# Monsters are more than their stats



## MerricB (Apr 20, 2008)

In 4e, if the DM wants to have a succubus have the king under her control and rule the kingdom through proxy, the DM can do so, without needing the monster's statblock in the Monster Manual to back up that decision.

From what I can see of 4e, this is a huge shift from earlier thinking of D&D (especially 3e), where every little ability of a monster would have to be listed or it didn't exist. The primary purpose of the 4e rules and monster descriptions is to resolve challenges (primarily combats) with the PCs. What happens with NPCs offscreen is entirely up to the DM.

Dealing with situations like "how do we break the king out of the succubus's charm?" is in the province of the DM's invention. This is an adventure hook, that might lead to an epic quest ("You must find the lost Mirror of Pelor and show the king the succubus's reflection in it!") or a simple combat ("Kill the succubus. That'll work!"). It doesn't need to be detailed explicitly, although pointers might be given in the abilities or descriptive text.

Why have rules, then? For those face-to-face situations where hard-and-fast rules (for combat, especially) are required. However, you only need rules for those situations, not everything that doesn't concern the PCs... or that is part of setting up unique challenges for an adventure in any case.

At least, that's my impression of 4e. What do you think?

Cheers!


----------



## VBMEW-01 (Apr 20, 2008)

I think you are right on the money


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 20, 2008)

*Nods* Definitely agree, infact the Lich showcases this, in the fluff it talks about a ritual that isn't in the stat-box.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Apr 20, 2008)

Pretty much. I expect there will be some guidelines to teach new DMs how to handle that sort of thing, but rules? No.

Fitz


----------



## keterys (Apr 20, 2008)

Isn't this topic some kind of blasphemy?


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 20, 2008)

Yeah, it sounds like 4e is going the conflict resolution route.


----------



## Roger (Apr 20, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> In 4e, if the DM wants to have a succubus have the king under her control and rule the kingdom through proxy, the DM can do so, without needing the monster's statblock in the Monster Manual to back up that decision.




Sure!  But why stop with a succubus?  A sexy kobold, a particularly-eloquent gelatinous cube, a defoliated dryad... anyone could be controlling the king!  The future is wide open.



Cheers,
Roger


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 20, 2008)

Well that is how I will DM/play 4E whether it is the 'core' or not


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 20, 2008)

I think it's a problematic approach. What happens when the PCs try to blackmail the succubus into using her powers in a different way? However you set it up, the succubus's ability must have rules. Perhaps they will be part of the adventure rather than the succubus, but that's a textual design design, not a paradigm shift.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 20, 2008)

This is how lots of DMs have been playing the game for years.

Which, of course, is the conclusive answer to pawsplay's objection.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 20, 2008)

Damn, I was just conclusively answered.


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 20, 2008)

I think you are correct.

The question of whether this approach is superior is a more difficult one, in no small part because there probably isn't an objective answer.

I tend to think that the 4e approach runs into big difficulty whenever the play departs from the core gameplay of 'killing the monster and taking thier stuff'.  

I think pawsplay is spot on when he questions how this will work when conflict resolution means something other than combat.  What happens when the players gain control of the Succubus?  Does it immediately lose its fantastic powers to prevent them from falling into the hands of the PCs?  Or can the PCs then cast charms which can only be broken be lost mirrors of Pelor? 

A few scarce months ago when people were first getting used to the idea of NPCs and PCs using different rules, it seemed to me that the vast majority of defenders of the notion took solace in the idea that all the 'cheating' would be in the PC's favor.  That is to say, alot of people interpretted 'NPCs and PCs use different rules' to mean, NPCs are strictly inferior to PCs.  At the time I claimed that this would never be the case and that 'NPCs and PCs using different rules' would inevitably return us to the days of 1e when NPCs did fabulous things with ease and only PCs were confined to strict rules that made them slog through the metaphorical mud. 

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.

We've been here folks.  This is nothing new.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 20, 2008)

> At least, that's my impression of 4e. What do you think?




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.

What I need, what I'm paying for, what I want, are rules.

Specifically so I _don't have to make stuff up_. I'm a busy man, I'm not playing D&D to write a collaborative narrative, I'm playing it because it is a game of plot resolution. If it doesn't give me a plot to resolve, if it doesn't give me a way to resolve it, it's not giving me what I want to play.

Let's take your example, for, er, example:



> Dealing with situations like "how do we break the king out of the succubus's charm?" is in the province of the DM's invention. This is an adventure hook, that might lead to an epic quest ("You must find the lost Mirror of Pelor and show the king the succubus's reflection in it!") or a simple combat ("Kill the succubus. That'll work!"). It doesn't need to be detailed explicitly, although pointers might be given in the abilities or descriptive text.




As a player, this would frustrate me, because it boils down to "Guess What the DM Wants You To Do!" I'm not allowed to come up with a way to break the king out of the succubus's charm -- the DM comes up with a way, and makes me jump through his hoops. No thanks. I want to use my abilities to direct the resolution of this little plot in a meaningful, unique way. Part of how I do that is by having codified rules for doing it -- if the succubus's charm ends when she dies, and I can know that, or learn that (and there are codified rules for how I would learn that), I can play the game to resolve the task based on my own character's abilities, rather than the DM's hoops.

As a DM, this would frustrate me, because I don't really want to come up with hoops to make the players jump through. I want D&D to give me those hoops pre-made, and all I have to do is set 'em up and knock 'em down. I want the succubus's abilities to tell me how they can be thwarted, so that I can give these pre-packaged to the PC's, and spend my energies worrying about what other encounters make things interesting and what cool new scenes I want to set up, and how to next describe the taste of the fine elven wine that they've been using that is actually poisoned, or whatever. 

Tell me what you want me to do with the succubus. In this game of plot resolution, is the succubus a "find the McGuffin" plot? Is it a "kill the Boss Monster" plot? Is it a "uncover the lies" plot? Is it a "remain hidden until help finds you" plot? Is it a "Surprise! You've been tricked!" plot? Design it to provide me with that kind of interesting mini-story, tell me, concretely, how it accomplishes this mini-story, and give me a Rule Zero that says "If you'd rather make stuff up, go for it. Here's what it's designed to do, just so you know."

I've got more entertaining things to do with my time than play 20 Quest(ion)s with the DM or ponder the mysteries of some devil-hooker's super-secret kryptonite.


----------



## Shawn_Kehoe (Apr 20, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If I've said it once, I've said it twice:
> 
> *As a player, this would frustrate me, because it boils down to "Guess What the DM Wants You To Do!" I'm not allowed to come up with a way to break the king out of the succubus's charm -- the DM comes up with a way, and makes me jump through his hoops. No thanks. I want to use my abilities to direct the resolution of this little plot in a meaningful, unique way. Part of how I do that is by having codified rules for doing it -- if the succubus's charm ends when she dies, and I can know that, or learn that (and there are codified rules for how I would learn that), I can play the game to resolve the task based on my own character's abilities, rather than the DM's hoops.
> 
> ...



*

Counterpoints:

1) Any DM who "bolts onto" a creature design for plot purposes should be more than willing to reward player ingenuity - it comes with the territory.

2) If the DM is adding to the creature mythos, he or she is obligated to ensure the PCs have the clues to figure that out.

Because of this, I don't really see concerns as a player.

I guess the real question is: why does the DM choose to modify the monster? If they are doing so to make it unique or expand it beyond its traditional scope, great! If modification is "required" because the Monster Manual entry doesn't define the creature adequately ... not great.

I think Merric is referring to the former case rather than the latter.*


----------



## Vaeron (Apr 20, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> As a player, this would frustrate me, because it boils down to "Guess What the DM Wants You To Do!" I'm not allowed to come up with a way to break the king out of the succubus's charm -- the DM comes up with a way, and makes me jump through his hoops. No thanks. I want to use my abilities to direct the resolution of this little plot in a meaningful, unique way. Part of how I do that is by having codified rules for doing it -- if the succubus's charm ends when she dies, and I can know that, or learn that (and there are codified rules for how I would learn that), I can play the game to resolve the task based on my own character's abilities, rather than the DM's hoops.




Personally, I think it's horrible design to just expect the players to consult the monster manual to figure their way out of any problem.  We may disagree on this, but there should be a place for constructive storytelling, where a DM can tell a story of his own without just copying something verbatim out of a book.  If the players can just look in the book and know how to resolve the problem then it isn't really a problem is it?  That's lazy storytelling.


----------



## hong (Apr 20, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> As a player, this would frustrate me, because it boils down to "Guess What the DM Wants You To Do!" I'm not allowed to come up with a way to break the king out of the succubus's charm -- the DM comes up with a way, and makes me jump through his hoops. No thanks. I want to use my abilities to direct the resolution of this little plot in a meaningful, unique way. Part of how I do that is by having codified rules for doing it -- if the succubus's charm ends when she dies, and I can know that, or learn that (and there are codified rules for how I would learn that), I can play the game to resolve the task based on my own character's abilities, rather than the DM's hoops.
> 
> As a DM, this would frustrate me, because I don't really want to come up with hoops to make the players jump through. I want D&D to give me those hoops pre-made, and all I have to do is set 'em up and knock 'em down. I want the succubus's abilities to tell me how they can be thwarted, so that I can give these pre-packaged to the PC's, and spend my energies worrying about what other encounters make things interesting and what cool new scenes I want to set up, and how to next describe the taste of the fine elven wine that they've been using that is actually poisoned, or whatever.




Not even last week, people were saying how skill challenges would avoid the pixel-bitching issue by encouraging DMs to say "yes". How quickly we forget.

Leaving out-of-combat powers uncodified does not equate to "do exactly what the DM wants". It means relying on more abstract ways to overcome the challenge than just casting specific spells to negate specific effects. "I use Diplomacy to find out about this gal's background", "I use Stealth to sneak into her bedchamber", "I use Intimidate to bully the guards so they leave us alone" and so on.


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 20, 2008)

For me, it is a great change. I loved 2e, (yeah I know, I am weird that way) but it was lacking a smart combat/resolution system. 3e had a great standardized system, but it ended up being so encompassing that it started to interfere with the plots and the roleplay. 

4e seems to me to be the best of the two worlds, the more free-form approach of 2e, coupled with the smooth engine of 3e (although modified).

I love what we have seen, and can't wait to play real DND again.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 20, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If I've said it once, I've said it twice:
> 
> *"Make Stuff Up" sucks as a rule.*
> 
> ...



And you do get rules.  You get rules that allow you to resolve most of the actual in game actions players can take.  If they use their power on a creature, you'll know exactly how it works and what it's effects are.  If you want to know how easy it is for a player to climb a wall, I can assure you it is written in the book.

There are a couple of design philosophies that went into 4e that I've gotten from the 2 preview books, designer blogs, discussions with the designers at D&D XP, and some insight I've probably gotten from collaberating on writing a 4e mod.

1) There is a DM in the game.  Use him/her.
This one is easy.  There are times when a game is made better by actually decision from a thinking person instead of rules that either don't cover a situation well or are so complicated that no one can figure them out.  Since there is a DM running the game, might as well write rules knowing there is someone there to make those decisions.

2) The rules shouldn't tell the players HOW to play.
The rules should allow the DM to come up with his own DMing style and focus his/her game wherever he/she wants to.  If they want a hack and slash game with no plot, the mechanics should support it.  If they want a game with no combat at all, the mechanics should support it.

3) The game should allow DMs to come up with their own worlds, their own fluff, their own adventures.
The game shouldn't dictate how a world works and how it doesn't work.  If one DM wants to run a plot where a single vampire converts everyone in town in a day and another wants vampires who need to perform a special ritual in order to do it, they both can have their way.  If one DM wants to have a world where no one gets brought back to life and another wants one where everyone gets brought back on a regular basis, the rules support that.


----------



## ShockMeSane (Apr 20, 2008)

Naturally, the hint of irony I find behind Kamikaze's post is that only resolving problems as defined in MM's, or more generally RAW, is that you get a whole different set of problems other than the "I don't want to jump through the DM's hoops" one. Namely, that once you've been playing an edition for a few years, even your more casual players are going to have 3/4ths of the common monsters memorized. Once you get your players going, "Oh, the enemy is a Lich, clearly we need to locate his Phylactery before even considering engaging him", it's as least as bad as having to find a DM created "Mirror of Pelor" scenario.

I certainly understand the nature of the complaint, but there is a better middle ground for both players and DM's. Having DM'd many, many games over the years of course I have found some of the fluff in the MM valuable... once. If a Succubus ever dominated the King in one of my campaigns, the best answer as a DM, as it is in every scenario, is one of multiple choices. Will the PC's think of all the options? Will I as the DM think of them? Probably not on both accounts, but some of the most fantastic adventures I've ever run have come from a player's solution to a problem being one that I both found feasible and unexpected.

I mean, a few examples of how the Domination could be broken:

1) Killing the succubus.
2) Dominating the King with a more powerful mind-effecting spell.
3) Forcing the succubus to reveal her true form in front of the court. (Obvious ramifications here...)
4) Negotiating with the succubus, possibly offering her something more valuable than the King's slavery. This offer may or may not be false.
5) Finding some crazy magic item that breaks Dominate. See Mirror example from earlier post.

And those are just a few ideas off the top of my head, that required virtually no thought. If you want to make it really interesting, is the King so dominated that if the Succubus is slain the spell will remain and he will take his own life or go mad with grief?

I don't really see what all the hooplah is about. The MM apparently needs to contain this level of information for all monsters to make some people happy. These are all plot points that any reasonably intelligent human being can make decisions about on the fly if need be. You certainly don't need a stat-block to tell you how that only when the fourth and second moons are in perfect alignment with eachother, the first waxing gibbous and the second new, can the charm ever be broken. 

If you love those kind of details, you can fill them in for yourself with virtually no effort. I realize that when a DM only gives one solution to a problem it creates a poor roleplaying environment for players, as they are forced down the narrow path the DM has carefully laid out for them in advance. But really, I find throwing in the kind of information some people on these boards so desperately crave to create more battles with players than not including it. I mean, when the players have all read the MM's, they know exactly how to break a succubus charm, and it really takes a lot of storytelling power out of the hands of the DM unless he is willing to say, "Sorry, this one succubus is special and doesn't work that way." Which is kind of a weird cop-out on its own. I find it refreshing to be able to use iconic foes and not be trifled with heavily-mechanized fluff.


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 20, 2008)

You know, the concept of the PCs "gaining control" of a succubus is interesting. What do they do with it? Do they go on a charming spree? What on earth could they blackmail such a powerful individual with anyway? That they know who it really is? Why should that matter to it? It has the king under its thumb. Any attempt to claim that the king was being controlled would probably lead to civil war at the very best. And it is something that can shapeshift at will instantly. Into unique individuals. It might just decide to kill the king and take his place. Unless you've got a perfect "Detect Devil" spell, you're not going to be able to prove that it's not the king. 

Maybe it would intentionally let the PCs sort of, kind of expose it to split the kingdom in civil war and then just vanish into the war, reaping souls with the promise of a last good time in this era of senseless violence the PCs have plunged the kingdom into.

Whoa, sorry. Tangent.


----------



## Surgoshan (Apr 20, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> Whoa, sorry. Tangent.




Not to worry, players always try to break the game.


----------



## ShockMeSane (Apr 20, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> You know, the concept of the PCs "gaining control" of a succubus is interesting. What do they do with it? Do they go on a charming spree? What on earth could they blackmail such a powerful individual with anyway? That they know who it really is? Why should that matter to it? It has the king under its thumb. Any attempt to claim that the king was being controlled would probably lead to civil war at the very best. And it is something that can shapeshift at will instantly. Into unique individuals. It might just decide to kill the king and take his place. Unless you've got a perfect "Detect Devil" spell, you're not going to be able to prove that it's not the king.
> 
> Maybe it would intentionally let the PCs sort of, kind of expose it to split the kingdom in civil war and then just vanish into the war, reaping souls with the promise of a last good time in this era of senseless violence the PCs have plunged the kingdom into.
> 
> Whoa, sorry. Tangent.




Honestly, thats like 4 kinds of awesome. It kind of underlines the point that yes, a Succubus provides a lot of interesting challenges to both the players and the DM. The blackmailing thing was kind of ridiculous I admit, but who knows, there might be something more valuable than souls it wants that the king can't provide it, and if a player can convince me, that might start a whole new story  But yea, I just don't see why this information needs to be in the MM.... it provides way more opportunities for adventure than any statblock could ever hope to.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Apr 20, 2008)

Not to go crazy but ...

If the target is still under the effect of this power at the end of the encounter, the succubus can sustain the effect indefinitely by kissing the target once per day. The succubus can affect only one target at a time with its charming kiss.

Doesn't the succubus have their "domination" power defined right there? Thus seperating the King and Succubus for 24 hours would be a way to break the enchantment ... And there are tons of ways to do that, which leaves it open for interesting ideas, such as trying to distract both by taking advantage of the Succubus trying to avoid revealing her true nature OR her influence on the King.

Now, they don't actually explain what her charm "does" to NPCs ... that is left open to the DM. So whether it's a love spell, and how far it goes beyond "preventing harm to the Succubus" is up to him. But there is definitely a way to end it written into the rules. [Although other ways of getting the King to snap out of it, like confronting him with the reality of the Succubus' true nature, is something the DM could add.


----------



## Zweischneid (Apr 20, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Why have rules, then? For those face-to-face situations where hard-and-fast rules (for combat, especially) are required. However, you only need rules for those situations, not everything that doesn't concern the PCs... or that is part of setting up unique challenges for an adventure in any case.
> 
> At least, that's my impression of 4e. What do you think?
> 
> Cheers!





I get this impression as well, but I still don't think it's a good design choice. Why, because hard-and-fast rules (for combat, especially) are (to me at least) much easier to fudge up on the fly than the kings-quest-fluff-sort of things.

At the cost of repeating, something I've noted in another thread earlier:

First, it is IMO opinion not the DMs job to give the fluff, but the job of every single person sitting on the table. I may be the DM, but that certainly doesn't mean I don't want to be entertained as well on my RPG-nights and listen to one or more of the players going wild with their imagination.

Second, there are both DMs and Players out there who are able to add interesting fluff to the rules, but they are in my experience few and far inbetween. Good fiction is not an easy thing to do and it is thrice as hard if you'll need to make it up on the fly (which in turn makes in harder again for players who don't know ahead what is coming than for the DM who could potentially prep). 

By consequence, this means that I can use an RPG that gives only the crunch and turn it into an enjoyable evening with only a selected number of creative people who can draw on their imagination to bring a world (or a character) alive at the table.

If, however, an RPG comes with the flavour attached, the potential base of people I can create an entertaining game with becomes much, much wider. 

*The 'creative' people can easily ignore the 'official' fluff and still spin their own thing, they need not adhere by the official fluff given, but the less gifted ones however have something to fall back on and use as inspiration (or straight out of the book if necessary) once it's their turn to do things.*

So, the more official fluff there is, the more good games you'll play, because there's more people to play with. It's that simple really. The less official fluff there is, the harder and fewer inbetween the games will be you can look back at and not despair at having wasted yet another day of you're life at a table with some ********** who just doesn't make the effort to translate rules into story.

By the same reason, I think providing fluff is so much more important for a good RPG than providing crunch. 

If the crunch is bad or missing, it takes one guy (i.e. the DM) to sit down and fix it.

If the fluff is bad or missing, it takes everyone at the table to cover it, with the final result depending on the weakest link. 

If the weakest link is 'official' fluff in the book, I know ahead of time that this is the safty net my game will not fall below.

It is IMO an increasingly inherent hypocracy of 4e design that they want to make the game 'user-friendly' but provide increasingly less help for people on that elusive and difficult skill of creating evocative fluff.


----------



## ShockMeSane (Apr 20, 2008)

WalterKovacs said:
			
		

> Not to go crazy but ...
> 
> If the target is still under the effect of this power at the end of the encounter, the succubus can sustain the effect indefinitely by kissing the target once per day. The succubus can affect only one target at a time with its charming kiss.
> 
> ...




And while all of that is totally valid, it is equally valid to say that beyond the combat stats we have for the Succubus, she has access to a long term form of domination. Whether it requires sexual congress, a 5 minute spell (while your kissed thrall watches on gleefully), or 3 drops of the victims blood and a piece of their hair, none of that matters outside of the context that the DM wants to use it. Maybe your Succubus can do no more than charm with a kiss as a long term effect, and maybe it can do more than is written in that statblock. Really, it's up to the DM and it isn't much work to make these kind of decisions. In fact, if you think those kind of decisions are work, I don't really think DMing is for you, as that is one of the most fun, imaginitive parts of the job.


----------



## Foundry of Decay (Apr 20, 2008)

For myself and my group, this is a plus way of playing.  

I was personally miserable having to fumble through every rule attached to the mid-level monsters (We just didn't have it in us to get to the higher levels of 3e) trying to come up with unique ways to use the monsters abilities that were hard coded.  Now I have flexibility.  If I want to slap a certain unique 'power' onto a creature as a plot twist, I'm free to do so within certain boundaries without having to waste copious amounts of time combing through hundreds of monsters to find the 'right one'

Again, this is just for myself and my group.  Individual DM's/groups will have differing outlooks.


----------



## ShockMeSane (Apr 20, 2008)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> I get this impression as well, but I still don't think it's a good design choice. Why, because hard-and-fast rules (for combat, especially) are (to me at least) much easier to fudge up on the fly than the kings-quest-fluff-sort of things.
> 
> At the cost of repeating, something I've noted in another thread earlier:
> 
> ...




I just wanted to respond to this because it is the most articulated reasoning I have seen as to why someone might want more informative fluff. I truly do appreciate the effort, as it definitely gives me more perspective into the lives of other games. I must admit that I have been sequestered off with my little group of 6 or so gamers for about the last 8 years, and I think I'm a little spoiled. My players are great at coming up with stuff off the fly, imagining uses for their heroic skills outside of combat, and roleplaying every encounter. I think I must be unusually blessed, but because it has been the status quo for so long I take it for granted.

But still, I am a little hard-pressed to believe that if the DM doesn't make up an on-the-fly rule for how a Succubus' long term domination works (when none exist in the stat block), less creative players will collapse in an effort to solve it. I say this with absolutely no offense intended, but if your players MUST look at MM entries before they fight any given monster to make sure they know how to deal with its abilities, haven't you lost about 80% of the magic of D&D already?  

Now, I know I'm the kind of DM where a player can say "20! I crit the Kobold for 24 points! A mighty blow!" and I respond, "The kobold flinches from your strike, his eyes bursting into a crimson glare as his staff is engulfed with shadowy tendrils, which last out to engulf you." with barely a raised eyebrow and (more commonly) a comment about how "this kobold is a little stronger than usual" from my players. Ok, that might be a somewhat extreme example


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Apr 20, 2008)

Hmm some very narrow approaches here.

