The Call of the World Builder

[humble minion]

No, the disconnect is basically down to people wanting mechanics for off-screen interaction.

Yes.

And speaking for myself, I want this because good players, who think and plan and show initiative and immerse themselves in a world setting, will quite often leverage the implied setting's various off-screen interactions for their PCs own purposes, thus turning off-screen interaction into on-screen interaction.

 

[malraux]

Where has D&D ever had breeding tables of any kind, Merric? (waits for someone to pull out some obscure table from the 1e DMG)

Well, there's always the book of erotic fantasy....

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yes.

And speaking for myself, I want this because good players, who think and plan and show initiative and immerse themselves in a world setting, will quite often leverage the implied setting's various off-screen interactions for their PCs own purposes, thus turning off-screen interaction into on-screen interaction.

Please give me an example, because I don't really see it.

I can only come up with the players meta-gaming stuff like "Well, Succubus have Charm Monster as spell-like ability once per day. This means she must control a very specific person." "Hmm. Shadows can create Spawn in mere minutes, and you need a magic weapon to have a chance to hurt them. Let's create some and let them lose in that Orc camp. When all Orcs are dead, our Cleric can turn rebuke them." I am pretty sure that's not what you mean.

 

[Hussar]

Unless I'm reading this all wrong, I must be doing things backwards compared to you lot.

/snip

Same for if I'm dreaming up an adventure or story arc. The story comes first...what's the plotline in theory (and will the players stick to it), and only after that do I start thinking "what would be a decent opponent for them to face here, or here, and here". Again, the monsters/opponents fit the story, not the other way around. If I only want them to face some monster I think is interesting, said monster will simply happen to wander by sometime when it makes sense for it to do so...

That said, 3e's liberal magic-creation rules rather strongly suggest a different type of cultural world than do earlier editions.

Lanefan

I agree with you here Lanefan. I've always developed adventures that way. I don't troll through the MM and think, Hey, this is a cool critter, I should make an adventure using him. I start with my adventure, look at what I roughly need for that adventure and then start stocking monsters.

Heck, the adventure design columns of the WOTC site from Wolfgang Baur said exactly this as well, so, I'm thinking it's not all that rare.

 

[VannATLC]

I'm not that interested in stats. I want them to work without getting in the way, and 4e should be able to accomplish that. I don't want to have to work extra hard at crafting a basic plotline involving a monster's unusual traits, though. What I'm interested in are the story possibilities of these critters.

It is something that, so far, most of the critters have sorely lacked. This makes me do extra work to create a story around them. No longer does an adventure with a phane or a succubus or a bodak practically write itself.

Part of this is why I'm looking forward to the Tome of Horrors. From what Clark has mentioned, it seems much more in line with what I actually need out of a monster manual -- essentially, a book of plot hooks based on creatures, and the stats to use those creatures, a package of 200 or so mini-campaigns, where all I have to do is turn to a page with a level vaguely appropriate as we're beginning the game and I get an entire night of enjoyment handed to me.

If all I knew of the 4e phane was what the 4e mm excerpt has told us, I wouldn't be able to run an adventure featuring the phane. An encounter, sure, but the encounter needs a broader context then "monster attacks you." A Monster Manual entry has, for 3 editions, given me that broader context.

If 4e doesn't give it to me, it has failed for my games.

I'd prefer if it didn't.

Er, I don't intend this to be an insult, as you've already indicated you've got little spare time, etc..

But wouldn't you be better off playing somebodies built NWN module, or something?

What you want to do would bore me to tears. Its taken all the fun out of assembling a campaign/story. I could run it, I could make it fun, but it would be constrained, and a lot less fun than unleashing my constructued adventure path against my PCs.

I also really don't think that stuff should be in the MM, outside of a very brief, mostly mechanic-less, description of the creature's traits.

I don't want players who think they can dictate a monster. I don't care to be accused of un-planned or non-documented DM Fiat.
I don't want creatures that are clones of each other.
Its as bad as having NPC's who all have the same jobs, in every town. Its the hall mark of the badly written CRPG.

From everything that has been said, you seem to be looking for the mostly-pre-built adventure.

The Core books are toolkits. They are for people to use to assemble an adventure.

Alternatively, you can also purchase somebody elses adventure.

They are not really, and shouldn't really, be designed to work straight out of the box.

 

[Pinotage]

I also really don't think that stuff should be in the MM, outside of a very brief, mostly mechanic-less, description of the creature's traits.

I think the only real issue I have with it not being there, is that the absence of it is not useful to new DMs/players. Everything experienced RPG players take for granted that's not in there will not help new DMs that want to learn about Phanes or Bodaks or Succubi or heck, even vampires. It's a non-newbie type of framework because of all the hidden 'implied' information that's not presented.

Pinotage

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think the only real issue I have with it not being there, is that the absence of it is not useful to new DMs/players. Everything experienced RPG players take for granted that's not in there will not help new DMs that want to learn about Phanes or Bodaks or Succubi or heck, even vampires. It's a non-newbie type of framework because of all the hidden 'implied' information that's not presented.

Pinotage

It has been a few years since I have been a newbie, but I'd say that a rulebook that gives me stat-blocks with dozens of spell-like (or other) spellike abilities is overwhelming. Coming up with a basic plot idea was a lot easier - I mean, I was already familiar with storytelling due to books, TV and cinema. But implementing this into rules is harder. That's why I like "generalized" rules like Skill Challenges and Quest mechanics. Making these also work with the players instead of against them (this is my story! You're only supposed to play in it! Not wreck it any opportunity!) is also something to be learned and taught, and hopefully the DMG will still contain some advice on that, too.

 

[med stud]

I think the only real issue I have with it not being there, is that the absence of it is not useful to new DMs/players. Everything experienced RPG players take for granted that's not in there will not help new DMs that want to learn about Phanes or Bodaks or Succubi or heck, even vampires. It's a non-newbie type of framework because of all the hidden 'implied' information that's not presented.

Pinotage

Back when I started, the game I played had sparse information about creatures. It was like "griffons are a mix between eagle and lion. They like to eat horses. They can be trained to riding animals, but it takes a rider with strong will." That was it. The same thing with all creatures.

It didn't stop me from using the creatures and I didn't feel insecure or unsure of what I should do. I took the monsters and innovated settings for them. A ghoul kingdom, different orc tribes, I made the svartalfs to master blacksmiths. Those short descriptions gave me a sense of creative freedom that I think would have been quelched if I had long entries on creatures, their ecologies, how they bred and so on.

Experienced DMs will know how the creatures were in previous editions, but the newbie DMs can come up with stories of their own. I don't see that as a limitation.

 

[Pinotage]

Experienced DMs will know how the creatures were in previous editions, but the newbie DMs can come up with stories of their own. I don't see that as a limitation.

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

 

[LostSoul]

My point is that moving this as is from mechanics to descriptions does not solve the problem.

The problem is the implications of how the rule works.

If they can use the standard mechanics to raise the dead but it needs a nonstandard ritual or action to accomplish (changes how the normal raise dead mechanics apply) then those exceptions should be spelled out in the rules IMO.

So the problem is incomplete, poorly thought-out rules?

Or is it that the fluff says one thing, and the mechanics don't reflect it?