read that material will experience a jarring disconnect with your descriptions of what's until they realize that you changed something.

If the fluff text is fairly slim and generic, this becomes less of a problem.

 

[Pinotage]

I don't think WoW has anything to do with it.

Not sure if you misunderstood me. What I was saying was that in a WoW world, people are generally more familiar with fantasy than they were, say 20 years ago. Meaning that what they see in D&D might be something that they've encountered elsewhere. To people familiar with fantasy through video games, D&D is not that strange. It implies that despite the lack of mechanics for fluff, the newbies will do better with the new creature simply because they're familiar with fantasy tropes.

When it comes to new DMs, I think they will do what new DMs did before the age of detailed ecologies for creatures; they will be inspired by the entry and come up with something. I don't see that as particularily daunting.

I think you're giving the average 13 year old too much credit. Let's face it, those are a large part of the target audience for new gamers. Daunting might not be the right word, but it's not something the average teenager might be able to pull off easily. When I was teenage DM I can tell you my adventures sucked. If I'd had a little more to go on, I think they'd have been better. Sometimes I think more is worth it.

Pinotage

 

[Lacyon]

Not sure if you misunderstood me. What I was saying was that in a WoW world, people are generally more familiar with fantasy than they were, say 20 years ago. Meaning that what they see in D&D might be something that they've encountered elsewhere. To people familiar with fantasy through video games, D&D is not that strange. It implies that despite the lack of mechanics for fluff, the newbies will do better with the new creature simply because they're familiar with fantasy tropes.

Absolutely. It's not just WoW - there's been a big upswing in the popularity of fantasy recently.

I think you're giving the average 13 year old too much credit. Let's face it, those are a large part of the target audience for new gamers. Daunting might not be the right word, but it's not something the average teenager might be able to pull off easily. When I was teenage DM I can tell you my adventures sucked. If I'd had a little more to go on, I think they'd have been better. Sometimes I think more is worth it.

You're definitely giving a lot of 13 year old gamers too little credit.

My adventures (and the adventures of my peers) at that age sucked too, but only in comparison with things I've seen and done since. The cause had very little to do with how much or how little background material we had to go on - we could always fill in the blanks with info from novels or games or movies, and that's if we weren't just making it up. Inexperience and some less-than-stellar DMing advice had a lot more to do with the sucking in my case.

It didn't matter much that they "sucked" though. Killing monsters is fun, and pretending to be elves is fun. We had plenty of time back then to keep trying until we got it right. We had a blast.

My wife's 11-year-old sister is going to be picking up 4th edition this year, and she'll have another resource that I rarely had access to growing up - older gamers. She'll almost certainly look back on her early adventures as "silly" or maybe even "sucky" no matter how much help we give her - it's a function of being 11 that silly things are fun.

 

[Cadfan]

My adventures at age 13 sucked too, but not because the game didn't tell me what DC to roll against to seduce an NPC. Right diagnosis, wrong prescription.

 

[med stud]

Not sure if you misunderstood me. What I was saying was that in a WoW world, people are generally more familiar with fantasy than they were, say 20 years ago. Meaning that what they see in D&D might be something that they've encountered elsewhere. To people familiar with fantasy through video games, D&D is not that strange. It implies that despite the lack of mechanics for fluff, the newbies will do better with the new creature simply because they're familiar with fantasy tropes.

Oh, in that case I misunderstood. Sorry for that

I think you're giving the average 13 year old too much credit. Let's face it, those are a large part of the target audience for new gamers. Daunting might not be the right word, but it's not something the average teenager might be able to pull off easily. When I was teenage DM I can tell you my adventures sucked. If I'd had a little more to go on, I think they'd have been better. Sometimes I think more is worth it.

Pinotage

You may be right, but I think that if there is one thing you can count on that kids have, it's imagination. Objectively, the adventures I made as a kid weren't any hits, but fueled by imagination and sense of wonder, they were a blast. I don't think long monster descriptions would add to this.

 

[Pinotage]

It didn't matter much that they "sucked" though. Killing monsters is fun, and pretending to be elves is fun. We had plenty of time back then to keep trying until we got it right. We had a blast.

I agree that despite the adventures sucking, killing monsters and taking their loot was fun. But in the long term that grows really old. I played Basic D&D and AD&D 1e between the ages of 10 and 15, and it got boring. Very boring. Because killing monsters got old and there were better things to do.

D&D has to maintain its attraction to keep people hooked for years and years. And it can't do that in this day and age by just providing a 'let's kill monsters paradigm'. Because despite the fact that 4e is great at doing combat, most kids will just go for the easier WoW or other video game route. 4e has to offer them something more, and it does in RPG style. Which means making that RPG accessible. I think providing more information, even supported by rules, does just that. It's obvious my experience, and opinion, is in the minority, but I believe that in this day and age to hook teenagers, you have to do more.

My adventures at age 13 sucked too, but not because the game didn't tell me what DC to roll against to seduce an NPC. Right diagnosis, wrong prescription.

It's not about the DC to seduce a person. It's about the teenage DM realising that it's even an option to do something long term beyond the scope of the combat encounter. And, yes, it's obvious that some will do it. But sometimes to hook people into D&D you need to go the extra mile. Call it an incentive or something. You don't have to give mechanics, but you have to give the options. I think that's valuable. Obviously you disagree. That's quite fair.

Pinotage

 

[Cadfan]

I don't disagree at all.

I just think that the lines

Succubi tempt mortals into performing evil deeds, using their shapechanging abilities to appear as attractive men and women. Although seduction and betrayal are their forte, succubi are also practiced spies and assassins. Succubi serve more powerful devils as scouts, advisors, and even concubines. Because of their guile and shapechanging ability, they are frequently chosen to serve as infernal emissaries to important mortals.

pretty much cover things.

I agree with the principles of most of the people in this thread, including those with whom I've been arguing. I just think that the application of those principles has gone vastly overboard once someone starts arguing that a succubus seducing people needs more detail so that DMs will know what to do with it.

Things in this thread that I agree with, even though it may seem like I don't if you read me uncharitably:

1. Monsters need some seed in their monster manual entry for DMs to take and grow into a plotline.
2. The game needs predictable rules so that players can interact with it.
3. Things that a player character is likely to do, and which are likely to be done by a player character, generally need rules to represent them.

I agree with all of those principles. But they are all matters of degree. Follow point 1 too far and the monster manual fills up with overly specific plot ideas that will be of little use to most games. Follow point 2 too far and the places where predictability is unnecessary (the places usually handled by roleplaying and DM discretion) are stifled. Follow point 3 too far and the game rules fill with edge cases and the game becomes unwieldy.

A succubus is a shapechanger who tempts mortal men and women into doing evil. Ok. Great. Who the succubus tempts, what the succubus offers, and whether they accept is plot data. It's campaign specific. Write it yourself, or buy a module.

 

[Lacyon]

I agree that despite the adventures sucking, killing monsters and taking their loot was fun. But in the long term that grows really old. I played Basic D&D and AD&D 1e between the ages of 10 and 15, and it got boring. Very boring. Because killing monsters got old and there were better things to do.

That's where the pretending to be elves part steps in. It's quite fun, even (especially?) when you're 13.