Try expanding the scenario.

The PCs come to suspect that someone is manipulating the king, their suspect comes down to 4 individuals, 2 women, and 2 men. 1 of the women is the Queen, 1 of the men is the Prince. The other woman is a powerful noblewoman, a member of the king's personal council and some whisper his lover. The other man is also a powerful nobleman, perhaps well known for indecent dealings. Its a kingdom where nobles regularly great each other by kissing either cheeks or hands. Now if the PCs kill one of these people they all get executed for treason or at least murder, so the game becomes about finding who the succubus is and how to expose it.

Options available - kill the suspects, investigate the suspects, ignore the potential repercusions, or search for a way to find and expose the succubus.

The last option is where the Mirror of Pelor idea fits in.

Now all you need to do is put something into the situation to make things worse - such as a pending war with a neighbouring kingdom.

Consider the Three Musketeers, make Cardinal Richelieu the Succubus, or use the alternate telling of the story in The Musketeer where Fabre "The Man in Black" would be the succubus.

Did any of this require 4E, not really, does the 4E rule set support this sort of story telling well? It does IMO, and better than 3E did where the first options would be to hit the spell books for a solution, forcing contrived means to prevent that from happening.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Apr 20, 2008)

I am so incredibly tired of absolutist statements like "Flavourful setting material is easy, balanced mechanics are the hard part the game should give you!" and "Rules for combat and whatnot are pretty simple to hammer out, it's the creative worldbuilding and plotting that I need from my books!"

Both sides need to pull their heads out of the sand and realise that *neither position is true for all gamers.*. Moreover, *neither position represents a majority*. You simply cannot make an argument about how Wizards of the Coast should be designing the game based on either idea, because it's just reflective of *your* biases and desires - not the market's.


----------



## Victim (Apr 20, 2008)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> By the same reason, I think providing fluff is so much more important for a good RPG than providing crunch.
> 
> If the crunch is bad or missing, it takes one guy (i.e. the DM) to sit down and fix it.
> 
> ...




I disagree.  From what I've seen, most people sitting down trying to fix crunch they don't like usually break things worse.  

And bad fluff usually only applies within a single setting (or cluster of related settings).  Since many DMs like building their own campaign worlds, the fluff in books is at best inspirational.  

There are plenty of settings to rip off for fluff.

However, whether a book is providing crunch or fluff, it should be good at that.  For core rule books, the rules are far more important IMO.  On the other hand, a product like a campaign setting is probably going rightfully live or die on its fluff.


----------



## ShockMeSane (Apr 20, 2008)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> I am so incredibly tired of absolutist statements like "Flavourful setting material is easy, balanced mechanics are the hard part the game should give you!" and "Rules for combat and whatnot are pretty simple to hammer out, it's the creative worldbuilding and plotting that I need from my books!"
> 
> Both sides need to pull their heads out of the sand and realise that *neither position is true for all gamers.*. Moreover, *neither position represents a majority*. You simply cannot make an argument about how Wizards of the Coast should be designing the game based on either idea, because it's just reflective of *your* biases and desires - not the market's.




While I agree that an all or nothing approach is inappropriate, simply based on past editions of D&D, I have to disagree that one faction isn't in the majority.

It is far, far harder to create balanced combat encounters than it is to create your own fluff. Largely because fluff can be in the hands of the DM, who is allegedly a creative person based on job description, whereas combat mechanics pretty much require a statistician, which is not a job description implied in the requirements of playing D&D. Sure, you can fudge the rolls when you don't want a TPK, but with insufficient combat mechanics and a balanced encounter creation-mechanism, you will be doing this far more than is enjoyable, for either the DM or the players. Trust me, I've had to save my PC's from bad CR balancing roughly.... infinitely more times than I've had to save them from not having the Succubus' long-term dominate spelled out in the statblocks. Or whatever. And trust me, the players know when you've fudged the rolls to save them, and it makes everyone feel like a cheap streetwalker.


----------



## Ds Da Man (Apr 20, 2008)

3E was a rules-lawyer dream. I haven't played 3e for awhile now because it always leads to arguements on AoOs, or reach, or defensive casting, or monsters special abilities. I'm glad it's going away (although the D20 system is awesome). Now I may not like all the changes in 4E, but at least it looks like most the characters will have fun starting at 1st level. The wizard sucked so bad at 1st, noone wanted to play one, so we started them at 3rd.


----------



## Zweischneid (Apr 20, 2008)

ShockMeSane said:
			
		

> But still, I am a little hard-pressed to believe that if the DM doesn't make up an on-the-fly rule for how a Succubus' long term domination works (when none exist in the stat block), less creative players will collapse in an effort to solve it. I say this with absolutely no offense intended, but if your players MUST look at MM entries before they fight any given monster to make sure they know how to deal with its abilities, haven't you lost about 80% of the magic of D&D already?




Well, I too have been blessed to have players and DM around from time to time with similar descriptive skills and I, in all probablity, will play 4e in either case. But knowing these people, I also know that evocing engaging stories is a tough skill that doesn't come naturally to everyone. For a game explicitly strifing to lower entry barriers to good gameplay I see it as rather inexplicable lacuna that it doesn't provide for these people.

I've similarly played with people who most definitly do not need help on how to play a figher or wizard effectively. And I've played with DMs who most definitly do not need help on how to create a challenging encounter or deciding what magic items are appropriate. Still, 4e provides for these incase you do need some pointers. 

However, as creating 'fluff' is, at minimum, a skill that needs to be learned, and (judging from my convention experience) not the easiest for people out there to get right, it should be addressed somewhere.

If you have players/DMs who have difficulties in thinking tactically, 4e will cover you with PC-roles and Monters tactics.

If you have players/DMs who have difficulties gauging challenges and appropriatness of magic items, 4e will cover you with a very throughout system of level-based comparisons, which has been extensively play-tested.

If you have players/DMs who have difficulties creating engaging and evocative fluff, 4e suddenly leaves you out in the cold. 

Neither of these above is likely needed for the 'experienced' or 'gifted' out there. They should all be part of 4e's effort of actively trying to be easily playable.






That said, you're succubus example quoted above puzzles me abit. If players struggle with breaking a domination and than, all of a sudden it lapses because the rules (or DM fiat) stipulates it must, won't the players feel even more cheated of their supposed protagonistic role in the adventure - if it expires whether the players act or not, why would the "Heroes" be needed in the first place? 

If innovative input comes from the players (or the DM him/herself has a creative moment) putting forward a possiblity that is not covered in the MM (i.e. find the Mirror of Pelor, etc.), than the game (DM) should most certainly play along and make this idea a possible solution to the encounter, even if this wasn't to original intend. 

What I expect from an 'easy-to-learn-RPG' however are story-hooks and/or descriptive options to come with each monster (class ability, spell, etc..) as a gaming-help, that allow players/DMs to cover the times when that elusive creative spark just refuses to appear for one reason or another.


----------



## joela (Apr 20, 2008)

*What?*



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> In 4e, if the DM wants to have a succubus have the king under her control and rule the kingdom through proxy, the DM can do so, without needing the monster's statblock in the Monster Manual to back up that decision.
> 
> From what I can see of 4e, this is a huge shift from earlier thinking of D&D (especially 3e), where every little ability of a monster would have to be listed or it didn't exist. The primary purpose of the 4e rules and monster descriptions is to resolve challenges (primarily combats) with the PCs. What happens with NPCs offscreen is entirely up to the DM.




Huh? All DMs have had that ability with any rpg, not just DnD. I did it in AD&D 1st edition with dragon-led kingdoms to a 3.5 chain devil animating its chains as though it was golem to vargouilles with breath weapons. And if some damned rules lawyer pointed out it couldn't happen, I just tell them to take a standard action to make a Knowledge to find out why the creature was unique. Course, this was in combat.

Thus I don't see how 4e is a so-called "huge shift" from 3.x or any incarnation of D&D.


----------



## jasin (Apr 20, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> What do you think?



I think the succubus' kiss is still flawed. Even if it's supposed to model just her combat abilities rather than the whole of her charming potential, it's an awfully strange compulsion that makes you protect her with your life if you're 5 ft. away, but not care about her particularly if you're 10 ft. away.

I also seem to remember that one of the stated goals of 4E was to make the game work better with a merely average DM. Expecting the DM to go that much outside the monster's description doesn't seem compatible. Of course, 3E's approach has it's flaws: if everything of importance is explicitly mentioned, if something isn't explicitly mentioned, it can't be done. But 4E seems to, at best, exchange one set of pitfalls for another.


----------



## jasin (Apr 20, 2008)

Foundry of Decay said:
			
		

> I was personally miserable having to fumble through every rule attached to the mid-level monsters (We just didn't have it in us to get to the higher levels of 3e) trying to come up with unique ways to use the monsters abilities that were hard coded.  Now I have flexibility.  If I want to slap a certain unique 'power' onto a creature as a plot twist, I'm free to do so within certain boundaries without having to waste copious amounts of time combing through hundreds of monsters to find the 'right one'



If you're comfortable modifying monsters like that, what was stopping you from doing this in 3E?

Expectations/zeitgeist is certainly a valid answer, but I can't see much beyond that.


----------



## jasin (Apr 20, 2008)

ShockMeSane said:
			
		

> And while all of that is totally valid, it is equally valid to say that beyond the combat stats we have for the Succubus, she has access to a long term form of domination. Whether it requires sexual congress, a 5 minute spell (while your kissed thrall watches on gleefully)



... or runs for the witch hunters, as the case may be, which is why I think the ability is weird.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 20, 2008)

A note:

Where the succubus's "Seduce Mortal" 'power' may previously have come under basic creature/encounter rule mechanics, my impression is that in 4e that the handling of it is now moved into the field of Adventure Design.

Consider any epic adventure (Age of Worms comes to mind), and you'll find any number of invented elements that aren't strictly by the rulebooks. Why does Kyuss get weaker when you get various items/slay servants/destroy artifacts? Because it's part of the adventure as designed by the DM/author.

This is no different to a succubus seducing a king.

4e merely recognises that certain elements need to be left open for the DM to determine himself within the structure of the adventure; I hope that the DMG will have enough suggested "hoops" for adventure creation.


----------



## ShockMeSane (Apr 20, 2008)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> Well, I too have been blessed to have players and DM around from time to time with similar descriptive skills and I, in all probablity, will play 4e in either case. But knowing these people, I also know that evocing engaging stories is a tough skill that doesn't come naturally to everyone. For a game explicitly strifing to lower entry barriers to good gameplay I see it as rather inexplicable lacuna that it doesn't provide for these people.
> 
> If you have players/DMs who have difficulties in thinking tactically, 4e will cover you with PC-roles and Monters tactics.
> 
> ...




Honestly I think we are really close to being on the same page. I love things like story hooks and descriptive options! The more the merrier, because they evoke imagination. What I don't need to know is that a Succubus has a long-term Domination Ritual that requires 3 drops of blood and a piece of the victims hair and a 3 hour ritual which allows a +14 vs Will check every 1d4+2 days (wild example with no basis in fact, but you cannot deny 3.x was riddled with that kind of info) to break free. My complaint was that the DM could easily play it as written, perhaps the Succubus can simply kiss their victim once per day to keep them under a mild charm, and use their seductive properties and ability to become whatever is most attractive to their victim to keep him in their sway. However, if you want YOUR succubus to have a long-term domination effect, whatever it may be with whatever counters you think appropriate as a DM, this is a really easy thing to do, and I feel I've given plenty of examples without putting much thought forward about how to do it.

That being said, I want to clarify that I am the first DM to the front-line when a player comes up with a cool solution to any problem that I hadn't predicted. Some of my best games ever have happened because of stuff like that!

I guess ultimately all I'm saying is that we only saw the stat-block for the Succubus (or whatever monster). If there is no flavor text whatsoever for creatures in 4ED, I will be right up in arms with ya. The main thing I need from the MM is combat stats, but very close behind in importance are the flavor text blocks. Because you are right, if I was a new DM, who had never played D&D and all I had to create encounters with were the tiny statblocks we have seen, I might be a bit overwhelmed at how to develop a demon with a charming kiss and short-term dominate ability into a heroic-tier endvillain.

Even leaving the whole creative-spark out of it, there are plenty of monsters even the most creative DM might want to use in prior editions of D&D just because they are so darn cool!


----------



## Zweischneid (Apr 20, 2008)

ShockMeSane said:
			
		

> Honestly I think we are really close to being on the same page. I love things like story hooks and descriptive options! The more the merrier, because they evoke imagination. What I don't need to know is that a Succubus has a long-term Domination Ritual that requires 3 drops of blood and a piece of the victims hair and a 3 hour ritual which allows a +14 vs Will check every 1d4+2 days (wild example with no basis in fact, but you cannot deny 3.x was riddled with that kind of info) to break free.




I'll sign that any day.. not saying 3.x did it well. Just that 4e has (from what I've seen) yet to provide a viable alternative other than "alright, we've just dropped it entirely". Providing a "combat-only-board-game" without the hooks would (IMO) be even worse than the over-crunched attempts at storybuilding of 3.x.


----------



## ShockMeSane (Apr 20, 2008)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> I'll sign that any day.. not saying 3.x did it well. Just that 4e has (from what I've seen) yet to provide a viable alternative other than "alright, we've just dropped it entirely". Providing a "combat-only-board-game" without the hooks would (IMO) be even worse than the over-crunched attempts at storybuilding of 3.x.




Yep, and I'll sign that. Especially from a new player's perspective, if I hadn't been dealing with Succubi for all these years I'm sure I'd be quite chagrined about how to deal with them now. I think we can both agree that the flavor text is an important part of inspiring the imagination process. And you're right in your assessment that 4E needs to provide more than combattastic statcrunches, because I could just go and play D&D minis if that was the case. I'm just hoping that all we've seen is the crunch, and based on all prior editions of D&D I can't imagine they would go so far as to basically remove it.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Apr 20, 2008)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> If you have players/DMs who have difficulties creating engaging and evocative fluff, 4e suddenly leaves you out in the cold.




Got your advanced copy have you? So you can confirm that the comments that the designers have made about providing just this sort of support are false then?

WotC has already told us their initial push is to get us to change to 4E. Us the people playing already. So that means their preview information is geared around getting us informed and excited about the game. Despite this there is a bit of help around for new DMs in terms of setting up fluff etc for 4E.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 20, 2008)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> Well, I too have been blessed to have players and DM around from time to time with similar descriptive skills and I, in all probablity, will play 4e in either case. But knowing these people, I also know that evocing engaging stories is a tough skill that doesn't come naturally to everyone. For a game explicitly strifing to lower entry barriers to good gameplay I see it as rather inexplicable lacuna that it doesn't provide for these people.
> 
> I've similarly played with people who most definitly do not need help on how to play a figher or wizard effectively. And I've played with DMs who most definitly do not need help on how to create a challenging encounter or deciding what magic items are appropriate. Still, 4e provides for these incase you do need some pointers, as 4e is actively trying to be easily playable.
> 
> ...




You know these are very good points.  Let me start by saying, I have not seen the full rules, but from looking at the two preview books it seems to me that 4e will still have fluff to cover those things.

It just won't have fluff that creates a "combat mechanic-only" box of dealing with things.  In other words.  The fluff will be there but it won't force you to use only the combat mechanics to deal with situations.  By doing this it allows a DM or player to use the fluff, without worrying too much about what balance aspects a change of fluff will have on mechanics.

If the monster stat block has a section on a _Dominate_ power, it means that the stat block is showing the DM what the creature can do in combat.  And how that power is involved in a combat scenario.  However, outside of combat the monster description might have some fluff or evocative description that gives the DM or players ideas of how the monster acts or thinks, but does not restrict them into thinking in combat terms.

So for example, the more descriptive text for the creature might have a small entry of how this creature loves to manipulate and corrupt mortals and uses it's guile and charms and X or Y rituals as a means to an end.  All of these things are the "fluff" that is not constrained by combat mechanics.  So you can have a Dominate Power (Combat Mechanic) that is used in combat, and you can have a Dominate Ritual (non-combat mechanic) that causes a long term change, or you can have a description of how the creature is able to corrupt because it is very good at convincing and insinuating and NPCs follow its lead (fluff with no mechanics).

Since I have not seen the full rules I can't say that this will be the way things are.  However, just from the descriptive narrative I saw on the two preview books I can see how fluff can be injected into the game without having to have "rules" to manage it.



> That said, you're succubus example quoted above puzzles me abit. If players struggle with breaking a domination and than, all of a sudden it lapses because the rules (or DM fiat) stipulates it must, won't the players feel even more cheated of their supposed protagonistic role in the adventure - if it expires whether the players act or not, why would the "Heroes" be needed in the first place?
> 
> If innovative input comes from the players (or the DM him/herself has a creative moment) putting forward a possiblity that is not covered in the MM (i.e. find the Mirror of Pelor, etc.), than the game (DM) should most certainly play along and make this idea a possible solution to the encounter, even if this wasn't to original intend.




And this is where the DM is the final arbiter of what will work for his game and game group.  The feeling of accomplishment for the heroes needs to come from the narrative the DM provides for them, not from the rules.

If a game mechanic forces the DM to end a result that the DM wanted to continue, then it has wrested creative control away from him.  If the DM is forced by the rules to use in-combat powers for out-of-combat situations it becomes harder to work some things out.  Of course a good DM will ignore it and continue to use what he needs but it can become contrived and cumbersome.  Players that know the rules might start asking how come effect A is still working when obviously the time limit has elapsed.  Then the DM is "forced" to come up with alternate methods that might be unsatisfying because he is going "against the rules."  However, if the rules are mute about a situation or are based on a fluff description rather than a "well defined" combat mechanic, he still has to come up with a method for how this works, but he does not need to fight against the rules to do so.



> What I expect from an 'easy-to-learn-RPG' however are story-hooks and/or descriptive options to come with each monster (class ability, spell, etc..) as a gaming-help, that allow players/DMs to cover the times when that elusive creative spark just refuses to appear for one reason or another.




I agree.  What I'll say is that we have not seen the entirety of the books.  I hate the term "fluff" because it makes it seem like these evocative descriptions are just extraneous.  I agree that these "evocacriptions" (my own coined term) are important to stimulating those creative juices.  Right now we just do not know what "evocacriptions" we'll see in the monster manual.  But from looking at just the two preview books I have a good feeling about this.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 20, 2008)

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.


----------



## Roman (Apr 20, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If I've said it once, I've said it twice:
> 
> *"Make Stuff Up" sucks as a rule.*
> 
> ...




I agree fully. So yes, MerricB is right about 4E's approach to monsters, but it is one of the major turn-off of the 4th edition for me personally.


----------



## ShockMeSane (Apr 20, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> 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 agree with this 100% to the extent that I can make up campaign backgrounds, rules and adventures by myself. What I can't make up is a workable combat simulation that won't force me to either fudge the rolls so much that it's obvious or otherwise make the encounters so simple that it's boring. Honestly, if you can do those things, you may as well have given up D&D long ago, as it was always at best a largely open-ended, ill-described world simulator with more exceptions to the rules than rules.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 20, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Where the succubus's "Seduce Mortal" 'power' may previously have come under basic creature/encounter rule mechanics, my impression is that in 4e that the handling of it is now moved into the field of Adventure Design.



Exactly.  3.5e's philosophy was "Give a bunch of rules and then build a world around them."  If the succubus could only charm someone for 24 hours, then you needed to know that so you could plan an adventure where the succubus goes back to charm the person every day.

Certainly, this helped write adventures before.  Since the game would essentially write an adventure for you in some cases.

4e takes the opposite approach.  It says "Design a world and then use these rules in order to play in it."  If it is better for your plot to say that the succubus has to charm the mayor again every day in order to give the PCs a chance to figure things out, then that's the way it works.  It suggests the DM take a more active role in running the game instead of a more passive one.  Previously it was possible for the DM to do almost nothing but follow the rules and see what happens.  4e encourages thinking "What do I WANT to happen?"



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Consider any epic adventure (Age of Worms comes to mind), and you'll find any number of invented elements that aren't strictly by the rulebooks. Why does Kyuss get weaker when you get various items/slay servants/destroy artifacts? Because it's part of the adventure as designed by the DM/author.



And this is a perfect example of why things work the way they do in 4e.  It makes for an interesting adventure if you have to do these things in order to weaken Kyuss, so the rules fit the requirements of the story rather than the other way around.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Apr 20, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> 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 confused what the issue is here for you then?

I mean 4E is about providing a rules platform, and, according to WotC people, advice on building a game - that seems to be what you are asking for from the game.


----------



## hong (Apr 20, 2008)

jasin said:
			
		

> I think the succubus' kiss is still flawed. Even if it's supposed to model just her combat abilities rather than the whole of her charming potential, it's an awfully strange compulsion that makes you protect her with your life if you're 5 ft. away, but not care about her particularly if you're 10 ft. away.
> 
> I also seem to remember that one of the stated goals of 4E was to make the game work better with a merely average DM. Expecting the DM to go that much outside the monster's description doesn't seem compatible. Of course, 3E's approach has it's flaws: if everything of importance is explicitly mentioned, if something isn't explicitly mentioned, it can't be done. But 4E seems to, at best, exchange one set of pitfalls for another.



Well, mind-altering magic is always difficult to handle. I'm not sure what would be the best way to treat the succubus kiss, myself.


----------



## drjones (Apr 20, 2008)

I think one problem is that DnD has always been written and designed by nerds.  Nerds want things to work in a logical manner.  That someone was kidnapped to the land of the faeries is not enough.  We want to know why it happened, how often it can happen, is there a saving throw etc. etc. while people with a less engineering based point of view just say 'its magic' and thats it.

So I think the OP is correct in 4es approach.  I like fantasy and sci fi that makes sense and looks like the logical clockwork world we live in but twisted up.  But adding the level of codified detail to the game to make such a world does not add much but page count.

Besides there is no evidence that 'The Ecology of the Quickling' type pieces will not be provided with tons of obsessively crossrefernced fluff.  All we know is that they are trying to make the MM book more concise and the keyhole view we have of parts of a few mm entries.


----------



## AZRogue (Apr 20, 2008)

My favorite version of DnD was 2E Skills and Powers. You may put me on your Ignore List now.


----------



## Zweischneid (Apr 20, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> I think one problem is that DnD has always been written and designed by nerds.  Nerds want things to work in a logical manner.  That someone was kidnapped to the land of the faeries is not enough.  We want to know why it happened, how often it can happen, is there a saving throw etc. etc. while people with a less engineering based point of view just say 'its magic' and thats it.
> 
> So I think the OP is correct in 4es approach.  I like fantasy and sci fi that makes sense and looks like the logical clockwork world we live in but twisted up.  But adding the level of codified detail to the game to make such a world does not add much but page count.
> 
> Besides there is no evidence that 'The Ecology of the Quickling' type pieces will not be provided with tons of obsessively crossrefernced fluff.  All we know is that they are trying to make the MM book more concise and the keyhole view we have of parts of a few mm entries.




I don't really think that is the greatest problem. If people get overexited in representing certain narratives in convulated rules, you may be in for a bumpy ride, but you'll still retain that link to what you want to do (tell a fantasy story).

Potential disaster lies in the inverse. If you let yourselve guide soley by the need to create a fluid, coherent and logic set of rules that runs like clockwork, but fail to adequatly describe what these rules actually are for (supposed to represent), you run the danger of cutting that very link to the fantasy story and begin doing random and meaningless mathematical operations with your friends around the table. 

Than you've left engineering, to use your picture, and entred experimental mathematics, i.e. a far more self-referential system of interest only to a far more limited number of people and of only circumstancial relevance for actual application. The feverish debates on "what do hitpoints actually represent" seem, among others, indicative of this risk to me. Or more precicely, the need and desire of people to have guidelines on "how should/can/must I translate a mathematical substraction of hitpoints back into a narration of wounds/fatique/etc suffered by medieval-fantasy heroes delving into a forbidden tomb?". 

Many of the new powers have raised similar issues, i.e. the reactions of "wow, thats a brilliant & elegant way of solving issue X, that has always bugged me ... but wait ... what does it actually represent 'in-game'? How do I narrate the utilization of this?"

Again, experienced players/DM can likely do that without help (and the corresponding threads on Enworld are usually filled with most excellent ideas on how to do it), but an 'easy-to-learn-RPG' should provide pointers for those who don't.

4e is taking a very novel approach, building the game from the rules towards the story rather than vice versa, and I both applaud them for doing it and am very excited about seeing the eventual outcome. I just believe that "losing the story" is a potential risk in this approach, and one, we (to my knowledge) haven't really had to face in this extend in roleplaying before.


----------



## jasin (Apr 20, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Well, mind-altering magic is always difficult to handle. I'm not sure what would be the best way to treat the succubus kiss, myself.



If you want to avoid the ambiguities of 3E's charm "as written, and dominated (save ends)" would be a much better model of what I imagine the succubus' kiss to be.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 20, 2008)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> Many of the new powers have raised similar issues, i.e. the reactions of "wow, thats a brilliant & elegant way of solving issue X, that has always bugged me ... but wait ... what does it actually represent 'in-game'? How do I narrate the utilization of this?"



The thing is, 4e is really 2 games in one.  It understands that the time you need RULES the most are when there is a conflict of some sort.  It is at decision points that you need rules.  Does what the PCs want to accomplish happen?  Do they die from this attack?  And so on.

That part of the game is the most GAME-like.  It is where the players get to role dice, use strategy, and generally do things similar to that of a board game.  It needs to be this way for a number of reasons.  Mainly that conflict resolution requires the most precision since it matters the most to the players(in that what happens at decision points and combats are what "forks" the story in one direction or another).

The "roleplaying" or "narration" part of the game doesn't need rules.  It is the part of the game where players think of clever solutions to problems and use their own intelligence to come up with answers.  It is open ended and nearly anything could happen.  These portions allow the players creativity to shine through and to provide the flavor of the game to come through.

4e really doesn't apologize for this duality, either.  It doesn't say it in so many words, but it gives off the impression of: You are playing a role playing game.  The point is to follow a storyline and see where it goes.  You get quests you need to accomplish and your characters go on these quests.  Along the way, monsters and bad guys will attempt to stop you.  At certain points you may have to fight them.  In order to figure out what happens during these battles you play this board game.  We've made the board game as streamlined as possible with the clearest rules possible to make it fun for everyone with very little arguing over the rules and other things that make playing the board game no fun.  When the board game is over, you go back to playing the role playing game.  We're not going to tell you what ever little number on your character sheet represents in the role playing game since numbers aren't required in that game and can mean whatever you want them to.  The numbers are for the board game.

And I think this is where most people have difficulty wrapping their heads around the new game.  They want their numbers to be the answers to the role playing game.  They want to look at their sheet when faced with a door and think "which one of my powers gets me past this door?"  When they need to find someone in a village, they look at their sheets to see which spell answers that question immediately.  4e encourages pretty much throwing away your character sheet and actually roleplaying again at these times.  And I can tell you, it's a little intimidating for me.  I forgot how to do that a while ago when I figured out I had a spell or skill to solve all problems with a dice roll in 3e.


----------



## Vascant (Apr 20, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> In 4e, if the DM wants to have a succubus have the king under her control and rule the kingdom through proxy, the DM can do so, without needing the monster's statblock in the Monster Manual to back up that decision.
> 
> At least, that's my impression of 4e. What do you think?




Seems to me you are comparing DM problems and not game rules, this has been done several times.. there even is a case of this in FR  (North of Waterdeep if I recall correctly).  Safe to say if a DM had issues in 3e, he will have issues in 4e as well.

There are a few back issues of Dungeon or Dragon Magazine that cover topics exactly like this and I would also like to note these same articles deal with the DM and not the game rules.


----------



## Ipissimus (Apr 20, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> I think one problem is that DnD has always been written and designed by nerds.  Nerds want things to work in a logical manner.  That someone was kidnapped to the land of the faeries is not enough.  We want to know why it happened, how often it can happen, is there a saving throw etc. etc. while people with a less engineering based point of view just say 'its magic' and thats it.




I don't really think that's precisely true, but you're on the right track. It's not really because anyone is a 'nerd', it's more due to the nature of the game.

The greatest strength and the greatest weakness of the DnD game is the DM. The DM simultaneously makes the DnD game not a video game (where everything occurs according to the program's rules) but infuses it with uncertainty. Every moment where the DM has to eyeball something is the moment when your entire game could go down the tubes.

The problem is consistency. Players want to interact with a world. Ideally, that world should feel like a living, breathing, moving sandbox that reacts in a generally predictable manner to the PC's actions. Once you have this solid basis, both the PCs and the DM can start throwing in curve balls with far less chance of breaking the game or suspension of disbelief.

More fluff, like the ritual to become a Lich, isn't necessary but it's nice to have a guideline from which a DM can work. It can lead to a great moment when the PCs, investigating a wizard character, look at the list of spell components he's been buying recently and someone goes 'AHA! He's trying to become a Lich!' without any prompting. A far better moment than just happening to find 'Ye Tome of Darkynesse' in the local libabry that just happens to have the ritual spelled out or the Wizard saying 'Uh... I'll just roll Arcane'. It also helps when you get the odd players who sits down and says 'I'd like my Necromancer to become a Lich, how do I work towards that?' Sure, the DM can make stuff up but what if you've got a DM who's biassed against undead/a newbie/has had a bad day/is feeling tired and cranky (pick one or make up your own)?

Good DMs let players do things proactively. All we need is the tools to be able to do it effectively. That's the major thing the designers, who live and breathe building the game and get paid for it, can give us.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Apr 20, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If I've said it once, I've said it twice:
> 
> *"Make Stuff Up" sucks as a rule.*
> 
> ...



I think this is a misrepresentation of the way the 4E ruleset works. I think 4E will provide hard-and-fast rules for covering 99.9% of gaming situations. Instead of trying to guess at and provide rules to cover all of the strange corner cases that occasionally arise in individual games, 4E will provide a framework for creating your own rulings in these situations. A much, much cleaner approach than the 'rules carpet-bomb' route that 3E took, admirable as that attempt was.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 20, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> At least, that's my impression of 4e. What do you think?




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.


----------



## hong (Apr 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

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




WTF?


----------



## Zweischneid (Apr 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

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





Dunno how this little statement relates to the rest of your rather insightful post, but this is just screaming for a not-so-witty World of Warcraft rebuke 

Be careful with the matches...


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Apr 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 20, 2008)

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.





			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Apr 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 20, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 20, 2008)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 20, 2008)

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 (Apr 20, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> 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?


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 20, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> What I need, what I'm paying for, what I want, are rules.
> 
> Specifically so I _don't have to make stuff up_. I'm a busy man, I'm not playing D&D to write a collaborative narrative, I'm playing it because it is a game of plot resolution. If it doesn't give me a plot to resolve, if it doesn't give me a way to resolve it, it's not giving me what I want to play.




You've got rules.

The DM says, "Okay, you've discovered that there is a succubus who's got the king wrapped around her finger.  Skill challenge: find out a way to stop her."

That _will_ resolve the situation.

Maybe the PCs decide to use that information to blackmail the succubus.
Maybe the PCs use the skill challenge to break into her bedchambers at night.
Maybe the PCs research in the library, and discover the Mirror of Pelor (any maybe it's the players who come up with the name - or maybe the DM ad libs and creates it there on the spot).
Maybe the PCs confront the King and empower him to break the enchantment.
Maybe the PCs seduce the succubus and have her charm a PC instead of the King.
Maybe the PCs socially devestate the succubus, and she has to leave town.

Or maybe they fail.


----------



## hong (Apr 20, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Maybe the PCs seduce the succubus and have her charm a PC instead of the King.




^ I foresee HOURS of hilarity with this one.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 20, 2008)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> Dunno how this little statement relates to the rest of your rather insightful post, but this is just screaming for a not-so-witty World of Warcraft rebuke
> 
> Be careful with the matches...




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.

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*.

"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.

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


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 20, 2008)

Carnivorous_Bean said:
			
		

> 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?




Rules, campaign background, and adventures. The point is that I pay money, and in theory, I end up doing less work than if I do the whole thing from scratch myself. I don't need to spend $120 on books to be told, "Make something up." I can make stuff up for free. The value of an RPG is in all the things I don't have to make up for myself, or in the things it can inspire me to make up I wouldn't have otherwise. 

This so-called succubus is a sorry case. She can't _do_ anything.


----------



## DandD (Apr 20, 2008)

There might be domination rituals. We never saw them for now, but might with future excerpts. These might be the 75 bucks you paid for. 
<edited - lay off the personal attacks, please>
It's perhaps better to take some weeks off from that topic and return some weeks later to have a bigger picture.


----------



## Godofredo (Apr 20, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> In 4e, if the DM wants to have a succubus have the king under her control and rule the kingdom through proxy, the DM can do so, without needing the monster's statblock in the Monster Manual to back up that decision.
> 
> From what I can see of 4e, this is a huge shift from earlier thinking of D&D (especially 3e), where every little ability of a monster would have to be listed or it didn't exist. The primary purpose of the 4e rules and monster descriptions is to resolve challenges (primarily combats) with the PCs. What happens with NPCs offscreen is entirely up to the DM.
> 
> ...




agree..100%


----------



## hong (Apr 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> 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.




You have it exactly backwards. You have rules to decide how everything works, and they do not impose any given plot. This is the skill challenge part of it.



> 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*.




Pah. D&D does not exist in a vacuum (well, maybe it did for a while with that Great Wheel business and other idiosyncratic symmetry-based nonsense, but no more!). In the absence of rules you have plenty of source material from outside the game that can be used to help decide just how the succubus controls people.



> "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.




So, the important thing about a baseline is that you can ignore it. This must be a side effect of thinking too hard about fantasy.



> 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.




It makes absolutely no difference in the world, whether or not there is this "baseline" of which you so lovingly speak. If the baseline is changed, then it will have to be explained. If the baseline is not changed, then it will probably be explained anyway. Besides, I thought you didn't want other writers designing your world for you? That's why you're ignoring it, right?



> 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




And nothing stops you creating those differences.



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




You are getting lots of pretty pictures of the Nine Hells, the Feywild, the Shadowfell, and so on. Oh, and lots of pretty text too. It just happens to be text that is actually to be used in playing the game, as opposed to text that is to be ignored.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Apr 20, 2008)

If I am, seriously, expected to put on my DM hat and simply fiat all the out of combat abilities of the monsters, I will turn around and not buy the game.  I would consider it so incomplete as to be a failed RPG.  I can deal with really ill-defined abilities in an RPG that has a generic conflict-resolution system, because then there is a system of rules in place to determine what happens, even if not everything prescribed beforehand.  But this idea that I need to just DIY?  Oh, goodness no.  I buy games to have that done already.  Also, it provides me with plot hooks.  It also provides the *players* with the ability to make some of their own plot hooks, because it makes the world predictable enough that they can plan and take advantage of it.

Making the world predictable like that is something I place a high value on.

Now, the reason I sort of suspect it isn't all just "make it up yourself" is that the WotC people keep talking about building unique IP, through artwork, character types, etc.  They want to build a really strong brand identity.  It seems harder to do that if they handwave everything outside of a combat or skill challenge.  So, my suspicion is that there is something more than what we've seen.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> 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.



I think I rather try out 4E first. What you're describing has little to do with what most of us are interested. We want rule for "things" - like for combat, for social interaction, and such stuff. 

We don't need rules for "plot-device" magic. 



> 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*.
> 
> "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.




This is what the excerpt tells us on the Succubus.


			
				WotC said:
			
		

> 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



So they use seduction and betrayal. They typically don't seem to rely on magic. Probably because they want your soul, and it's a lot more rewarding to get it through seduction and betrayal then by simply snipping a finger. 
Though in this case, there is also some crunch that gives us more. Succubi might use their Charm Kiss to do some work for them, but most likely after they have already "performed" their seduction. And once they get to the betrayal part, there is nothing our dear king can do against the Succubus (for 24 hours).



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



The raw statement gives you the plot hook. "How about a king controlled by a Succubus?" Questions coming up: "How does the Succubus do it?" and "What can the PCs do about it?" But the more important question is "How can the whole thing be made interesting?" If you just use Charm Person from the Succubus stat block, the solution is a little... bland. A dispel magic later, and the Charm wears off. If you had something more interesting to counter, this part could be a lot more entertaining - imagine a skill challenge to speak to the King in the first place, and a second skill challenge to complete the counter-ritual - the Wizard is mumbling arcane formulas, while the Rogue is busy talking with the King so he doesn't go away, the Cleric holding the Succubus at bay, and the Fighter talking down the guards. 

And to your last question - I don't know what we'll spend our 70 Bucks (or rather 60 €uro in my case) for. I have an inkling of what it is, and pictures might be part of it. I don't expect to see a lot of blank pages, and instead predict a lot of crunch and fluff that will make for a good game.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Apr 20, 2008)

Well, considering that the minute description of the planes that was given in the Nine Hells fluff was vastly inspirational to me -- and I'm someone who's a fanatic for making stuff up -- shows that they've given some concrete proof of at a minimum inspirational background. Just the fact that individual planes aren't necessarily infinite any more is a very strong and concrete aid to storytelling.

The change of the Astral Plane's fluff to a sea-like setting is one example of constructive fluff, IMO -- the type of background stuff you're looking for. Before, it was basically a big nothingness, so all you could have happen there was, "you drift for a while looking at the pretty lights and then find a color pool that takes you where you want to go."

Now you can have an astral ship, hung with medallions to ward off evil and scorched by ancient elemental blasts, its sails held out by the bones of dragons made into spars, and the winds of a thousand worlds whispering in its rigging to bring echoes of places far away and distant in time to your ears, sailing through an 'ocean' far wilder and stranger than any earthly sea. Another ship appears -- is it a band of otherworldly pirates, the deadly outcast of many planes and worlds? Or will its crew bring you tidings of astral juggernauts haunting the astral river you were planning on navigating to your destination, requiring you to take another route through strange and uncharted pathways? 

So, I wouldn't give up on the monsters just yet. The entries we've seen so far remind me of the entries in the SRD -- stripped down to the plain stats. I agree it's a mistake to assume there's more, because there may not be. But if you looked at the SRD stats, 3rd edition would look pretty fluff-poor, too.


----------



## Wiman (Apr 20, 2008)

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 (Apr 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> 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.




			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> 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



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> "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.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> 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).



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> -- 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 (Apr 20, 2008)

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 (Apr 20, 2008)

bramadan said:
			
		

> 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.
> ...




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


----------



## WalterKovacs (Apr 20, 2008)

Mort said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 20, 2008)

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 (Apr 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 20, 2008)

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

Shows what they know.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 20, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> _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 (Apr 20, 2008)

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.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 20, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> 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.



Yeah, but I can't imagine a Devil would take being called a "slobbering, stupid, simple-minded freak of existence" lightly.


----------



## DandD (Apr 20, 2008)

Well, a demon surely can be a "slobbering, stupid, simple-minded freak of existence", but so is anything from the Far Realm, or just a person born with some mental and physical deficits. 
A "slobbering, stupid, simple-minded freak of existence" can be quite anything, even another Devil. 
Also, Demons don't have to be necessarily stupid. Orcus, the Demon-Prince of Undead, comes to mind.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 20, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Well, a demon surely can be a "slobbering, stupid, simple-minded freak of existence", but so is anything from the Far Realm, or just a person born with some mental and physical deficits.
> A "slobbering, stupid, simple-minded freak of existence" can be quite anything, even another Devil.




Or a message board poster.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 20, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Well, a demon surely can be a "slobbering, stupid, simple-minded freak of existence", but so is anything from the Far Realm, or just a person born with some mental and physical deficits.
> A "slobbering, stupid, simple-minded freak of existence" can be quite anything, even another Devil.
> Also, Demons don't have to be necessarily stupid. Orcus, the Demon-Prince of Undead, comes to mind.




Oh I know, I am just imagining what an arrogant, uptight Devil would be thinking.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 20, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Also, Demons don't have to be necessarily stupid. Orcus, the Demon-Prince of Undead, comes to mind.



Still, I think demons and devils are rather hostile towards each other, as their goals are usually not very compatible - though I can imagine devils trying to harness the power of demons by tricking them into magical compulsions and manipulation.

Like the gelugon (ice devil).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 20, 2008)

Am I the only one who doesn't see why a succubus in human form couldn't just seduce a king the old-fashioned way?


----------



## Rex Blunder (Apr 20, 2008)

Nope.



			
				Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> 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?


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 20, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who doesn't see why a succubus in human form couldn't just seduce a king the old-fashioned way?



Only if she has ranks in "Seduce Monarch."  Otherwise its impossible.  If you let a beautiful woman seduce an elderly man without solid mechanical underpinnings listed in her stat block, you're a dirty anarchist.  So sayeth the usual suspects.


----------



## Mirtek (Apr 20, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who doesn't see why a succubus in human form couldn't just seduce a king the old-fashioned way?



But then why use a supernatural outsider at all? Just use some random good-looking mortal female.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 20, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> But then why use a supernatural outsider at all? Just use some random good-looking mortal female.




Since Succubus' are masters of the art of seduction and know exactly how to act to get what they want. To a degree far exceeding a normal person. Also, if you want a plot-line dealing with Devils a random good-looking mortal female won't quite work.


----------



## DandD (Apr 20, 2008)

That random good-looking mortal female just happens to be an immortal humanoid outsider in truth, with a fiendish plan that serves her devilish overlords in the Nine Hells.


----------



## Raduin711 (Apr 20, 2008)

I would have to disagree with the OP.  I really don't see how anything has changed that would make his scenario possible in 3e, but impossible in 4e.  Either way, you are giving the succubus powers that she normally wouldn't have in order to create the plot you want to run.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Apr 20, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> But then why use a supernatural outsider at all? Just use some random good-looking mortal female.




If your outsider has permanent charm and dominate abilities, why have it be a good-looking female at all?


----------



## bramadan (Apr 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Only if she has ranks in "Seduce Monarch."  Otherwise its impossible.  If you let a beautiful woman seduce an elderly man without solid mechanical underpinnings listed in her stat block, you're a dirty anarchist.  So sayeth the usual suspects.




That was broadly the point of my admittedly over-long post a bit earlier.

Reason why you use a succubus demon* instead of the seductive wench is same as you use orc instead of the ugly human brute. She is a paragon of that particular attitude/ability.  

*I played DnD since 1st ed and have never gotten used to the idea of Devils as a race. The way I see it there is The Devil and then there is demons he commands. Just semantics I know but it bugs me. As far as I am concerned all generic outsiders (that is non-unique named guys) are demons


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 20, 2008)

bramadan said:
			
		

> *I played DnD since 1st ed and have never gotten used to the idea of Devils as a race. The way I see it there is The Devil and then there is demons he commands. Just semantics I know but it bugs me. As far as I am concerned all generic outsiders (that is non-unique named guys) are demons




Linguistically, the opposite is true. Devil comes from the Persian Daeva, which comes from the Aryan deva. The Devil is gained his name in approximately the same fashion as the Bible (byblos, a book), i.e. brand recognition.


----------



## Victim (Apr 20, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> But then why use a supernatural outsider at all? Just use some random good-looking mortal female.




Because if someone decides that the evil wench must go, it helps to have some supernatural mojo backing up good looks?


----------



## D'karr (Apr 20, 2008)

bramadan said:
			
		

> That was broadly the point of my admittedly over-long post a bit earlier.
> 
> Reason why you use a succubus demon* instead of the seductive wench is same as you use orc instead of the ugly human brute. She is a paragon of that particular attitude/ability.




And a very good post it was.  

Besides, corruption is much more insidious if you can't blame it on magic.  If the king was affected by magic the whole time that he was giving the order to execute the villagers in that small hamlet, he has an excuse.  If he did it because he did not want his secret tryst exposed it is a little bit worse.  But if he did it willingly because the "woman" he adores has convinced him that the village is working to overthrow him, then the corruption is complete and he has no excuse.

The succubus works through guile, seduction and intimidation.  So she starts her work on the monarch in a very innocent way, getting bolder as the monarch gets more entangled in her web.  And what kind of forgiveness could such a man expect once he has sunk to the depths of depravity and corruption that he has?  He now only wants to survive, forcing him to make worse decisions to cover the bad ones he's already made, or he wants to die and be forgiven.  In either case his soul clearly belongs to that seductress that he wants and can't keep out of his mind.


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 20, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> Besides, corruption is much more insidious if you can't blame it on magic.  If the king was affected by magic the whole time that he was giving the order to execute the villagers in that small hamlet, he has an excuse.  If he did it because he did not want his secret tryst exposed it is a little bit worse.  But if he did it willingly because the "woman" he adores has convinced him that the village is working to overthrow him, then the corruption is complete and he has no excuse.
> 
> The succubus works through guile, seduction and intimidation.  So she starts her work on the monarch in a very innocent way, getting bolder as the monarch gets more entangled in her web.  And what kind of forgiveness could such a man expect once he has sunk to the depths of depravity and corruption that he has?  He now only wants to survive, forcing him to make worse decisions to cover the bad ones he's already made, or he wants to die and be forgiven.  In either case his soul clearly belongs to that seductress that he wants and can't keep out of his mind.



So, the question is, what prevented the 3e succubus from doing this?

The question isn't rhetorical and actually has a pretty important answer. But said answer is going to vary from person to person. My hope is that WotC supported as many different answers to the question as solidly as they could. My selfish hope is they supported my answer to the question as throughly as possible.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 20, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> But then why use a supernatural outsider at all? Just use some random good-looking mortal female.



It's the stuff of fairy tales and fantasy. That's why we're pretending to be Elf, too - it's not like Elves are really alien creatures that couldn't be represented by humans with a knack for bows & magic. 

Or do make it even more sinister. It's not about whether you made a bad decision. It's about being seduced by a Devil and losing your soul in the process. That's raising the stakes. 

Basically, both Elves instead of Human archer culture, and the Succubus, you "exaggerate" what you're really talking about, to make the matter more important, to make you realize it's important. 

In the end, it is nothing but a storytelling device.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 20, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> But then why use a supernatural outsider at all? Just use some random good-looking mortal female.




More-or-less because supernatural crazyness is fun, and killing a succubus isn't what most people would call "murder", while assassinating a royal consort because "she's evil" generally is.


----------



## DandD (Apr 20, 2008)

Nah, depends, killing evil stepmothers is actually quite normal in fairy-tales. Everybody does it, and gets away with it. 
Just denounce her as an evil stepmother.


----------



## Victim (Apr 20, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> So, the question is, what prevented the 3e succubus from doing this?
> 
> The question isn't rhetorical and actually has a pretty important answer. But said answer is going to vary from person to person. My hope is that WotC supported as many different answers to the question as solidly as they could. My selfish hope is they supported my answer to the question as throughly as possible.




Probably the main thing preventing it is that it's sort of a waste of her time.  She doesn't need to bother manipulating people via any sort of a relationship.  In fact, if her level draining kiss can't be turned off, that sorts of limits those options.  A 3.x succubus can Charm hundreds of people per day; most people can't really resist her power.  Even a strong willed person will eventually crack (unless immune) if she can keep at them.  Her power lasts almost 2 weeks.  She can just take the souls of her victims via level drain.  It's hard to keep her away from places with teleport and etherealness.

Her mindbending powers are so great that being beautiful and seductive is basically irrelevant.  She doesn't need to manipulate and cajole; she can just take.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 20, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> So, the question is, what prevented the 3e succubus from doing this?
> 
> The question isn't rhetorical and actually has a pretty important answer. But said answer is going to vary from person to person. My hope is that WotC supported as many different answers to the question as solidly as they could. My selfish hope is they supported my answer to the question as throughly as possible.




Nothing prevented that in 3e IMO, but the discussion here seems to be that a succubus needs a bunch of rules to attempt to do so on an NPC, and that 4e does not support that.  This is where some are calling shenanigans.

We have not seen the full rules so saying, as some have, that nothing but what we have seen exists is "bull."  As has been pointed out by some you don't need a bunch of rules for doing what has already been discussed, as the seduction, etc. has occurred off camera so to speak.

We have not seen rituals or anything that describes long-term magical effects.  The designers and developers have told us they exist, but some choose to ignore that and continue to say that without these rules the game sucks.  Well d'oh.  We have not seen the full rules.  If after the rules are released we find that indeed the rules are lacking then we can complain.  Doing so before then is pretty silly.

It would be like giving a movie a bad review when all you have seen is the preview.  The people that are defending 4e are not saying that 4e is the end-all, be-all in gaming.  What they are saying is that they are going to give the rules a chance before they make up their mind about them.  So they are going to go see the movie before giving it a review.  But what they have seen from the preview is good enough to go see the movie to begin with.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 21, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The question of whether this approach is superior is a more difficult one, in no small part because there probably isn't an objective answer.
> 
> I tend to think that the 4e approach runs into big difficulty whenever the play departs from the core gameplay of 'killing the monster and taking thier stuff'




I like agreeing with Celebrim.  Makes me feel all balanced.

Where I disagree is with Kamikaze Midget's idea that it will all be based on "make stuff up".  This will be no more or less true than it ever was.  Every adventure contained elements of "make stuff up".  Just about every campaign specific element contains elements of "make stuff up".  

This has been core to D&D since day 1.  I don't think it will change.  What has changed is the obsessive need to hand all control to the rules.  People constantly complained that 3e took power from the DM and handed it to the players.  It didn't (IMO).  It took the power and kept it wrapped up in the rules.

Now, the power is being shifted back to the DM's but, only at certain times, which will generally be during adventure design.  At the table, the rules will cover most parts of play.  The really corner cases, like the players entice the Succubus to become some sort of mind control machine for them, can be ignored by the rules because the chances of it coming up are pretty bloody small.

I had another thread talking about the size of the toolbox a week or two ago and it related to this one.  The idea that your toolbox MUST cover situations to five nines is, IMNSHO, a waste of page count.  Instead, cover most of the situations that come up most of the time and don't sweat the small stuff.  Give the DM's lots and lots of advice on how to handle the corner cases beyond a simple Rules 0 declaration instead of trying to create mechanics that will cover all possible situations.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 21, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I like agreeing with Celebrim.  Makes me feel all balanced.
> 
> Where I disagree is with Kamikaze Midget's idea that it will all be based on "make stuff up".  This will be no more or less true than it ever was.  Every adventure contained elements of "make stuff up".  Just about every campaign specific element contains elements of "make stuff up".
> 
> ...




"Make up an element of the universe" is very distinct from "Make up a plot point".  'The king has been mind-controlled' is a plot point.  'Succubus', 'Charm Person', and 'authority figure with a poor will save' are universe-elements.  You can't address a plot point without authorial authority.  You can address a universe-element with any other universe element that has built-in interaction capacity with the given element.  This tends to produce richer worlds and more interesting player action.

If we're given crunch, such that the succubus has a ritual Ensnare the Mortal's Heart, that clearly lays out what the ability can do within the parameters of what the GM desires (it only works on mortal at a time, requires the ritualist to maintain friendly contact with the mortal as well as use a charm effect X times in a row successfully to start and once per X time period to maintain and produces a list of specific effects), and that it is a plot point that this succubus knows this ritual, then goodness is acheived.  Simply deciding that your plot requires the king to be magically ensnared by a succubus without detailing how the magic ensnaring him works in the general case invites trouble when the player start assuming that this is a capacity, not a plot point, and try to have the succubus do it to other people.

In a universe in which you can always predict player action and outcome in certain scenarios, you can get away with leaving large sections of the game-universe blank.  There exists no built-in way to get a skeleton to tell you what he's feeling at a particular time, so the GM does not need to worry overmuch about whether or not his skeletons have acute tactile senses.  Not only are there built-in ways to subdue a succubus, there is also built-in incentive to do so; she can do magical tricks that the party most likely can't.  The idea of players interrogating a succubus to find out how her tricks work and how they can take advantage of them isn't even an edge case, let alone a corner case; expecting an enemy archetype based on negotiation and treachery to only interact with the PCs via direct combat and not favor-trading or similar smacks of ignoring player action in the general case.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Apr 21, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> The idea of players interrogating a succubus to find out how her tricks work and how they can take advantage of them isn't even an edge case, let alone a corner case; expecting an enemy archetype based on negotiation and treachery to only interact with the PCs via direct combat and not favor-trading or similar smacks of ignoring player action in the general case.




I think this is a great point.

I'm still not convinced that succubi need any more charm magic than they already have, though. In fact, I think the succubus would be better served by some sort of information-gathering ritual (for blackmail, manipulation, finding out what the king's "type" is) than by a dominate ability which devalues her seductive archetype.

Tangent: You know what charm needs that it has NEVER had in any version of the game, and has always made it (in my mind) a half-baked spell? A description of what happens to the subject when the spell wears off. Does the subject realize he was magically manipulated and now HATES the caster? or does he have fond memories of good times with the caster, in which case he probably still feels some residual affection for the caster? or are his feelings somehow reset to the point before the casting took place? This makes a huge difference in how charm works in non-combat situations, and merits at least a sentence in one of the 6 or so previous editions.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 21, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> In a universe in which you can always predict player action and outcome in certain scenarios, you can get away with leaving large sections of the game-universe blank.  There exists no built-in way to get a skeleton to tell you what he's feeling at a particular time, so the GM does not need to worry overmuch about whether or not his skeletons have acute tactile senses.  Not only are there built-in ways to subdue a succubus, there is also built-in incentive to do so; she can do magical tricks that the party most likely can't.  The idea of players interrogating a succubus to find out how her tricks work and how they can take advantage of them isn't even an edge case, let alone a corner case; expecting an enemy archetype based on negotiation and treachery to only interact with the PCs via direct combat and not favor-trading or similar smacks of ignoring player action in the general case.



Really?  I've read a lot of published mods and you almost always fight a Succubus when you encounter it.

The average plot goes something like this:
The shopkeeper in town has been arranging murders of people at the behest of his new consort.  He thinks it's all his idea as she is very subtle about implanting the ideas.

All the PCs know is that people are dying mysteriously.  The wife of one of the murdered people asks them to figure out who did it and get revenge.  The PCs track down a number of clues that eventually lead them to the shopkeeper's house, after surviving a couple of assassination attempts.  The succubus is there, disguised as a human.  When she hears the PCs talking about the murders, she attacks the PCs(because regardless of whether or not it is true, all evil people think they are capable of easily defeating the PCs and that its the best solution).  They kill her and likely arrest or kill the shopkeeper as well.

Notice how the plot doesn't require knowing HOW exactly the Succubus charmed the shopkeeper?  It just requires knowing she CAN influence people.  No PCs I've ever ran a game with would have stopped at that time while she was attacking her in order to subdue her and force her to use her powers to help them.  She wouldn't help them anyways.  She'd rather die(which sends her back to her own plane) rather than help them.

Never underestimate the ability for the average D&D game to be about killing things and taking their stuff.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Apr 21, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> If we're given crunch, such that the succubus has a ritual Ensnare the Mortal's Heart, that clearly lays out what the ability can do within the parameters of what the GM desires (it only works on mortal at a time, requires the ritualist to maintain friendly contact with the mortal as well as use a charm effect X times in a row successfully to start and once per X time period to maintain and produces a list of specific effects), and that it is a plot point that this succubus knows this ritual, then goodness is acheived.



Hey look!  A bunch of extraneous stat block information that I can give a hearty eye roll and never care about again!

Succubi also rely on _stealth_ above negotiation and treachery.  I've never seen any instance of anything in which, _after_ being revealed as a succubus, one tries to use any negotiation at all.  Typically, as soon as she's revealed, it's time to throw down and get out of Dodge.

Either way, I don't see how having the MM hold our hands and give us The Succubus According to The Rouse will help us in this case.  In terms of monster breakdowns, this isn't a blank sheet of paper -- we've got a Mad Lib, and all you need to do is fill in one blank to make the story work for you.  Given that it's abundantly clear at this point that I don't like your story and you don't like mine, why are we trying to make either one "official?"


----------



## Lizard (Apr 21, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who doesn't see why a succubus in human form couldn't just seduce a king the old-fashioned way?




Sure.

But the magic means the players can't just point out that the beloved courtesan is causing trouble, strife, and the destruction of the kingdom. Nor does Twue Wuv (or eeven ramapnt lust) excuse radical and *rapid* changes in personality.

"Hey, King Benevolus The Just has ordered the mass slaughter of orphans."
"Oh, it's just cause he's in love with some wench. He'll get over it."

Or even:
"Hey, isn't the king's impending marriage to Mariana of Koldersburg the only thing stopping the kingdom from plunging into war? Why is he cancelling it just because he met some strumpet? He's never been that stupid and irresponsible."

Magic foils the PCs attempts to use simple reason (or just a wench with a higher charisma) to solve the problem.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Apr 21, 2008)

Better yet.  The King is an ancient graybeard, but his wife is young, beautiful, and has her hooks deep into him.  She's corrupting him and getting him to implement villainous policies.  But she's not the bad guy!  It's her personal fashion consultant, the fabio-esque Incubus who is pulling her strings, and through her the King's strings.  By using her as a cats-paw, any righteous bureaucrats or filthy adventurers who try to get involved will go stab the all-too-mortal queen, when they pick up whiffs of infernal influence and suspect some evil booty is afoot.


----------



## D_E (Apr 21, 2008)

I agree with the OP, 4th Ed monster design seems to have followed this rount.  Like many here, though, I would prefer some form of rules (or at least guidlines) that cover a monster's noncombat shticks.  

Reasons include allowing the monsters to interact with the world in a non-arbitrary way, ensuring that the PCs get an apropriate challenge*, reducing prep time, and wanting the team to come up with new and exciting ideas for non-combat scenarios.

Random thought:  They may be planning offer advice and rules on various noncombat roles and abilities in a seprate section of the MM or DMG, since they are almost indepentent of a monster's combat stats (kind of like the Demonic roles section of the Fiend Codex I).

*failing to take into account PC abilities is a recipy for disaster, just ask any who got burned because they failed to take Speak with Dead or Raise Dead into account.


----------



## DandD (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Sure.
> 
> But the magic means the players can't just point out that the beloved courtesan is causing trouble, strife, and the destruction of the kingdom. Nor does Twue Wuv (or eeven ramapnt lust) excuse radical and *rapid* changes in personality.
> 
> ...



Magic is countered by boring Detect Magic and Dispel Magic-tricks. Heck, the Court Wizard and the High Holy Priest would see through the magic charm right in a second, and to counter that, you would once again need special spells that disguise the magical charm effects, but because that's not fair, you once again need higher-level detect magic effects, and a higher-level dispel magic, and so on.
That's what leads to those huge assinine statblocks, where in order to function effective in a magical way, you need too much magic, where in the end, it's just magic that matters, and not the skills.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Apr 21, 2008)

When Benevolus the Just makes his saving throw, shaking off the 6-second Dominate effect, and realizes he has just proposed to Succubina, what will he do? This sort of ties into my question above about what happens when Charm wears off.

He might just decide it was a rash, impulsive decision, but now he is honor bound to marry Succubina. Besides, she is sooooooooo hot. The political alliance with Mariana of Koldersberg be damned! Why can't the king have what HE wants for a change? Besides, there is his honor pledged to Succubina! What's more important than honor?

Or he could lop off her head. "Why are you controlling my body, you sorcerous witch?"


----------



## Lizard (Apr 21, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> When Benevolus the Just makes his saving throw, shaking off the 6-second Dominate effect, and realizes he has just proposed to Succubina, what will he do? This sort of ties into my question above about what happens when Charm wears off.




That's if the only power the succubus has is their combat-based dominate -- which was sort of the point of this thread.  Details on long-term control are needed, but the 4e focus is entirely on "Things which occur in a combat round". Out of combat==just doesn't matter.

(Except for Rituals, of course, which will solve all problems, slice bread, and clean the litterbox.)

If the kiss/charm is the only long-term control power the succubus has, it makes her job harder, as she has to keep working on one person a day, and has to a master of (mundane) seduction to keep others from figuring out her game. This is fine, if it's the case, and it's a good example of what I'm talking about -- by setting limits on what the creature can do in a long-term, out of combat sense, the DM is aided in building plots. ("OK, so she's going to charm the king magically...but she'll also use her Diplomacy on the High Chancellor to help control the court in general, and less...ah...subtle means on a few palace guards to get them to ambush the court magician so he can't figure out what she is.")

On the other hand if, as the OP seems to wish, the only relevant text was "Succubi seduce people, mmmkay?", the DMs job becomes a lot harder, as he has to basically design the rules for succubi before designing a plot centering on them.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 21, 2008)

> Simply deciding that your plot requires the king to be magically ensnared by a succubus without detailing how the magic ensnaring him works in the general case invites trouble when the player start assuming that this is a capacity, not a plot point, and try to have the succubus do it to other people.




And you think this isn't a corner case?

Show me then.  Poll the collective posters here at En World and ask how many times they've attempted to take a succubus alive.  EVER.  I'll bet dollars to donuts that less than 5% of respondents say yes.

Lizard - How is this different though?  Just about every module out there has new rules in it to cover the plot of the module.  Whether it's a new monster ability, a new magic item, or whatever, the adventure has it.  So, how is this different?

Even your example of the Aboleth above has new rules that allow you to use a monster that goes beyond RAW.  So, if you're simply going to change the rules anyway, what difference does it make if you actually have the rules in the first place?


----------



## MerricB (Apr 21, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Magic is countered by boring Detect Magic and Dispel Magic-tricks. Heck, the Court Wizard and the High Holy Priest would see through the magic charm right in a second, and to counter that, you would once again need special spells that disguise the magical charm effects, but because that's not fair, you once again need higher-level detect magic effects, and a higher-level dispel magic, and so on.
> That's what leads to those huge assinine statblocks, where in order to function effective in a magical way, you need too much magic, where in the end, it's just magic that matters, and not the skills.




So true.


----------



## Kzach (Apr 21, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> At least, that's my impression of 4e. What do you think?



Mine too. And thank all the Gods that do and don't exist and may or may not have had an influence on that 'cause hallelujah, free-form DM'ing is back!


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 21, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> And you think this isn't a corner case?
> 
> Show me then.  Poll the collective posters here at En World and ask how many times they've attempted to take a succubus alive.  EVER.  I'll bet dollars to donuts that less than 5% of respondents say yes.




It's certainly a corner case, but then again I've never had a gamist reason to do so (and really, succubi haunted worlds aren't games I seek out anyway).  That is, there wasn't a huge profit margin on not killing succubus, so why would you do it?  Anything for which there isn't alot of profit in doing it is a corner case, and that's the sort of corner case that is safely ignorable.

If however not killing succubus had a large profit margin, that is to say that if I thought that by doing so I could obtain powers others difficult or impossible to acquire through other means, then sure I'd consider it.

After all, who has played Nethack without engaging in a bit of Succubus abuse?  If the DM presents me with an NPC that has seemingly arbitrary power, then I'm going to start thinking along the lines of 'Helm of Opposite Alignment' or some other means of subverting said NPC and making them a tool - if only to embarass said DM for being an idiot with his DM PC's and pet NPC's.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2008)

> Where I disagree is with Kamikaze Midget's idea that it will all be based on "make stuff up".




Actually, I made no predictions whatsoever on what the 4e succubus entry will include.

Not. A. One.

Merric kind of did, saying that it is his impression that a "seduce the king" kind of thing will be left open-ended because of some notion of DM freedom and flexibility.

I pointed out that it was absolutely wrong to assume that all a DM needs are combat stats.

I will stand by that point.

I think 4e will stand with me, more or less.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 21, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> Mine too. And thank all the Gods that do and don't exist and may or may not have had an influence on that 'cause hallelujah, free-form DM'ing is back!




Personally, I don't think it's free-form DMing, although you could play it like that.

Instead, I believe guidelines for handling plot elements will be in the DMG, and then you can use those to construct solutions for things like "seduced king syndrome", without the result always being as banal as "I cast break enchantment"... which works for everything!


----------



## Hussar (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard - I know you kind of poo poo'ed the idea of rituals being the solution, but, hear me out.

We know that rituals will be in the game as a means for casting plotsy type spells - the knowledge gathering stuff, the transportation stuff, whatnot.  So, let's extrapolate a bit.

While it's possible that no guidelines will be given in the PHB or the DMG for creating your own rituals, even if that's true, within about a week of the release of 4e you will have books detailing ritual creation.  Let's assume for a second that there are guidelines for creating rituals in place.

So, we create a ritual that's specific to our plot - Charming the King.  Now rituals will have level dependencies and other prerequisities too.  So, we'll make it a half hour ritual that requires the sacrifice of a living humanoid.  There, that keeps it out of the player's hands.  (probably)

The ritual grants domination over the target.  The target will always act according to the caster's wishes, even to the point of self sacrifice.  We'll make it an instantaneous effect.  

Now, detect charm/magic no longer works.

To further our storyline, we'll add in that only by viewing yourself in the Mirror of Whosits can the ritual be broken.

There, instant fix.  Took me all of ten minutes to think of it.  Now I have my linked campaign - discover the succubus, find the mirror, save the king.  

How is this out of the realm of possibility for 4e?


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Sure.
> 
> Nor does Twue Wuv (or eeven ramapnt lust) excuse radical and *rapid* changes in personality.
> 
> Or even:.




HAH!

You need more experience with obsessed people.

WRT to the OP..

Well, I like it, and I don't have the kind of issues that Lizard or RobertL seem to predict. Never have.

I expect a succubus to a master of seduction, without resorting to Magic. I had no issues with the Statblock as presented, and should I have wanted to introduce a succubus to control a ruler, it would be through mostly mundane means, with the renewal of the kiss for the reasons given in the stat block.


----------



## hong (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> If the kiss/charm is the only long-term control power the succubus has, it makes her job harder, as she has to keep working on one person a day, and has to a master of (mundane) seduction to keep others from figuring out her game. This is fine, if it's the case, and it's a good example of what I'm talking about -- by setting limits on what the creature can do in a long-term, out of combat sense, the DM is aided in building plots. ("OK, so she's going to charm the king magically...but she'll also use her Diplomacy on the High Chancellor to help control the court in general, and less...ah...subtle means on a few palace guards to get them to ambush the court magician so he can't figure out what she is.")
> 
> On the other hand if, as the OP seems to wish, the only relevant text was "Succubi seduce people, mmmkay?", the DMs job becomes a lot harder, as he has to basically design the rules for succubi before designing a plot centering on them.




Poppycock.

The DM has to design a _scenario_. He does _not_ need to design any rules to justify how that scenario might have come about. He only needs a rough idea in his head, and that can be obtained just from general background knowledge about what these monsters are, and what their schticks are. Said knowledge can be obtained from the game fluff, or even from outside sources.

This makes it EASIER to design scenarios. You no longer need to complete a magnificent edifice of rationalisations explaining how the monster's devious plan came to be. You just lay down some guidelines, set out the skill challenge -- "stop the succubus" -- and give the players their head. The cannier the succubus, and the longer that she's had to work her stuff, the tougher the challenge gets. You also no longer need six zillion layers of magic to stop one side or the other solving the plot with one spell.

This does not lead to railroading either. If anything, railroading occurs when the DM has put together that magnificent edifice of rationalisations, and then cannot accept how the players can dismantle it in 10 minutes.

Of course, to do this you need to give up this strange notion that the rules form the physics of the game world. But this is very easy achieved, by simply not thinking too hard about fantasy.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 21, 2008)

My guess is that the "plot rules" will not be part of monsters anymore, but part of the DMG.
Skill Challenges, Rituals, and whatever else we can come up with. This kind of information works best in the DMG. 

Remember - many months ago - when one of the designer asked for brainstorming on how to organize a DMG, or what questions a DM might want the DMG to answer?
Stuff like "How do I run a chase?". I think this might be a good indicator that my guess isn't so bad.

The source of "ruling" plots are in the DMG, so you don't just accidentally stumble upon them when reading a stat block, but that you can search for them consciously.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 21, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> How is this out of the realm of possibility for 4e?




It's not, but based on everything we've seen so far, I'm losing faith the ritual rules will be anything but "Make something up".

If there are rules like "Long term effects of any sort require a ritual. Here's six pages of rules for setting the power of a ritual, the difficulty of it, changing these by setting requirements, and so on", then I'll be happy, or at least content. If it's just some quick handwaving without boundaries, I have to ask again -- what's the point of paying for rules?

Given the pit fiend's stat block just said "Once every 100 years, the pit fiend can use a ritual to grant a wish", and the lich's stat block said "some liches know a ritual to create a phylactery", with no actual stats on either ritual, I have to worry that the whole "ritual" system is just going to be pure DM fiat.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> This makes it EASIER to design scenarios. You no longer need to complete a magnificent edifice of rationalisations explaining how the monster's devious plan came to be. You just lay down some guidelines, set out the skill challenge -- "stop the succubus" -- and give the players their head. The cannier the succubus, and the longer that she's had to work her stuff, the tougher the challenge gets. You also no longer need six zillion layers of magic to stop one side or the other solving the plot with one spell.




And if your idea of a fun game is a long series of rolling dice and tallying up successes without any specific actions being taken, then you'll enjoy this. I think there's more to a scenario than "Difficulty 30, successes required 6". YMMV. This is a good example of what I've been talking about:

30 seconds of combat: Played out round by round in glorious detail, with plenty of special abilities, cool powers, and tinkering with small options to give tiny, but possibly crucial, bonuses.

Three hours of diplomacy: Everyone pick their highest skill, come up with a justification for how it's going to be useful, and roll. Tally your success or failure. All done? Good. Now, lets move on to some butt-kickin'!

Even setting that aside, I think it's treating players with some degree of contempt to tell them "Stop wondering how it all works or how this situation occurred! It did! This is the plot! Deal with it and stop asking me 'Why didn't they do this?' or 'Why didn't they do that?' Because if they did, there'd be no plot! That's why!"

It's crappy when authors do it (cough Goblet of Fire cough), and it's crappy when DMs do it. 



> This does not lead to railroading either. If anything, railroading occurs when the DM has put together that magnificent edifice of rationalisations, and then cannot accept how the players can dismantle it in 10 minutes.




The DM needs to be able to think on his feet more. If the players destroy your plot in ten minutes, make up another. Fast.



> Of course, to do this you need to give up this strange notion that the rules form the physics of the game world. But this is very easy achieved, by simply not thinking too hard about fantasy.




From the time I was a young child, people have told me not to think so much about all sorts of things, from religion to fantasy. I have never learned to heed their advice. Sorry.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> It's not, but based on everything we've seen so far, I'm losing faith the ritual rules will be anything but "Make something up".
> 
> If there are rules like "Long term effects of any sort require a ritual. Here's six pages of rules for setting the power of a ritual, the difficulty of it, changing these by setting requirements, and so on", then I'll be happy, or at least content. If it's just some quick handwaving without boundaries, I have to ask again -- what's the point of paying for rules?
> 
> Given the pit fiend's stat block just said "Once every 100 years, the pit fiend can use a ritual to grant a wish", and the lich's stat block said "some liches know a ritual to create a phylactery", with no actual stats on either ritual, I have to worry that the whole "ritual" system is just going to be pure DM fiat.



I don't think it will be pure DM fiat. Rituals are available to PCs, this means there must be clear guidelines to avoid giving the PCs an over-powered ritual. 

Furthermore, the Tiers excerpt imply that there are pre-defined rituals (Like the Raise Dead ritual). I doubt they created the rituals without any guidelines in mind. That wouldn't fit the general design approach to 4E - monsters for example also follow clear guidelines. 

My general assumption is that the DMG will contain this information, since it is important for him, and you don't really want the DM to search through the PHB or the MM to find details on stuff he needs to run an effective game. Everything that only the DM needs to know about has to be in the DMG.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> And if your idea of a fun game is a long series of rolling dice and tallying up successes without any specific actions being taken, then you'll enjoy this. I think there's more to a scenario than "Difficulty 30, successes required 6". YMMV. This is a good example of what I've been talking about:
> 
> 30 seconds of combat: Played out round by round in glorious detail, with plenty of special abilities, cool powers, and tinkering with small options to give tiny, but possibly crucial, bonuses.
> 
> Three hours of diplomacy: Everyone pick their highest skill, come up with a justification for how it's going to be useful, and roll. Tally your success or failure. All done? Good. Now, lets move on to some butt-kickin'!



You know, I sounds kinda cool if there was a "social combat" system, where characters can gain social powers. But, on the other hand, will this not turn everything into a pure "game", with little imagination involved? I really don't know.
What I know is that 3E social encounters could be boiled down to this: Roll Gather Information, or roll Diplomacy. Occasionally, you'd roll Sense Motive. You don't even have to justify why you're rolling the skill. You just beat the fixed DC. Even if I justified, it was only one roll - there is only so much storytelling that I will (or can) do to cover one roll. 
If I have to roll 6 times, I have to come up with more. I can even react to results.




> Even setting that aside, I think it's treating players with some degree of contempt to tell them "Stop wondering how it all works or how this situation occurred! It did! This is the plot! Deal with it and stop asking me 'Why didn't they do this?' or 'Why didn't they do that?' Because if they did, there'd be no plot! That's why!"



Well, looking at the Paizo Adventure Paths, there is a lot of stuff for which there didn't seem to be any hard rules. I mean, where is the "Tear apart a dimensional rift so that prisoner demons from the Abyss can invade Oerth"-spell in the PHB?
Most of the rules for anything here were made up, and the players could never have figured out do something like that them self. The only stuff that was important was the fluff describing what happened, and the rules how to stop the whole thing. 



> It's crappy when authors do it (cough Goblet of Fire cough), and it's crappy when DMs do it.
> 
> The DM needs to be able to think on his feet more. If the players destroy your plot in ten minutes, make up another. Fast.



If I was a better DM, I would do so. And I'll promise, I'll try to improve, get better improvising, get better at thinking on my feet more. But it would be nice if someone gave me some more advice on how to do it, or if there were some guidelines that helped me improve myself. Maybe you could write something down? Or maybe I'll wait what the DMG 4E will have to offer. (And I suppose I should also look at the CoC d20 book, rumours say it has a ton of good advice.) 



> From the time I was a young child, people have told me not to think so much about all sorts of things, from religion to fantasy. I have never learned to heed their advice. Sorry.



Think as much as you like, but there is stuff where you can over-analyze. If it's about your immortal soul or how you behave towards others, it might be worth thinking a lot. If it's about how to have fun pretending to be an elf, do only the thinking that helps you having fun. That's my advice.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> It's not, but based on everything we've seen so far, I'm losing faith the ritual rules will be anything but "Make something up".
> 
> If there are rules like "Long term effects of any sort require a ritual. Here's six pages of rules for setting the power of a ritual, the difficulty of it, changing these by setting requirements, and so on", then I'll be happy, or at least content. If it's just some quick handwaving without boundaries, I have to ask again -- what's the point of paying for rules?
> 
> Given the pit fiend's stat block just said "Once every 100 years, the pit fiend can use a ritual to grant a wish", and the lich's stat block said "some liches know a ritual to create a phylactery", with no actual stats on either ritual, I have to worry that the whole "ritual" system is just going to be pure DM fiat.



Chapter 9 of the PHB is "Rituals", link.I doubt they would get their own chapter if they were just "make stuff up".


----------



## Lizard (Apr 21, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Chapter 9 of the PHB is "Rituals", link.I doubt they would get their own chapter if they were just "make stuff up".




You'd think, but it could simply be a listing of rituals by level with no idea how they were built.

Or it could be exactly what it should be, a set of detailed rules and guidelines. We'll see.


----------



## hong (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> And if your idea of a fun game is a long series of rolling dice and tallying up successes without any specific actions being taken, then you'll enjoy this.




So find ways to link successes to specific actions (or results). You seem to enjoy thinking too hard about fantasy, so put that workaholic tendency to good use for once. If I can narrate a 100 hp hit on a 10 hp ninja as leaving guts spattered all over the room, you can narrate an Intimidate check of 40 against DC 15 as leaving the poor sod cowering in a heap and offering sexual favours if you just leave him alone.



> I think there's more to a scenario than "Difficulty 30, successes required 6". YMMV. This is a good example of what I've been talking about:
> 
> 30 seconds of combat: Played out round by round in glorious detail, with plenty of special abilities, cool powers, and tinkering with small options to give tiny, but possibly crucial, bonuses.
> 
> Three hours of diplomacy: Everyone pick their highest skill, come up with a justification for how it's going to be useful, and roll. Tally your success or failure. All done? Good. Now, lets move on to some butt-kickin'!




1. Of course, there is more to noncombat interaction than diplomacy, but don't let that stop you.

2. The game has rules for mediating noncombat interaction, contrary to popular belief.

3. The level of detail inherent in the rules for noncombat interactions may be lower than for combat. So what? If it ever was a secret that D&D is a game about going into dungeons, killing monsters and taking their stuff, then someone forgot to check their pills.



> Even setting that aside, I think it's treating players with some degree of contempt to tell them "Stop wondering how it all works or how this situation occurred! It did! This is the plot! Deal with it and stop asking me 'Why didn't they do this?' or 'Why didn't they do that?' Because if they did, there'd be no plot! That's why!"




Hint: the overwhelming majority of fantasy gamers do not care. If you choose to be offended over little things like a game world that puts flexibility of experience over rigidity of process, so be it. Meanwhile, everyone else will be having fun playing the game, and not caring one whit that the world is populated by plot-device items and magical effects.



> It's crappy when authors do it (cough Goblet of Fire cough), and it's crappy when DMs do it.




But you will notice that I am having fun. Are you having fun?



> The DM needs to be able to think on his feet more. If the players destroy your plot in ten minutes, make up another. Fast.




Exactly. And it is much easier to do this if you do not think too hard about fantasy.



> From the time I was a young child, people have told me not to think so much about all sorts of things, from religion to fantasy. I have never learned to heed their advice. Sorry.




There's always time to change. Don't give up hope now!


----------



## Lizard (Apr 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> You know, I sounds kinda cool if there was a "social combat" system, where characters can gain social powers. But, on the other hand, will this not turn everything into a pure "game", with little imagination involved? I really don't know.
> What I know is that 3E social encounters could be boiled down to this: Roll Gather Information, or roll Diplomacy. Occasionally, you'd roll Sense Motive. You don't even have to justify why you're rolling the skill. You just beat the fixed DC. Even if I justified, it was only one roll - there is only so much storytelling that I will (or can) do to cover one roll.
> If I have to roll 6 times, I have to come up with more. I can even react to results.




Well, we run things differently. I generally do it as follows:
Everyone roleplays. If I feel the NPC needs to make an important decision, I ask the player to roll diplomacy, or bluff if they're lying, or intimidate, or whatever. Often, I'll ask what the player is trying to do and pick the skill they should use. Any time they wish, players can roll sense motive if they think the NPC is lying.

I've never used the 'one roll turns an enemy into a friend' mechanic, except for dealing with mook guards. I don't know anyone who does. 

The bulk of a game session is PCs interacting with NPCs, with dice rolled only at crucial decision points. I think more detailed mechanics would be nice, but 3e provides a decent framework. Maybe 4e will to; I know we've only seen a stripped-down sample.



> Well, looking at the Paizo Adventure Paths, there is a lot of stuff for which there didn't seem to be any hard rules. I mean, where is the "Tear apart a dimensional rift so that prisoner demons from the Abyss can invade Oerth"-spell in the PHB?
> Most of the rules for anything here were made up, and the players could never have figured out do something like that them self. The only stuff that was important was the fluff describing what happened, and the rules how to stop the whole thing.




I don't use published adventures, so I don't know. And, sure, I've done that sort of handwaving, but it's a PITA, because players want to know how it works according to the rules, and just mumbling "magic rituals....yadda yadda" isn't very satisfying to them. The broader the rules, the easier it is for me to say "Well, it's a lot like X, but due to...uh..sunspots...it's actually Y". Then the players have a strong conceptual framework. It's easier to fudge 10% than 90%.



> If I was a better DM, I would do so. And I'll promise, I'll try to improve, get better improvising, get better at thinking on my feet more. But it would be nice if someone gave me some more advice on how to do it, or if there were some guidelines that helped me improve myself. Maybe you could write something down? Or maybe I'll wait what the DMG 4E will have to offer. (And I suppose I should also look at the CoC d20 book, rumours say it has a ton of good advice.)




Then I think you'd be supporting more hard-and-fast rules for out of combat abilities, instead of "make it up". That way, when you are forced to improvise, you have something to use, instead of saying, "Well, OK, let's have you meet a vampire...oh, wait, there's nothing in here about how vampires operate when they're not being attacked by PCs...let me decide on the 'physics' of vampires, then we can have an adventure with one."




> Think as much as you like, but there is stuff where you can over-analyze. If it's about your immortal soul or how you behave towards others, it might be worth thinking a lot. If it's about how to have fun pretending to be an elf, do only the thinking that helps you having fun. That's my advice.




Worlds that don't survive even a seconds introspection give me headaches and ruin my fun. If I'm in a game and the plot hinges on people acting contrary to how the world 'works', and this isn't a Big Honkin' Clue The Something Is Up, I stop having fun.

This is fun:
Player 1:"Hey guys, according to my research, aboleths can't control people at this range. This one can. What's going on?"

Player 2: "Well, maybe it's not an aboleth...just something pretending to be. Or maybe there's something else going on. Hmm. I do a research check. Got a 30!"

DM:"You spend four hours at the library well everyone else looks bored and edgy. About the time they're about to kill you, you do make something of a discovery. You don't find too much on aboleths, but you do learn that mind flayers make artifacts which greatly enhance the range of telepathic abilities. BTW, just to remind you, you did find aboleth slime on the guy you killed."

Player 1:"Well, that means it probably is an aboleth, or a really elaborate hoax. Hmm. I wonder if this one has made a deal with a mind flayer, or stolen a mind flayer artifact...you know, old squid-face down at the pub owes us for not killing him. Let's extract some information from him." (Begin fun roleplaying with cowardly mind flayer)

This is not fun:
Player 1:"Hey guys, according to my research, aboleths can't control people at this range. This one can. What's going on?"

DM:"Look, just go to the damn lair and kill it already. I changed the rules. Deal with it."


----------



## hong (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I don't use published adventures, so I don't know.




Tee hee.



> Then I think you'd be supporting more hard-and-fast rules for out of combat abilities, instead of "make it up". That way, when you are forced to improvise, you have something to use, instead of saying, "Well, OK, let's have you meet a vampire...oh, wait, there's nothing in here about how vampires operate when they're not being attacked by PCs...let me decide on the 'physics' of vampires, then we can have an adventure with one."




If you cannot represent it as stat/skill Atk vs stat/skill Def, give up now.



> Worlds that don't survive even a seconds introspection give me headaches and ruin my fun. If I'm in a game and the plot hinges on people acting contrary to how the world 'works', and this isn't a Big Honkin' Clue The Something Is Up, I stop having fun.




The plot hinges on people acting consistently to how the screenplay works. This is a big honkin' clue that it isn't real life. There are other paradigms to use besides real life.


----------



## DandD (Apr 21, 2008)

According to your made-up "not-fun"-example, I would simply guess that Player 1 didn't succeed at his research-check. Also, the GM must be kinda pissed because nobody paid for his part of the pizza, and he didn't have time to prepare because he's tired from the night before. Well, no problem.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> This is fun:
> Player 1:"Hey guys, according to my research, aboleths can't control people at this range. This one can. What's going on?"
> 
> Player 2: "Well, maybe it's not an aboleth...just something pretending to be. Or maybe there's something else going on. Hmm. I do a research check. Got a 30!"
> ...



You can do both in 3E, both in 4E.

See, how do the players know about the range of the aboleth's mind control range? Either through in-character knowledge (which you can still give in 4E) or through metagame knowledge (which is different from roleplay, eh?).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Tee hee.




What, you're saying I *do*? News to me...which was the last published adventure I ran?




> If you cannot represent it as stat/skill Atk vs stat/skill Def, give up now.




You're talking combat. I'm talking worldbuilding -- or at least bounds-setting. The part where you FIGHT the vampire is just the finale. The fun part is the buildup, and for that you need more than combat stats. 



> The plot hinges on people acting consistently to how the screenplay works. This is a big honkin' clue that it isn't real life. There are other paradigms to use besides real life.




True, but there has to be internal consistency. If John McClane jumps through plate glass windows without fear four times, he can't stop the fifth time and say "Hey, wait a minute! Jumping through plate glass will hurt!"

And if every vampire you've met takes a week to make a spawn, you can't have one which takes a minute -- not without some explanation beyond "I changed my mind".


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Well, we run things differently. I generally do it as follows:
> Everyone roleplays. If I feel the NPC needs to make an important decision, I ask the player to roll diplomacy, or bluff if they're lying, or intimidate, or whatever. Often, I'll ask what the player is trying to do and pick the skill they should use. Any time they wish, players can roll sense motive if they think the NPC is lying.
> 
> I've never used the 'one roll turns an enemy into a friend' mechanic, except for dealing with mook guards. I don't know anyone who does.



If the internet counts for "knowing", now you know someone. Yes, we're not happy with the solution either. 



> The bulk of a game session is PCs interacting with NPCs, with dice rolled only at crucial decision points. I think more detailed mechanics would be nice, but 3e provides a decent framework. Maybe 4e will to; I know we've only seen a stripped-down sample.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't use published adventures, so I don't know. And, sure, I've done that sort of handwaving, but it's a PITA, because players want to know how it works according to the rules, and just mumbling "magic rituals....yadda yadda" isn't very satisfying to them. The broader the rules, the easier it is for me to say "Well, it's a lot like X, but due to...uh..sunspots...it's actually Y". Then the players have a strong conceptual framework. It's easier to fudge 10% than 90%.



Magic Rituals or Magic Artifacts are perfectly accepted explanation among us. As long as we're allowed to do something about it, everything is fine.



> Then I think you'd be supporting more hard-and-fast rules for out of combat abilities, instead of "make it up". That way, when you are forced to improvise, you have something to use, instead of saying, "Well, OK, let's have you meet a vampire...oh, wait, there's nothing in here about how vampires operate when they're not being attacked by PCs...let me decide on the 'physics' of vampires, then we can have an adventure with one."



That was never a problem situation for me. Unless I really haven't prepared any idea of what the Vampire might be doing when he's attacking the PCs. I certainly never did need to look at the rules for this, except to find out which skills he could use (in interaction with the PCs). That's not something 4E changes.



> Worlds that don't survive even a seconds introspection give me headaches and ruin my fun. If I'm in a game and the plot hinges on people acting contrary to how the world 'works', and this isn't a Big Honkin' Clue The Something Is Up, I stop having fun.
> 
> This is fun:
> Player 1:"Hey guys, according to my research, aboleths can't control people at this range. This one can. What's going on?"
> ...



Okay, and where at this point entered the RAW? DM 2 probably didn't bother describing the artifact (or any reason at all) or where it came from, that's why he reacts a bit.. pissy when the players ask. But that has still noting to do with rules, but a lot with fluff. The motivation of monsters or the history of events are not rules. They are fluff. 

If the Aboleth would only contain the fluff information "uses mind control to keep minions", that would just mean that the PCs are not wondering how the Aboleth can do something other Aboleths can't do, but that doesn't mean they won't be asking the question how he can do it at all. There is no change in your scenario.


----------



## hong (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> What, you're saying I *do*? News to me...which was the last published adventure I ran?




No, I'm saying that what you do clearly has no relevance to how a great many people (most likely the majority) play D&D.



> You're talking combat. I'm talking worldbuilding -- or at least bounds-setting. The part where you FIGHT the vampire is just the finale. The fun part is the buildup, and for that you need more than combat stats.




The fun part is in the buildup for persons whose playstyle has no relevance to how a great many people play D&D.



> True, but there has to be internal consistency. If John McClane jumps through plate glass windows without fear four times, he can't stop the fifth time and say "Hey, wait a minute! Jumping through plate glass will hurt!"




Internal consistency does not require a rigid framework. It just requires commonality of expectations. Rigid frameworks enforce this commonality, but are unnecessary.



> And if every vampire you've met takes a week to make a spawn, you can't have one which takes a minute -- not without some explanation beyond "I changed my mind".




And of such explanations do great plots grow. Said explanation does not need any rules crutch. In fact, because said explanation involves ignoring rules crutches, said crutches are completely useless.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 21, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> You can do both in 3E, both in 4E.
> 
> See, how do the players know about the range of the aboleth's mind control range? Either through in-character knowledge (which you can still give in 4E) or through metagame knowledge (which is different from roleplay, eh?).
> 
> Cheers, LT.




True, but this implies in both cases that the facts are there to be known:

3e: Rules state what aboleths can do. DM may decide to alter these rules, but if he's caught unawares or doesn't care, he has something to work from.
4e: (As per OP; we don't know for sure) Rules state bupkis. DM has that much extra work to do before using a creature; players have that much extra learning to do. 

What I find interesting is that 4e is full of fluff which *isn't* useful and which DOES have to be changed before play can begin -- world level fluff which affects everything, but it (seemingly) skimps where details are necessary -- in defining how individual creatures work. 

How The Dwarves And The Giants Came To Hate Each Other: Useless and annoying.
How Vampires Spawn: Useful and important.

So which do we get?

(Or to use another Real Play (tm) example, compare the Kuo Toa harpooner (MMV) with the 4e goblin picador. Which gives you more meat to deal with edge cases and mechanical questions?)


----------



## Lizard (Apr 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The fun part is in the buildup for persons whose playstyle has no relevance to how a great many people play D&D.




So, just to be clear, according to you, for most people, a D&D game goes like this:
DM:You're outside a spooky old mansion. What do you do?
Players: We go inside.
DM: OK, inside, there's a vampire! What do you do?
Players: We attack!

Is that really what you're saying?

'Cause, if you're right, there's no point in 4e -- WoW has won, 'cause I can play that style in WoW better and easier than I ever could in D&D.


----------



## hong (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> 3e: Rules state what aboleths can do. DM may decide to alter these rules, but if he's caught unawares or doesn't care, he has something to work from.
> 4e: (As per OP; we don't know for sure) Rules state bupkis. DM has that much extra work to do before using a creature; players have that much extra learning to do.




That you require a rigid framework before using a monster is your problem, and one which can be solved simply by not thinking too hard about fantasy.


----------



## hong (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> So, just to be clear, according to you, for most people, a D&D game goes like this:
> DM:You're outside a spooky old mansion. What do you do?
> Players: We go inside.
> DM: OK, inside, there's a vampire! What do you do?
> ...




Tch. If the players decide to do something different than just rolling for initiative, of course they can. And the presence of the DM allows this possibility to happen, because even people with red circles around their feet do not always act on a shoot-on-sight policy. And the framework provided is quite sufficient to handle these cases, if a little more abstractly than is your preference.



> 'Cause, if you're right, there's no point in 4e -- WoW has won, 'cause I can play that style in WoW better and easier than I ever could in D&D.




But you're going to keep complaining about it, right?


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> What I find interesting is that 4e is full of fluff which *isn't* useful and which DOES have to be changed before play can begin -- world level fluff which affects everything, but it (seemingly) skimps where details are necessary -- in defining how individual creatures work.



But that's mainly your personal opinion. The world level fluff is nice, because it a) gives people a jump start for "just playing D&D", and b) because it can serve as inspiration.

The monster level fluff is very modular and campaign specific. In some campaigns, you never even hear of an aboleth. Or a mind flayer. Or an orc. But if they do feature, then I hope the DM has put some thought into it - and hence has time to "codify" something for that campaign/homebrew world/whatever. And it's a dream for flavouring monsters, fitting the world, a la Pathfinder (see their goblins and so on).

Unless he's just pulling monsters out of the MM at random - but then we're back to square one: If he's just pulling out monsters at random, less fluff-intensive monsters are better, because he can fit it into the current world without worrying about abilities that would disrupt his world design.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## hong (Apr 21, 2008)

Yep. The world level fluff is some of the most inspiring material I've seen for years. It's certainly the most inspiring fluff I've ever seen for D&D. I actually want to run a game that incorporates all that material, the first time I've ever felt that.


----------



## Steely Dan (Apr 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Yep. The world level fluff is some of the most inspiring material I've seen for years. It's certainly the most inspiring fluff I've ever seen for D&D. I actually want to run a game that incorporates all that material, the first time I've ever felt that.




Yeah, at this point D&D is it's own brand of fantasy.

So for the first time, I too, am looking forward to running a standard/core setting D&D campaign.

But of course I will continue to DM non-standard campaigns (_Planescape_, _Dark Sun_, homebrew etc)


----------



## Mallus (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Even setting that aside, I think it's treating players with some degree of contempt to tell them "Stop wondering how it all works or how this situation occurred!



Then as a DM, create an adventure-specific (rough)framework for 'how things work'. This is part and parcel with fantasy plotting, right?.

Relying on an overly complex system of magical measures/countermeasures seems far more contemptuous of the players to me since it 1) demonstrates contempt for players who don't purchase and scour all of the published materials (and it prioritizes 'learning the rules' over learning the world via play experiences) and 2) it shows contempt for anyone playing a non-full progression spellcaster.

At least 'plot-based magic' can be as involving to _all_ the players as the DM wants it to be.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> You'd think, but it could simply be a listing of rituals by level with no idea how they were built.
> 
> Or it could be exactly what it should be, a set of detailed rules and guidelines. We'll see.




Oh, come on.  Do you REALLY think that the designers are that incompetent that they would simply publish a list of rituals with no idea of how they were built?

((You have no idea how hard I'm resisting pointing to other editions here.))

In any event, we KNOW for an absolute fact that there are at least guidelines which will detail the relative power levels of rituals (raise dead ritual) and that monsters will have access to rituals (lich phylactery).  So, that's two things that we know right off the bat.

However, I notice that you still failed to answer my earlier question.  What is the difference between "Oh, the bad guy has a magic item that lets him do X" and "The bad guy has a ritual that lets him do X"?  And, how is one good and another bad?


----------



## Mirtek (Apr 21, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Yeah, at this point D&D is it's own brand of fantasy.



I diasgree. D&D has become just annother average run-off-the-mill games.

The old myth-mash gave it something unique, stories of

"Eric of Tyr, mighty warrior from a land of frost and night adventuring together with Scheherazade, the street-urchin who had to flee from her native land of heat, sands and fate to avoid losing her hand after being caught stealing dates at the bazzar, and last but not least Zhou, Master of the Eagle Claw from the temple of the Seren Winds while cutting their way through dense jungle racing to stop Acamapichtli, the tribal witch of the Nahuatls from performing the dark rite to summon Huehueteotl"

gave D&D it's unique brand of fantasy. The "what if all different myhtologies are true (more or less with minor variations) and have to live with each other as neighbors" approach was refreshing.

How is Odin getting along with Tlaloc? What's Kali up to with Gruumsh's eye? Do Thor and Hercules belong to the same armwrestling team?


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> You'd think, but it could simply be a listing of rituals by level with no idea how they were built.
> 
> Or it could be exactly what it should be, a set of detailed rules and guidelines. We'll see.



Ignoring the fact that rules transparency is one of stated goals of 4th Edition which is pretty much followed through by everything else we've seen(which you are), if it's "just" a list of 100 or so noncombat spells, explain how this is a bad thing.


----------



## Steely Dan (Apr 21, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> D&D has become just annother average run-off-the-mill games.




If _you _ wish to implement it that way, the choice is yours, of course.

_My _ D&D campaigns have never been run-of-the-mill anything.


----------



## DandD (Apr 21, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> The "what if all different myhtologies are true (more or less with minor variations) and have to live with each other as neighbors" approach was refreshing.
> 
> How is Odin getting along with Tlaloc? What's Kali up to with Gruumsh's eye? Do Thor and Hercules belong to the same armwrestling team?



That's what you call the "Forgotten Realms". It just happens that due to a glut of novels, the campaign setting had so much appendage that people felt intimidated to play there, or just found it totally ridicolous, which is why they created and played in their own campaign setting. D&D is first and foremost a rules-encyclopedia for dungeon-hack'n'slashs. Campaign settings are modular and can vary from playgroup to playgroup, unlike games like Shadowrun, Middle-Earth, Warhammer Fantasy RPG, Vampire, or The Dark Eye (which failed in the US, haha), where they do have a tied-in campaign world with a metaplot going on.


----------



## Mirtek (Apr 21, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> or The Dark Eye (which failed in the US, haha),



Is there a place in the world where it did not fail?  


			
				DandD said:
			
		

> That's what you call the "Forgotten Realms".



I call it the D&D meta-setting from which all those references to cherished common ground between people who never played on the same table (not even the same continent) come from. 

Sure, other groups just didn't care and played in their own custom settings, but millions of players were united under the same meta-setting. When Eric Mona (I believe it was him, don't remember) writes about how he discovered that mentioning the "Rod of Seven Parts" or "The Hand of Vecna" or "Dragotha" sparked the same gleam in the eyes of completly different people, it all came from this shared meta-experience.

D&D had build it's own mythology over 30 years and then it's replaced by run-off-the-mill concepts you can find in every second fantasy setting background and that's supposed to be unique


----------



## DandD (Apr 21, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> Is there a place in the world where it did not fail?



Appearently, it's still the top-dog in Germany. But then again, who cares about "The Dark Eye"? Haha. 


> I call it the D&D meta-setting from which all those references to cherished common ground between people who never played on the same table (not even the same continent) come from.



Well, the "D&D-meta-setting" for 3rd edition was Greyhawk... 


> Sure, other groups just didn't care and played in their own custom settings, but millions of players were united under the same meta-setting. When Eric Mona (I believe it was him, don't remember) writes about how he discovered that mentioning the "Rod of Seven Parts" or "The Hand of Vecna" or "Dragotha" sparked the same gleam in the eyes of completly different people, it all came from this shared meta-experience.



Yeah, but that's all Greyhawk-stuff, isn't it? 


> D&D had build it's own mythology over 30 years and then it's replaced by run-off-the-mill concepts you can find in every second fantasy setting background and that's supposed to be unique



Well, what do you mean with run-off-the-mill concepts?


----------



## Shadeydm (Apr 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> And of such explanations do great plots grow. Said explanation does not need any rules crutch. In fact, because said explanation involves ignoring rules crutches, said crutches are completely useless.




No this is important information just like how the Succubus controls the King is important information because at some point she may decide that the PCs are too great a threat and then you have to face the question of why can't she do the same thing to one of the PCs? This is why we need this infomation, the answer shouldn't be "um well just because" or "um just because I don't know how she did it in the first place".


----------



## Rel (Apr 21, 2008)

hong, I think you make a lot of really good points.  But the problem is that you don't seem to be able to make them without being snarky to the point of rude.  We need you to at least _try_ to do so.  If you try and fail...well we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.  But if you don't try at all then I have some bad news.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 21, 2008)

Hong, out of the thread, please. Look for an email from me.


----------



## HP Dreadnought (Apr 21, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> You know, the concept of the PCs "gaining control" of a succubus is interesting. What do they do with it?




I can't believe you just asked that question!  LOL!!


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 21, 2008)

I come down somewhere in the middle of this...On the one hand, something like "Can a succubus charm you in combat" is relevant information but say for example, the 3.5E version that had "Tongues" as a spell-like ability.

TONGUES? Really, is any DM really going to say , "Oh, I can't have this backstory because the succubus can't speak Elven?"

That to me is an example of fluff I don't need.

There's also an aspect of that it seems like spell-like abilities trump actual non-magical abilities a.k.a skills. For example, looking at the 4E succubus, couldn't she have simply seduced him via her SKILLs? She does have Bluff and Diplomacy scores of +15


----------



## jasin (Apr 21, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Yeah, at this point D&D is it's own brand of fantasy.



Actually, with a parallel shadow-world of the dead and a parallel fairyland and devils as divine servants exiled to Hell for a terrible offense, in many ways it feels less like it's own brand of fantasy than before. And that's a good thing.


----------



## Derren (Apr 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> That you require a rigid framework before using a monster is your problem, and one which can be solved simply by not thinking too hard about fantasy.




Nothing in D&D, even in 3E is really rigid. The DM can always change things without anyone arresting him.
So its not a issue of having a rigid framework, but to have suggestions about what the monsters can do outside of combat. If you don't like it you can still change it, but if that information is missing the DM always has to make something up.
At best this amounts to the exact same work as in 3E in the case that the DM did not like the suggestion. In the worst case it means a lot more work for the DM as the suggestion would have been good.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 21, 2008)

Re: the aboleth thing.

There are only two ways a character could say something like "But aboleth's can't control people from this far away!"

1. The character learned this in game.  If that's the case, then there's no problem.  There's no need for an automatic baseline because the DM gave the character the answer actually in use in that actual campaign.

2. The player read the monster manual and is assuming that his character knows this piece of out of character information.  This is NOT acceptable without DM permission.  Even if the character has like 20 ranks in Knowledge: Stuff about Aboleths, the player should still be checking with the DM rather than bringing in information himself.  And while I think it might be an interesting campaign to run a mystery type setting where the information in the Monster Manual was open to PCs and the players were trying to solve the mystery by using the MM as a reference book, I don't think the whole game should be designed that way just because someone might try to do that.  I think its more reasonable to assume that things get handled the normal way- in game information, adjusted and filtered by the DM.

In any case, when being concerned about the baseline of information your players hold, its usually best to make that baseline a genre rather than encyclopedic knowledge of aboleth behavior.  Robin Laws explains it best.  Teach your players what kind of movie they're in.  Then make sure that your game conforms to the expectations of that movie.  Are you in a Hong Kong kung fu flick?  Then the solution to aboleths is probably a massive brawl that leaves half the city leveled.  Are you in a in a cthuloid horror flick?  Then the solution to aboleths is to run far away screaming.  Teach the players the genre, and they'll fill in the details without you having to go through the rather risky process of assuming that your players can derive the species of a creature using mental control from the radius of its mind powers without the use of in character knowledge placed in the game by the DM.


----------



## Steely Dan (Apr 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Nothing in D&D, even in 3E is really rigid. The DM can always change things without anyone arresting him.




You obviously haven't wrangled with the _WotC Ninjas_!


I can't tell you how many times when we veered from RAW, they would rappell from my living room ceiling and force us all to play "properly".


----------



## Lackhand (Apr 21, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> You obviously haven't wrangled with the _WotC Ninjas_!
> 
> 
> I can't tell you how many times when we veered from RAW, they would repel from my living room ceiling and force us all to play "properly".



Mostly because the number is 0.

But the number of times that they've _rappelled_ from your ceiling...

(oh buggrem. This is going to turn into another rogue/rouge//lose/loose thing, isn't it... oh noes!)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 21, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> You obviously haven't wrangled with the _WotC Ninjas_!
> 
> 
> I can't tell you how many times when we veered from RAW, they would repel from my living room ceiling and force us all to play "properly".



And don't forget this: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=218792


----------



## D'karr (Apr 21, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Mostly because the number is 0.
> 
> But the number of times that they've _rappelled_ from your ceiling...
> 
> (oh buggrem. This is going to turn into another rogue/rouge//lose/loose thing, isn't it... *oh noes!*)




That would be oh nose!!!


----------



## Steely Dan (Apr 21, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> But the number of times that they've _rappelled_ from your ceiling...




Tahkns ddue, I taotlly belw taht!


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 21, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Re: the aboleth thing.
> 
> 2. The player read the monster manual and is assuming that his character knows this piece of out of character information.  This is NOT acceptable without DM permission.  Even if the character has like 20 ranks in Knowledge: Stuff about Aboleths, the player should still be checking with the DM rather than bringing in information himself.  And while I think it might be an interesting campaign to run a mystery type setting where the information in the Monster Manual was open to PCs and the players were trying to solve the mystery by using the MM as a reference book, I don't think the whole game should be designed that way just because someone might try to do that.  I think its more reasonable to assume that things get handled the normal way- in game information, adjusted and filtered by the DM.
> 
> .




This raises an interesting question about metagaming.

How the hell does anyone in the campaign world know the limits of an aboleth's mind-control? More importantly, how do they know the limits of mind control for this *specific* aboleth? The same thing goes for many of the outsider/far realm beasties. I don't think aboleths wrote down in a book somewhere their exact powers....

For example, in our world, the vast,vast majority of adult people can't run the 100 meters under 20 seconds. Yet every 4 years, we get at least a 10 people that can clock in under half the time and about a hundred more that can do in under 11s

I still say the big problem is what another poster alluded to and that's the reliance on magic. A succubus has the time (she's immortal), she has the looks (she can shapeshift), she's got the skills (Bluff,Diplomacy and probably more sexual secrets/techniques that you can shake a tail at) and she's got the powers (judicious use of Charm and Dominate), yet she can't control the king without a specific magic ritual/spell?


----------



## webrunner (Apr 21, 2008)

We know that a Succubus CAN control a country.

We don't know necessarily HOW, but I ask: Is there any situation where the how is important?

It's obviously a long-term thing (the short-term ones are, after all, combat skills), through long term use of charisma skills, short-term domination and charming, and whatever, she gains enough influence to be a puppetmaster.  That's basically what you get out of reading the fluff.  Maybe she has a specific ritual she performs to take full control over the king, but what that ritual actually is really only matters if the party happens upon it while it's occuring.  Possibly in the King's bedroom.

At that point it becomes a story event, and a story event is entirely within the DM's job to come up with unless they're using pre-made adventures.  If you want to have your characters busting into a king's bedroom mid 'ritual', the rules support that.  If you want to have your characters busting into the Succubus's lair while she's drinking goat's blood in order to strengthen her hold on the king, the rules support that too. 

However, if you want to say that the king is under control as per the combat rules of the succubus, it doesn't really make sense.  As well it shouldn't.  It isn't combat.

WHAT an encounter is, HOW it runs, these things can be told you by the rules, but no rulebook is going to tell you outright WHY a given encounter is supposed to happen.  Otherwise you're basically taking the DM out of the equation.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 21, 2008)

I wonder if ninjas abseil instead of rapell.  



> Originally Posted by Derren
> Nothing in D&D, even in 3E is really rigid. The DM can always change things without anyone arresting him.




True story.  I once had a player get all sorts of angry because I used a wyvern in the wrong terrain.  

But, I do agree with you.  Sure the DM can change things.  But, again, we're talking about having to wade through yards of crap in order to figure out what to change.  For example, the 3e Succubus has Suggestion.  But, also, her kiss works as a Suggestion spell, but only to make the victim give you another kiss.

Umm, what?

Why not just give her the Suggestion SLA?  Cast Suggestion to make someone give you lots of kisses.  There, end of story.  Instead, we have a wonky mechanic that makes an exception out of Suggestion in that it ONLY makes you give the Succubus ONE more kiss.

I can understand people getting uptight about stripping away stuff from creatures, but, when you look at it, does this REALLY need to be there?  Do you really need a separate Suggestion ability?  Does it specifically HAVE to be Suggestion, considering there are a million other spells out there that you could do?  What if the succubus kisses someone in a silence spell?  What if the target is deaf?  Oh, and now we HAVE to add on the Tongue's ability so that the Kiss ability always works.

Or, do you go the 4e route.  You make specific mechanics for that specific action and let DM's move beyond that if they want to.


----------



## Derren (Apr 21, 2008)

webrunner said:
			
		

> We know that a Succubus CAN control a country.
> 
> We don't know necessarily HOW, but I ask: Is there any situation where the how is important?




1. The PCs want to break the control the Succubus has over the country.
2. The PCs have allied/bargained with a Succubus to gain control of a country
3. The PCs dominate/blackmail/force the Succubus to gain control over a country and do what they tell her.
4. The PCs suspect that the country is under the control of a Succubus and want to investigate.

If you want to keep the game consistent (for example when the PCs had previous encounters with Succubi) its important that the DM knows how this works.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> But you're going to keep complaining about it, right?




I'm still pissed at Fox for taking off Firefly. So, yes.

I was born a grumpy old man...

To bring up another point -- yes, I require a rigid framework for monster abilities. Either I define them myself, or I use a published definition, or somewhere in between, but when the game begins, I want to know "This can do X at a range of Y". If I'm forced to make something up on the spot, I can, but it gets written down and becomes the new law of the land from then on.

I've never been comfortable with plot dependent power levels in any media. If Spiderman can beat Firebrand (or Firelord, can't remember, Galactus' least-interesting herald) in one issue, he shouldn't have trouble fighting Stilt-Man in another. Gives me agita.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 21, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> However, I notice that you still failed to answer my earlier question.  What is the difference between "Oh, the bad guy has a magic item that lets him do X" and "The bad guy has a ritual that lets him do X"?  And, how is one good and another bad?




It's not bad if the rituals have rules defining them; it's bad if it's a simple handwave excuse. 

But this is a different topic. I don't mind thinking "Succubi can only use that charm once a day, but this one needs more for the plot I have in mind; let me see if I can build a ritual to do it that she's qualified to use". I do mind "Well, no one bothered setting a baseline for succubi, so, I guess the entire castle are her slaves by now."

Or as I noted earlier, I'd much rather make up world fluff than monster fluff. If they're reading people's minds at WOTC, they've clearly decided that the main design goal of 4e is "annoy Lizard". Even so, there's a lot of ideas I really like, I just dislike their implementation of them.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> 1. The PCs want to break the control the Succubus has over the country.
> 2. The PCs have allied/bargained with a Succubus to gain control of a country
> 3. The PCs dominate/blackmail/force the Succubus to gain control over a country and do what they tell her.
> 4. The PCs suspect that the country is under the control of a Succubus and want to investigate.
> ...




I just want to look at that last bit.

Derren, are you claiming that every monster must work in exactly the same way as every other monster of its type or the game is no longer consistent?  That if one succubus has an ability, all succubi must have the identical abililty?

How do you justify advanced monsters then?  

As far as 1-4 goes, isn't that what the DM should be doing?  Shouldn't the DM be dropping hooks and reacting to what the players attempt to do?  Again, is it important that not only does the DM know exactly, mechanically how the succubus achieved its goals, but also, he must be able to present this to the players as well?

I already crafted a trial ritual above that answers all 4 of your points.  How is this a failing?  And, how is this inconsistent?


----------



## DandD (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I've never been comfortable with plot dependent power levels in any media. If Spiderman can beat Firebrand (or Firelord, can't remember, Galactus' least-interesting herald) in one issue, he shouldn't have trouble fighting Stilt-Man in another. Gives me agita.



That, my friend, Marvel's stagnant story-telling, which is on par with that of DC. 
After you've beaten gods and cosmic beings from other dimensions, stories should simply end. But comic book superheroes being, well, comic book superheroes, they will fight on and on and on and on and on, and their enemies will just use even more ludicrous plots, and things will just get more inane... till the multi/universe implodes, literally. 
Then it's time for a reboot, new rules, new restrictions, and new creative licenses to let your imagination run free. 
Holds true for comic book superhero-stories, and for Pen&Paper-RPGs.


----------



## sorites (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Details on long-term control are needed, but the 4e focus is entirely on "Things which occur in a combat round". Out of combat==just doesn't matter.



I think you're wrong that out of combat doesn't matter to the 4e rules set. Maybe you're not completely serious, but I'd revise your statement like this:

"Monster Manual Out of combat==just doesn't matter"

Which is why we probably won't see rituals or other long-term powers detailed in the MM. Instead, the monsters described in the MM will just have rules for combat. Monsters are made to kill, after all. But wait! What about monsters that are captured or interrogated? What about monsters that are more than their stats? I'm betting the DMG will talk about how to use monsters out of combat, in social challenges, as recurring villains, as "puppet masters", etc. 

The DMG will give advice on creating an internally consistent reason for the monster's position in the plot. That could involve making up an artifact, creating a new long-term power or ritual, or rationalizing that the succubus's Bluff and Perform skills are sufficiently higher than the king's sense motive that she has flat-out seduced him (i.e. without magic). 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Lizard said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Here's an interesting quote from Keith Baker's blog (also discussed on WotC's 4e forums):



			
				Keith Baker said:
			
		

> Raise Dead. In 4E, it's specifically called out that you can't raise most people from the dead. By and large, when the fates cut your thread, it's over - you are sent to whatever your final fate may be. You can only be raised if you still have an unfulfilled destiny - and as it turns out, that's something most PCs (and presumably, many major villains) happen to have. This is a HUGE thing for me in terms of dealing with the logical impact of raise dead on a civilization.



Based on this, I don't think rituals will just be a list with no rules, and I don't think they will be overly vague. Keith even points out, and I think Lizard agrees, the rules for how the Raise Dead Ritual works set boundaries for what to expect in the world. In this case, when people die, they usually stay dead because bringing someone back to life is rare. 

But beyond that, we also see the DM is given some handwaving powers. This is very different from 3E where the DM and the players were bound to obey the same set of rules. Here, the DM is given the authority to say, "Yes, this NPC can be brought back to life, but that one can't."



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> On the other hand if, as the OP seems to wish, the only relevant text was "Succubi seduce people, mmmkay?", the DMs job becomes a lot harder, as he has to basically design the rules for succubi before designing a plot centering on them.



I think you're seeing things backwards, which isn't really surprising because what you say makes perfect sense from a 3E perspective. But if you're just given some text that says, "Succubi seduce people," and that is all, you can decide *how* the seduction works _after_ you decide the who and why. Reverse engineer it. 

And I really think the DMG is going to provide hard and fast guidelines  for helping the DM define situations like this with a framework of rules. 3E is sooo rules-oriented, I can't imagine 4E supporting the notion that whatever the DM says goes. The party will be allowed to interact with NPCs and plots in ways that are supported by the rules, not mere handwaving. Some handwaving might be involved, but it won't be 100% DM fiat.


----------



## Derren (Apr 21, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Derren, are you claiming that every monster must work in exactly the same way as every other monster of its type or the game is no longer consistent?  That if one succubus has an ability, all succubi must have the identical abililty?




Yes. The power can of course differ (by a reasonable amount) but the abilities the monsters have should stay the same.







> I already crafted a trial ritual above that answers all 4 of your points.  How is this a failing?  And, how is this inconsistent?




That is of course not inconsistent because you created a rule which is valid for all Succubus. Created is the important word here, meaning that you as DM had to create the ritual itself, check if for loopholes and make sure that it is balanced. If the MM would include out of combat information for monsters this work wouldn't have been necessary.
Sure, its not much work for a single monster, but do it for all monsters and it quickly adds up.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> It's not bad if the rituals have rules defining them; it's bad if it's a simple handwave excuse.



If that's the case, then what rules did you use when you invented the 'artifact of increased aboleth power range'?

Because from where I'm sittin', artifacts and rituals _both _look a lot like plot devices.


----------



## Anaxander (Apr 21, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Magic is countered by boring Detect Magic and Dispel Magic-tricks. Heck, the Court Wizard and the High Holy Priest would see through the magic charm right in a second, and to counter that, you would once again need special spells that disguise the magical charm effects, but because that's not fair, you once again need higher-level detect magic effects, and a higher-level dispel magic, and so on.
> That's what leads to those huge assinine statblocks, where in order to function effective in a magical way, you need too much magic, where in the end, it's just magic that matters, and not the skills.




I don't agree at all with this statement.

1) Using dispel magic to dispel the charm effect requires you to cast a spell on the king. Now why would he (and his guards) allow that? Before you can earn the trust of the court, you will have to use a lot of other skills. So it's not all magic that matters.

2) Using spells to counter magical effects drains the daily resources of the party's spellcaster. Using dispel magic means a spell less to blow things up, to gain information, to buff, to heal, etc. As probably not all characters in the party are spellcasters, in the end you will have to use a combination of skills, magic and martial arts to succeed.
Magic is a scarce resource, both for players and NPCs. When played right, it is never "boring".

3) In the final confrontation between the succubus, the king and the party, why would the use of dispel magic (which also depends on a roll) be more "boring" than an attack roll or skill check? 

4) About the inflation of magic... The same arms race happens between attack bonus and AC, skills and DCs. It's not a consequence of the magic system, but of level advancement.


----------



## DandD (Apr 21, 2008)

Look, the Court Wizard and/or the High Holy Priest will simply see it instantly. Heck, it's their very job to ensure the magical and spiritual safety of the king in the first place. No need for any adventurer to cast Dispel and Detect Magic at all, because the Succubus would have been instantly been slain by these two guys with their own retinue. 

Magic inflation is boring. It's simple as that. Better use the mundane skills of the Succubus, and let her use her devilish brain instead of her arcane brawn. 

Or else, we might as well just return to the rulership of magocracy in D&D, where anybody who doesn't use magic simply sucks, especially at higher level.


----------



## jasin (Apr 21, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Magic inflation is boring. It's simple as that. Better use the mundane skills of the Succubus, and let her use her devilish brain instead of her arcane brawn.



Any particular reason why it needs to be a Succubus, then, rather than a Really Hot Chick?


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 21, 2008)

jasin said:
			
		

> Any particular reason why it needs to be a Succubus, then, rather than a Really Hot Chick?




No. Any really hot chick whose goal is to lead an entire nation into damnation or manipulate its ruler into doing the bidding of the Nine Hells will do.

But being able to change your appearance at will probably helps. And actually being someone from the Nine Hells instead of a third party that probably helps keep your agenda from diverging too far.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 21, 2008)

jasin said:
			
		

> Any particular reason why it needs to be a Succubus, then, rather than a Really Hot Chick?



Because its more fun to chop the former up into little pieces.

The problem with magic inflation, as he's using the term, is not "oh noes there's magic in my game!"  Its the laser/anti-laser-shield/super-shield-penetrating-laser phenomena.  Having "detect magic" in the game necessitates a spell that makes it so you can't detect magic, otherwise plotlines about magically disguised people are impossible as long as first level wizards are about.  So countermeasure spells are added.  And then inevitably a counter-countermeasure spell is added.  The cycle never ends.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 21, 2008)

All I want is some sharks.  With Laserbeams attached to their heads.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 21, 2008)

Your sharks are powerless against my sharkbite proof wetsuit and my aquatic anti laser shield.


----------



## Mirtek (Apr 21, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Look, the Court Wizard and/or the High Holy Priest will simply see it instantly. Heck, it's their very job to ensure the magical and spiritual safety of the king in the first place. No need for any adventurer to cast Dispel and Detect Magic at all, because the Succubus would have been instantly been slain by these two guys with their own retinue.



Which also applies to a Succubus charming the king the non-magical way. It's also their job to see through her alter self.


			
				DandD said:
			
		

> Well, the "D&D-meta-setting" for 3rd edition was Greyhawk...
> Yeah, but that's all Greyhawk-stuff, isn't it?



Much of it is Greyhawk stuff, but by the same tokken all of it is "Great Wheel" stuff and thus at last stuff of every setting touched by Planescape.

I have never played Greyhawk until 2003 and yet I knew all this stuff long before, it just was "the D&D stuff"


			
				DandD said:
			
		

> Well, what do you mean with run-off-the-mill concepts?



Well, they took almost anything that was unique and against the mainstream run-off-the-mill fantasy world out.

E.g. that the planes cared more about chaos vs. law than good vs. evil and that even the celestials were divided by this chasm.


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> 1. The PCs want to break the control the Succubus has over the country.
> 2. The PCs have allied/bargained with a Succubus to gain control of a country
> 3. The PCs dominate/blackmail/force the Succubus to gain control over a country and do what they tell her.
> 4. The PCs suspect that the country is under the control of a Succubus and want to investigate.
> ...




He could know how a Succubus works _abstractly_ - that is, in the game world - and use a skill challenge to _resolve any conflict between PC and NPC_ to cover all of those possibilities.


----------



## Kishin (Apr 21, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> Well, they took almost anything that was unique and against the mainstream run-off-the-mill fantasy world out.
> 
> E.g. that the planes cared more about chaos vs. law than good vs. evil and that even the celestials were divided by this chasm.




Law/Chaos has been a commonplace fantasy trope since Moorcock, to be fair. I'd hardly qualify it as unique and mainstream.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> That is of course not inconsistent because you created a rule which is valid for all Succubus.



Let me ask you this: why is it important to create rules that are valid for all succubae? Why the need for a global-level _rule_ when a local-level _ruling_ should suffice? So long as the players are given the opportunity to gain intelligence that helps them defeat a specific plot-relevant succubus, what's the problem?

Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, not to mention games where we pretend to be elves fighting hobgoblins...

Besides, he current rules allow for so much monster customization, through templates and class levels, that monsters of the same type can be made essentially unique --and thus negating the importance of prior encounters w/that type-- if the DM chooses to go that route.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 21, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The problem with magic inflation, as he's using the term, is not "oh noes there's magic in my game!"  Its the laser/anti-laser-shield/super-shield-penetrating-laser phenomena.  Having "detect magic" in the game necessitates a spell that makes it so you can't detect magic, otherwise plotlines about magically disguised people are impossible as long as first level wizards are about.  So countermeasure spells are added.  And then inevitably a counter-countermeasure spell is added.  The cycle never ends.



That cycle can be a lot of fun... in games where every PC has access to what amount to metahuman powers; like supers systems like Mutants and Masterminds and Champions, where even your 3rd rate Batman clone carries ghost-repellent in his utility belt.

The magic escalation problem is particularly problematic in D&D since the system assumes half the party won't have built-in supernatural powers. And of course, 3e addressed that issue by assuming --but not making especially clear-- that every PC could purchase magical powers with sufficient cash.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 21, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The cycle never ends.



It had better damn well end in six weeks.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 21, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> It had better damn well end in six weeks.



 6 Weeks 4 days, but who's counting?


----------



## DandD (Apr 21, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> Which also applies to a Succubus charming the king the non-magical way. It's also their job to see through her alter self.



Yes, which is why she'll as long as possible try not to be too near those two guys, and try to keep her relationship with the king a secret as long as possible. But whenever the king needs to deal with state affairs, there will be some routine magic checks on the king himself, and may it just be for his annual health examination, and then the Magic Charm Effect will be discovered. Succubi now have to be a lot more intelligent. It might be okay that there's some kind of shape-changing magic upon the woman, perhaps to hide some physical imperfection, like some kind of magical surgery, if she gets seen by both Court Mage and High Holy Priest at all (everybody's using magic to become a little bit more beautifull, that's not forbidden). But mind-altering spells upon the regent? That's more than suspicious. That's an attack upon the king himself. 

Don't forget, D&D-Succubi are Mata Haris serving some Devil Overlord. They're not gender-changing inseminators who swap sperm around so that some peasants now have to provide for a child without mother and father having been married together (Nope, no adultery was involved, it was an evil Succubus, sir, I would never sleep with your daughter before the wedding ceremony, even if I were allowed to marry her at all  ).


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 21, 2008)

Is it my imagination or is this thread repeating itself?

Is it time to start looking for the temporal loophole?


----------



## Victim (Apr 22, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> Is it my imagination or is this thread repeating itself?
> 
> Is it time to start looking for the temporal loophole?




A phane is attacking!


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 22, 2008)

Victim said:
			
		

> A phane is attacking!




No it isn't.  They don't have that ability in their stat block, so they can't do it.

And yes, as pointed out, given that detect magic is known to be trivial (a function of a skill), and given that elites/heroes are not incredibly rare (top percentiles, but not one-in-a-million), we still get the question of how detect magic will work, and permit things like secret enchantments.


----------



## rob626 (Apr 22, 2008)

3.x set up the expectation- rightly or wrongly- that what was in the Book was gospel and to deviate at all was some form of cheating.  Horse pucky.   The more rules there are the more restricted actions/responses become for player and dm alike.

quite possibly my biggest beef with 3.x ...and the single largest reason why I look forward to 4ed was having to tell players "yeah, I don't care that you memorized the MM.  THIS creature is special!"

Having to explain that for every stinking npc to walk down the road is just annoying.  When everyone is "special" then noone is.  And my rules-junkie players would kvetch and whine whenever their vaunted player knowledge worked against them.  "But that's not possible!  It says right here on page 89 what the powers are!"

I understand why the players were upset.  Their expectations were not being met.  Their anticipation was that what was printed was the complete rule set and unchangeable.

I have become very disenchanted with having to jump through hoops to justify plotlines.  I guess the succubus has 7 levels of rogue so her skill points can be high enough to bluff the royal mage.  And then create a magic item that allows X to happen. 

Yes, dm's modify creatures and say "This one's different".   But how is that different from the 4ed approach of skipping past the 1st layer of rules to a philosophy of use something suitable?  If the only succubus my players meet is a one-off from the basic creature does it matter what the original statblock said?  And more importantly, isn't the fact that the players approaching said one-off succubus have fewer expectations about the encounter and thus have more options available more entertaining?

The rigidity of the 3.x system was stifling and the nattering of rules-obsessed (as opposed to story-obsessed) players is something I greatly look forward to chucking into the nearest bonfire.  And oh! how I will dance.

As long as I am consistent behind the scenes with rough numbers and plot reasoning the rules on how that consistency came about are irrelevant and in my way.  And having the players sit down with a script of possible outcomes based on those rules is counter to what I find enjoyable in a role playing game.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 22, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> If the MM would include out of combat information for monsters this work wouldn't have been necessary.
> 
> Sure, its not much work for a single monster, but do it for all monsters and it quickly adds up.




Indeed, but the MM has basic out-of-combat informations (skills, defences, etc.) for monsters. What it doesn't seem to have - and we may still be proven wrong on this - is an abundance of adventure plot resolution material.

For most monsters, you just don't need this information. Indeed, about the only time it becomes relevant is when you elevate a monster to BBEG status, and at that point you're talking about adventure design which follows different rules.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 22, 2008)

rob626 said:
			
		

> 3.x set up the expectation- rightly or wrongly- that what was in the Book was gospel and to deviate at all was some form of cheating.  Horse pucky.   The more rules there are the more restricted actions/responses become for player and dm alike.
> 
> quite possibly my biggest beef with 3.x ...and the single largest reason why I look forward to 4ed was having to tell players "yeah, I don't care that you memorized the MM.  THIS creature is special!"
> 
> ...




There was nothing in the 3.XE rules against making up a monster, or against copy-pasting arbitrary bonuses and penalties.  You can make up a Favored of the Abyss (Ex) power that gives a succubus +10 to Bluff, Disguise, and Diplomacy, and permanent Mind Blank in 3.XE; more to your point, you can create a creature with the DM Fiat (Ex) ability and simply treat it as a walking story device, if you so choose.  I should point out that players disinclined to look favorably upon such an entity will not be likely to appreciate it in another system.

I think that you will rapidly find that if you rely solely on story and genre expectations to communicate the world, you will run into problems when discrepancies between what the players expect to be possible and what you consider normal crop up.  Should clerics be able to turn demons?  On one hand, it's a fairly classical use of a holy symbol and true faith; on the other hand, turning is positive energy channeled through the cleric, as opposed to divine energy, and positive energy doesn't harm demons.  If one player has an expectation that turning is radiant, and another that it's sacred, and you don't feel the need to clarify it up front with detailed rules as to what it does, then the first time a demon interacts with a turn attempt, you'll have irritated players.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Yes. The power can of course differ (by a reasonable amount) but the abilities the monsters have should stay the same.
> 
> That is of course not inconsistent because you created a rule which is valid for all Succubus. Created is the important word here, meaning that you as DM had to create the ritual itself, check if for loopholes and make sure that it is balanced. If the MM would include out of combat information for monsters this work wouldn't have been necessary.
> Sure, its not much work for a single monster, but do it for all monsters and it quickly adds up.




Eh?  No, I created a ritual which the Succubus employed.  It isn't specific to anything. It could very well be that she is the only being in existence to know this ritual.  AND, it is very possible (since I'm the DM) that the next succubus you meet won't know this ritual.


----------



## webrunner (Apr 22, 2008)

This has become one devil of an argument.


----------



## Imp (Apr 22, 2008)

rob626 said:
			
		

> Yes, dm's modify creatures and say "This one's different".   But how is that different from the 4ed approach of skipping past the 1st layer of rules to a philosophy of use something suitable?  If the only succubus my players meet is a one-off from the basic creature does it matter what the original statblock said?  And more importantly, isn't the fact that the players approaching said one-off succubus have fewer expectations about the encounter and thus have more options available more entertaining?
> 
> The rigidity of the 3.x system was stifling and the nattering of rules-obsessed (as opposed to story-obsessed) players is something I greatly look forward to chucking into the nearest bonfire.  And oh! how I will dance.



But this is a function of will. Two threads over we have people debating the minutiae of 4e's 6-hour-rest, a topic made for DM handwaving if ever there was one. Will that change after 4e's out for a few years? Who knows but I'm a little pessimistic.

Books are nice but they can't _make_ you do stuff or free you from your chains or whatever all by themselves. So the topic here is sort of silly. Any monster in any edition can be more than its stats if you want it to be.

I'll say this: the argument that DMs will know what to do with a succubus in non-combat situations just because of its name seems off-base. Especially for new DMs, not everyone has years of running monsters under their belts. Having some sort of concrete suggestions for how a succubus goes about succubussing – which can be arbitrary, that's something about magic, having things not work according to common sense makes things seem magical – anyway, some sort of concrete process for a succubus's charm to work is the sort of thing you want a reference for, even as just a starting point.


----------



## ryryguy (Apr 22, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Exactly.  3.5e's philosophy was "Give a bunch of rules and then build a world around them."  If the succubus could only charm someone for 24 hours, then you needed to know that so you could plan an adventure where the succubus goes back to charm the person every day.
> 
> Certainly, this helped write adventures before.  Since the game would essentially write an adventure for you in some cases.
> 
> 4e takes the opposite approach.  It says "Design a world and then use these rules in order to play in it."  If it is better for your plot to say that the succubus has to charm the mayor again every day in order to give the PCs a chance to figure things out, then that's the way it works.




There seem to be two objections to this approach.  (I haven't read the whole long thread, and I'm paraphrasing.)

First, it may be okay for the DM to alter a succubus' charm power to suit a story, but a strong rule is desirable as a baseline for both the DM and the players; making exceptions to the standard power based on (custom) explicit rules is also helpful for the same reason.  This is opposed to "just making it up".

Second and relatedly, players need to be able to have at least some sense of the bounds of the succubus' ability to help them to make decisions about how to deal with it; "just making it up" can be frustrating and unfair to them.

M.O.'s post suggests ways that 4e may be able to transcend these points...

In response to the first point: these kinds of baselines may well be better located in the realm of _adventure_ design rather than creature or power design.  Removing them from specific powers and creatures helps you to use those powers and creatures to tell the kind of story you want to tell, giving the DM so much more flexibility.  This doesn't mean that there are no guidelines, that you are just "making it up" willy-nilly.  The guidelines have been moved to a different domain, one where it seems like they may more properly belong.  Mixing up the rules across the combat and story domains brings the danger that what serves one well may serve the other ill.  Instead of patching them up on an ad-hoc basis, why not just cut the connection?

(I'm assuming/hoping here that the 4e books _will_ be providing some guidelines for powers and rituals in adventure design, that it's not just "make it all up!".)

In response to the second point: definitely, if the bounds of the succubus' power aren't easily determined, the players are going to get frustrated, so good adventure design requires that they do have avenues to figure stuff out.  The broader skill use that has been described sounds like a great avenue for that; surely there will be more methods.  Also, I think worries that all these "adventure powers" being relatively freeform will confuse players over the long haul are misplaced.  Obviously, a DM should try to keep some of this stuff consistent across the campaign; if the succubus' "adventure domination power" works in a particular way in one adventure, it should tend to work the same way in later adventures, too.  Exceptions in later adventures are possible but also need to be pretty well telegraphed to players and not used as a "gotcha".  

And if that means that the succubus "adventure domination" works differently across campaigns, is that a bad thing?  If anything I think it's a good thing, keeping the game fresh, avoiding Monster Manual memorization induced boredom, which I don't think even the "strong baselines" advocates want to see.



> It suggests the DM take a more active role in running the game instead of a more passive one.  Previously it was possible for the DM to do almost nothing but follow the rules and see what happens.  4e encourages thinking "What do I WANT to happen?"




One last thing about the above quote... but isn't 4e being advertised as easier to DM, or easier for novice DMs?  Perhaps this is not inconsistent.  Perhaps WotC believes that the difficulties for novice DMs lie more in rules confusion, frustration in trying to figure out how to make what they WANT to happen happen in a restrictive framework.  As another poster speculated, perhaps the creative stuff is less difficult for the typical novice DM than the statistical / rules encyclopedia stuff?


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 22, 2008)

"Making stuff up" is apparently bad these days, I guess...?


----------



## Lackhand (Apr 22, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> "Making stuff up" is apparently bad these days, I guess...?



It can be.

A box that says "Some assembly required" is fine.

An empty box that says "some assembly required" isn't.


I think there's enough stuff in the 4e box, but some people disagree and instead generic food metaphor.


----------



## DandD (Apr 22, 2008)

Add in Video Games and Anime/Manga/Yvan eht nioj to complete the generic food metaphor.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 22, 2008)

A great deal of the problems people seem to have with this kind of percieved information gap, is cookie-cutter-monster syndrome.

The succubus can do X. Different Succubi are likely to use different methods. They all go into combat in much the same way, although likely with different tactics.

Half the problem is in the DM/Players perceptions that X must always act like its species.. not like an individual.

Acknowledge the fact that one aboleth may have trained its abilities in one thing, and another a different way.. both have the same baseline, with regards to combat, but have different fluff.

Laying out extra fluff trivialises the fact that creatures are unique.

If your creatures are not unique, you really well might as play WoW.


----------



## Steely Dan (Apr 22, 2008)

Designing a 3rd Ed creature was like constructing a jigsaw, whereas designing a 4th Ed creature is like sculpting.

Now which one is more creative?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Designing a 3rd Ed creature was like constructing a jigsaw, whereas designing a 4th Ed creature is like sculpting.
> 
> Now which one is more creative?




Y'know, I was thinking something similar.  Only not jigsaw for 3e, but Lego.  Lego's great.  I love Lego and I'm so jazzed that my wee ones have started liking it too.

But, when you make something out of Lego, it's blocky and has all sorts of extra bits that you probably wouldn't have if you used another medium.  So, yeah, Lego's great, but, if you want something that doesn't have all those right angles, then modeler's clay is maybe better.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 22, 2008)

My analogy was also food one:

3e: It is a microwavable dinner. Everything you got is there, just need to throw it in the microwave, but it can taste awful afterwards if it doesn't cook right in the microwave. Though sometimes seasoning can save it.

4e: Home-cooking. You got all the ingredients to make a amazing meal, but if you don't make it properly it could taste bad. However, if made properly it is amazing and you can always make smaller, more simple meals with just less of the ingredients.


----------



## jackston2 (Apr 22, 2008)

Maybe we need to step back from some of these monsters and see them all afresh, like the wide eyed and wonder struck.

The Succubus, like many DnD monsters, has accumulated tons of baggage from 3e, to where she has developed into a very specific monster with a strong DnD identity that is very different from the classic Succubus: in DnD she is expected to dominate wills, directly controlling player characters in combat and mind warping kingdoms out of combat.

But if a non-gamer was told to imagine a Succubus, he'd think of a corrupter of innocence, an alluring, transient she-devil who causes people to make the wrong choices in the heat of the moment and then slinks away smirking into the night, the exact opposite of a mesmeric hypno-magician who seeks to control a nation for a long time.

Maybe the Succubus shouldn't ever permanently dominate a King.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Apr 22, 2008)

One thing that's worth considering--what are fourth edition published modules likely to do with this philosophy? There are two precedents that one should think about.

First D&D minis: There are only three released sets of stats and we already have sneak attack that works when confused for some creatures but that doesn't for others. We have at least two versions of the hide ability as well. (The astral stalker can hide behind its allies; some of the more recently released minis with hide can't). We've also been through two (or is it three iterations of lines and have an erratta document that at least seems longer and more significant than the official clarification for the first edition minis game was when I started (which was about three years after the game first came out--just before war drums). Part of the significance of the clarifications may be that now I am an experienced hand looking to get my third trip to the championships at Gen Con, and am combing through the rules in more minute detail. Part of it is also building off of resolution tools that were developed in the previous edition. (The attack resolution sequence, for instance, was not spelled out in as much detail as it currently is until after I started playing DDM). But I think that part of it is a function of the design philosophy. If you are going to have a very small set of core rules and options and a very large set of special case rules, you are going to spend more time cleaning up the special case rules than if you have a relatively large set of core rules and a small set of special case rules.

What does this have to do with the question? It seems to me that all plot abilities are falling into the area of "special case rules." There is no general rule for what a succubus needs to do to keep the king enthralled. It's a rule that is made up new for each succubus and each king. That can lead to interesting adventures because you don't know exactly what to expect, but it also leads to several challenges.

1. "These bears are are angry over the death of their druid and are immune to calm animals or charm animal spells." One of the best example of bad special case rules comes from an early Living Greyhawk mod I played. The PCs are attacked by bears with the special note written above in the modules text. As my friend (who actually ran that mod for me) commented, "Gee, I wish my barbarian could get so angry he could be immune to hold person. All he gets for raging is a lousy +2 to his will save." In short, special case rules may be designed to counteract abilities that should work (if calm animals isn't supposed to stop angry bears from attacking you, I don't know what it IS for) simply because the author didn't want the solution to be too easy. In the succubus example it would be "yeah, the mirror of Pelor doesn't work on this succubus because this succubus requires the green keycard instead of Pelor's mirrored keycard."

(For other examples of this kind of special case rules stupidity, see "the hydras are buried under the sand. If the players specifically say that their characters are looking for monsters buried under the sand, they get a spot check; otherwise the hydras get an automatic surprise round.") At least in the Theocracy of the Pale and the Duchy of Urnst regions, I know that Living Greyhawk triads worked hard to get authors to stop making special case rules like that and that, as a result of sticking closer to the rules, we ended up with generally improved mods.

Moving plot abilities to the realm of special case, exception based rules seems likely to encourage more "the hydras are buried under the sand" and "these bears are so angry" moments.

2. Oh shoot, they forgot to write a rule for this! I've been running the Lost Caverns of Tsjocanth mod for about four months now. One of the things that I noted in the second or third session was this: The mod said that a landslide had blocked the road along the Velverdyva river. Awesome. Then my players decided to try to cross it. With their horses.

The module gave no mechanics for adjudicating this. So I improvised. It is a steep slope of loose earth with rocks and trees--steep enough that it's easier for people to climb than horses. So, I made it require six climb checks at DC 15--DC 18 for horses. (Horses aren't supposed to be good at climbing, but the rules for a strength based skill make them good enough climbers that it would be trivial if I put the DC too much lower). Already you can see that I was using something of a 4e skill challenge model since I didn't decide how wide it was and how many feet of each climb DC were necessary, but instead made it six skill checks regardless of the fact that one character can climb four times as fast as another. (Human barbarian with lots of climb ranks--he can accelerated climb and still have a higher bonus than the halfling archer). The cleric cast wall of stone to make a ramp up part of it. I knocked three climb checks off the requirements. All well and good. But, I didn't do the math very well. Most of the horses needed a 15 to make the climb check. The chance that all six of the horses were going to make even the first climb check were very vers slim. The odds of them making all three--nearly nonexistant. As a result, after losing half their horses to a fall into the river (where I had decided scrags were waiting), the party came up with some tricks to dimension step the horses to the other side.

So, what does this have to do with using special case rules for adventure abilities? Obviously it can and does happen in third edition. First, I think it is more likely to happen in fourth edition. If ordinary narrative elements are handled by hand waving (I mean special case abilities) and that is, in fact, the norm for handling questions like "how does the succubus keep the king charmed?" and "what can break the charm?" the odds of players interacting with a narrative element that was insufficiently detailed get bigger. And if there were no mechanics underlying the narrative element to begin with, the odds of making good rulings on the fly are reduced.

3. Increased variation how modules handle NPCs plot element abilities lead to increased difficulty in stitching modules--especially from different sources--together. In some ways, this should go without saying. If narrative elements are exceptions determined by the individual writer or DM, then there will be more variation between two writers or DMs than there would be in a system that defines mechanics for narrative monster abilities. Consequently, I would expect that in some modules, I would need to get the mirror of Pelor to reveal the succubus because the writer wanted a "get the mcguffin" plot and in other modules I would have to lure the succubus onto holy ground or convince the king to accept a protection from evil (I mean protection from possession) ritual as a part of the preparation for some honor or other. The more that authors do this, the less likely it is that their various succubuses will seem like examples of the same monster and the more dramatically narrative monster abilties vary, the less modules from different sources will seem like they can be set in the same world and the more challenging it will be to stitch different modules together to make a single campaign unless they were specifically designed for that.

Once you move beyond the idea of a DM with a monster manual and a notepad creating his whole campaign from scratch and start addressing published modules, I think that the challenges inherent in a philosophy that has rules for killing things and taking their stuff but expects the DM to wing it for everything else become more clear. An individual DM may be able to put together a consistent world where such monster abilities don't seem arbitrary, but it will be much more difficult to accomplish across a world of adventures published by different authors through different publishers.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Apr 22, 2008)

jackston2 said:
			
		

> Maybe we need to step back from some of these monsters and see them all afresh, like the wide eyed and wonder struck.
> 
> The Succubus, like many DnD monsters, has accumulated tons of baggage from 3e, to where she has developed into a very specific monster with a strong DnD identity that is very different from the classic Succubus: in DnD she is expected to dominate wills, directly controlling player characters in combat and mind warping kingdoms out of combat.




That's funny, I'd hardly have chalked all that up to 3e. That's pretty much what I remember of succubi from 1st edition and 2nd edition.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 22, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Y'know, I was thinking something similar.  Only not jigsaw for 3e, but Lego.  Lego's great.  I love Lego and I'm so jazzed that my wee ones have started liking it too.
> 
> But, when you make something out of Lego, it's blocky and has all sorts of extra bits that you probably wouldn't have if you used another medium.  So, yeah, Lego's great, but, if you want something that doesn't have all those right angles, then modeler's clay is maybe better.




3e is Lego.
4e is DUPLO.
Hero System is clay.
GURPS is AutoCAD.

Seriously, how can anyone look at the much lower granularity of 4e and say it gives you MORE options? I just don't get it. Individualizing monsters? Compare how simplistic templates are in 4e to 3e. Look at how equipment is effectively a 'special effect' , adjusted in power to meet the stats of the monster. No feats or skill points for monsters. Etc, etc, etc.

I've seen nothing in 4e which really excites me with possibilities. There's nothing I've read so far that makes me say "Wow! I can't wait to tinker with this and see what I can do!" Every time something comes up which might be cool, my hopes are dashed. Templates -- simplistic. Characters -- hyper-focused. Customizing monsters -- limited. "The math" is so omnipresent that it's a straightjacket. Every class uses the exact same power structure -- no more fighters gaining feats, wizards managing spellbooks, psions balancing power points.

A lot of the 4e debate has made me much more aware of the flaws of 3e, and I pay a lot of attention in my games now to the mechanical and gameplay issues I never noticed before. 4e might "fix" them, but at the cost of any kind of, for want of a better word, life. The whle thing is making me want to give up D&D entirely and browbeat my group into Hero or GURPS.

The 4e mechanics are painfully dull to me. I despise binary skills -- they're barely one step above "Non Weapon Proficiencies". Look at the Phane...it has aging powers! Except it doesn't, it can only daze/weaken. For a round or two. "You turned 60, but it didn't make you weaker, or clumsier, or affect you for any length of time...you might as well have been hit by a guy with a mace." I'll bet those things terrorize the local peasants. "A terrible abomination attacked us....in an instant, we were all withered into aged relics!" "You look fine to me." "Well, we got better. But I got to see what my wife will look like in 50 years, and it terrified me! Please, heroes, save us from this awful beast that can...uh...stun us. For six to twelve seconds, on average. But it has cool flavor text! Well, a line of flavor text." (Let me guess...when 'offstage', the phane's power is permanent, and the PCs will find villages filled with withered corpses in its wake, aged to death and dust. It's only when fighting the PCs that it becomes lame, because otherwise, it's Not Fun. Right? Hey, maybe it has some rituals!)

What the hell is everyone seeing in this that I'm not? Where's the Awesome? I feel like I'm watching people get gifts from the Wizard of Oz. "Dudes! You ALWAYS had the power to Just Make Stuff Up! It was within you all the time!" I can't get excited about 4e letting me do what I've always been able to do, while taking away the tools I can use when I don't want to just wing it, or the worldbuilding inspiration I've found in detailed mechanics.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 22, 2008)

As I mentioned in the other thread, the 3E PHANE Looks good on paper. When I first read it, I thought, "Wow this creature is going to be great when I use it"

Reality? The 3E PHANE is the prototypical example of why 95% of the high level monsters are simply not useable. That's one of the things I think 3.x did't truly consider. How much trouble is it to actually use the damn thing.

IT looks impressive but in fact, it is a total waste of ink.

re: Succubus.

Serious question: Do people honesty think that the 4E succubus can't seduce a king and have him controlled by his gonads? Does EVERYTHING have to be "use magic"?


----------



## Lizard (Apr 22, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> As I mentioned in the other thread, the 3E PHANE Looks good on paper. When I first read it, I thought, "Wow this creature is going to be great when I use it"
> 
> Reality? The 3E PHANE is the prototypical example of why 95% of the high level monsters are simply not useable. That's one of the things I think 3.x did't truly consider. How much trouble is it to actually use the damn thing.




And the best answer they could come up with "Epic Scale Troglodyte"?

An Epic creature should have powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men...er...monsters. What does the phane have? A stun ray. That's, what, a first or second level spell in 3e? Oh, and a stun AURA. Yeah, I bet the players haven't seen anything with an AE stun in 26 levels.

Oh, and once a round it can do something it had a 50% chance of doing anyway without a special power. Be still my heart. The awesome has been brought.

If it were one monster, it wouldn't bug me. But it seems to be endemic to 4e. "How can we strip this down to the simplest possible set of mechanics?" seems to be the design intent.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 22, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> 3e is Lego.
> 4e is DUPLO.
> Hero System is clay.
> GURPS is AutoCAD.
> ...




I think the reason why 4E appeals to me is that it seems a lot easier to build what I want to build. I don't have to jump through hoops of HD advancement, skill point and feat allocation and looking through spells to replicate a special effect I want. I just create the monster following basic guidelines, and add one unique power. Yes, I am constrained by some building blocks (like shifts, action type, typical damage and so on), but I only have to do this for exactly the part of the monster I require. The rest is done automatic. Oh, and I probably will have the exact level and XP value for the monster at the same time, too. 

If I want, say, create a "themened" adventure, maybe where most opposition consists of Goblins, I can pick the 3-8 provided Goblinoids from the MM and be ready. I don't have to manually create 4-6 different types of Goblins by adding class levels and selecting powers.

The difference between 3E and 4E seems that I only need to use the 4E tools if I really want to. I don't need to work with the "skill point" tool when I just want to improve a monsters spellcasting. The side effects of each single modification I want to make is a lot easier to handle then in 3E. The extra work to do things "right" in 3E meant it limited my creativity. I might have give me a lot of inspirations, but the "transpiration" caused by implementing my ideas were a hindrance. I only learned that I could ignore a lot of this stuff without anyone ever noticing or being bothered about it (excluding me, I sometimes feel like a dirty cheater  )

And that's not even discussing the fact that 4E promises me rules for skill challenges or rules for quests, so I am finally not just guessing if non-combat activity is work some X. 
Or gives me something like "tiers" that give me a good indicator of what kind of stories will be told and what kind of adventures can work at every level.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 22, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> And the best answer they could come up with "Epic Scale Troglodyte"?
> 
> An Epic creature should have powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men...er...monsters. What does the phane have? A stun ray. That's, what, a first or second level spell in 3e? Oh, and a stun AURA. Yeah, I bet the players haven't seen anything with an AE stun in 26 levels.
> 
> ...




Then you can keep the 3E PHANE as a pretty block of text. I'll take the 4E PHANE which I HOPEFULLY CAN ACTUALLY USE. That's the thing we seem to disagree on. I'm running a game here and a monster that is all types of "cool on paper" but can't actually be used in any decent way without major headaches is a waste of my time.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 22, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Then you can keep the 3E PHANE as a pretty block of text. I'll take the 4E PHANE which I HOPEFULLY CAN ACTUALLY USE. That's the thing we seem to disagree on. I'm running a game here and a monster that is all types of "cool on paper" but can't actually be used in any decent way without major headaches is a waste of my time.




Is there nothing between "unusable mass of complex powers" and "nothing we haven't seen by level 6, except now the numbers are bigger"?

I don't think so.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 22, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> And the best answer they could come up with "Epic Scale Troglodyte"?
> 
> An Epic creature should have powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men...er...monsters. What does the phane have? A stun ray. That's, what, a first or second level spell in 3e? Oh, and a stun AURA. Yeah, I bet the players haven't seen anything with an AE stun in 26 levels.
> 
> ...



The players will have seen a lot of the "building blocks". Shifts, weakened, immobilized, insubstantial, they might all have seen this. But they have never fought it in this combination. And I think that changes a lot. 

How do you fight the Phane with your abilities? How do you counter it shifting through the battlefield, while you're weakened? How do you deal with all your "special effects" if the phane removes them as a minor action? How do you keep up with it? Oh, and on the off-chance you brought it below half hit points, it gets even more dangerous. How do you deal with that? And don't forget it's "Minions" that prey on you while you're weak...

A lot of the fun of fighting a Phane will be derived from coming up with tactics to counter its abilities (or, from the DM side, from coming up with tactics to use its abilities best) You won't derive the fun from looking at the stat-block alone.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Apr 22, 2008)

> The 4e mechanics are painfully dull to me. I despise binary skills -- they're barely one step above "Non Weapon Proficiencies". Look at the Phane...it has aging powers! Except it doesn't, it can only daze/weaken. For a round or two. "You turned 60, but it didn't make you weaker, or clumsier, or affect you for any length of time...you might as well have been hit by a guy with a mace." I'll bet those things terrorize the local peasants. "A terrible abomination attacked us....in an instant, we were all withered into aged relics!" "You look fine to me." "Well, we got better. But I got to see what my wife will look like in 50 years, and it terrified me! Please, heroes, save us from this awful beast that can...uh...stun us. For six to twelve seconds, on average. But it has cool flavor text! Well, a line of flavor text." (Let me guess...when 'offstage', the phane's power is permanent, and the PCs will find villages filled with withered corpses in its wake, aged to death and dust. It's only when fighting the PCs that it becomes lame, because otherwise, it's Not Fun. Right? Hey, maybe it has some rituals!)




To me, the strength of 4e is that WotC are pushing the *story* and the *characters* over the rules.

The Phane, in combat, is as we've seen. However, if you need to serve the story and the narrative, you can use the flavour text given to arrange an adventure that deals with a time-stealing monster. You'd don't need to know how a Phane deals with an NPC when the PC's aren't there - did you play out an assassination attempt on a king if the PC's weren't there or did you just decide what happened? It's exactly the same thing.

Rituals are useful ways for players to do more involved magic - monsters, on the whole, don't really need them. Instead of asking, why are there no rules to cover what I want a monster to do - why not ask why the monster can't just serve the game you want to play? The 4e rules aim much more towards this style of DMing.

I do agree, however, with the posters saying they want more flavour text to help get an idea of what each monster can do - and what sort of things it does do.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 22, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> A lot of the 4e debate has made me much more aware of the flaws of 3e, and I pay a lot of attention in my games now to the mechanical and gameplay issues I never noticed before. 4e might "fix" them, but at the cost of any kind of, for want of a better word, life. The whle thing is making me want to give up D&D entirely and browbeat my group into Hero or GURPS.




If you like 3e so much why would you browbeat your group for Hero or GURPS.  Or is your argument that 3e has a lot of problems and you just want to not deal with them again?




> You ALWAYS had the power to Just Make Stuff Up! It was within you all the time!




Yes, but a lot of the rules made it cumbersome to "Just Make Stuff Up!"  If I wanted a more powerful creature for a fight, I had to advance it.  And that process came with a lot of baggage that had nothing to do with the purpose I needed to advance the creature for.  So I ended up advancing what I needed and ignoring what I didn't.  In essence I had to wrestle against the rules to get what I wanted or ignore the rules.

In the aboleth example above, someone had to "create an additional plot device" to wrestle with the rule that an aboleth has X range for his effect.  In essence once again wrestling with the rules.



> the worldbuilding inspiration I've found in detailed mechanics.




This here seems to be the crux of your argument.  You seem to need detailed mechanics to get your world-building inspiration.  Some of us don't.  We'd prefer that the mechanics not be cumbersome and interfere with our world-building inspiration.

If we are going to have to wrestle with the rules to get what we want or ignore the rules entirely, we'd rather not have a detailed mechanic at all.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 22, 2008)

My other concern with the criticsm with regard to both the PHANE and the Succubus is that the answer seems always "Add more magic to it". Which I think is part of the reason why non-spellcasters became non-essential at mid to high levels.

The designers of many of the 3.5 mid to high level creatures basically seemed able only to make a creature unique by adding more and more supernatural/spell-like abilities. Which of course affected the non-spellcasters because many people want them to stay "grounded".

I just don't want to read a high level monster and see "ok, we need heavy duty magic to beat it" Say what you will about anime, but anime at least seems better at balancing spellcasters with melee specialists.

EDIT: IT should be noted that the Phane _IS_ only an ELITE. There should be at least 2 other creatures fighting the typical 5 person level party. You can't actually have the Phane be as complicated to run as a Solo Monsters.


----------



## The_Fan (Apr 22, 2008)

I personally like the idea that a monster like the Phane has several instant-kill routines that just don't work on the PCs. Why? They're epic, that's why. Let's say we give the Phane an ability to age anyone <level 16 300 years with a touch. Of what relevance is that to the PCs? Unless they're lugging around a major NPC load, no reason that would ever come into play.

Or, what if the phane is shocked, SHOCKED I say, to see the PCs recover from its aging them? It expected mere mortals to just wither into decrepitude, but these heroes survived! It can freeze a whole town in time to work its mischief...but the PCs are still alert and mobile despite it.

However, when it comes time for the big showdown with the Phane and its minions, it can transport them to an amazing technicolor battlefield, as random objects from past present and future fade in and out (allowing some interesting setpieces, like ancient temples or future astral jammers).

Of course, overuse of this can get annoying and strain credibility, but if it makes narrative sense to me why not?


----------



## Lizard (Apr 22, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> If you like 3e so much why would you browbeat your group for Hero or GURPS.  Or is your argument that 3e has a lot of problems and you just want to not deal with them again?




All the 4e conversation has made the 3e problems more apparent, but 4e doesn't solve them in ways I'm comfortable with. Perhaps I'll feel differently when I see the full rules, but the previews keep doing more and more to turn me off.



> In the aboleth example above, someone had to "create an additional plot device" to wrestle with the rule that an aboleth has X range for his effect.  In essence once again wrestling with the rules.




It wasn't a wrestle, it was more a brief grapple. It took me about 5-10 minutes to work out the cost of the item using the Wondrous Item rules, then make sure it fit in the wealth guidelines (the critter had class levels). Would have been easier in a system which was more explicit about magic item design than 3e (which relies on a lot of fudging for wondrous items), but I could do it.




> This here seems to be the crux of your argument.  You seem to need detailed mechanics to get your world-building inspiration.  Some of us don't.  We'd prefer that the mechanics not be cumbersome and interfere with our world-building inspiration.




I guess, to me, it's the fact that the mechanics define the world. Different games inspire different world because of what their mechanics imply. Ablative hit points create a different world than a wound/death spiral system, for example. In D&D, heroes can defeat armies, and that becomes part of the history. In, say, GURPS (except at ludicrous point levels), they can't, and THAT becomes part of the history. The way magic works in 3e creates one kind of world; the way it works in 4e creates another. A vampire who can make one spawn a year creates different stories than one who can create one a night. Etc, etc, etc.

Deriving a world from the rules is a large part of the fun of DMing, at least for me. "Looking at these facts, what kinds of worlds can I build? If I change one thing, what else changes?"



> If we are going to have to wrestle with the rules to get what we want or ignore the rules entirely, we'd rather not have a detailed mechanic at all.




I'd rather have rules I don't need than need rules I don't have.


----------



## neceros (Apr 22, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> If you like 3e so much why would you browbeat your group for Hero or GURPS.  Or is your argument that 3e has a lot of problems and you just want to not deal with them again?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+1.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Apr 22, 2008)

The_Fan said:
			
		

> I personally like the idea that a monster like the Phane has several instant-kill routines that just don't work on the PCs. Why? They're epic, that's why. Let's say we give the Phane an ability to age anyone <level 16 300 years with a touch. Of what relevance is that to the PCs? Unless they're lugging around a major NPC load, no reason that would ever come into play.
> 
> Or, what if the phane is shocked, SHOCKED I say, to see the PCs recover from its aging them? It expected mere mortals to just wither into decrepitude, but these heroes survived! It can freeze a whole town in time to work its mischief...but the PCs are still alert and mobile despite it.
> 
> ...




I really like this - it's all too easy to treat every monster the same. To have monsters express disbelief that their attacks aren't hurting the PC's as much as they should - that could lead to a great fight.

It comes back to what seems to be becoming my mantra - the rules serve the story. Giving the Phane the power to kill enemies by aging them to death _in the rules_ means that characters run the risk of insta-death - and I'm happy that that's gone. However, it doesn't mean that the DM can't whip up some player-fear by having the Phane do it to some poor NPC.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 22, 2008)

The_Fan said:
			
		

> Of course, overuse of this can get annoying and strain credibility, but if it makes narrative sense to me why not?




I suppose it makes some kind of narrative sense in the same way hit points do -- a high level character doesn't survive a sword through the gut, he simply isn't stabbed through the gut the way a low level character is. However, if that's how you want to run it, make it explicit.

Aura of Aging (or whatever it's called):
<10 hit dice: Aged to dust. Dead.
11-20 hit dice: Aged to decrepitude. Character can take only minor actions until The Ritual Of Restoring Lost Years is performed.
21+ hit dice: As written.

See? How hard is that? A few extra lines, and suddenly, the phane's abilities make sense within the world, it can do what it needs to do for the plot, and still is boring...I mean, fun...in combat with level-appropriate PCs. And you know what happens to the baggage handlers and stowaway boyfriends.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 22, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I suppose it makes some kind of narrative sense in the same way hit points do -- a high level character doesn't survive a sword through the gut, he simply isn't stabbed through the gut the way a low level character is. However, if that's how you want to run it, make it explicit.
> 
> Aura of Aging (or whatever it's called):
> <10 hit dice: Aged to dust. Dead.
> ...



It's not hard. But that are 4 lines that will never come up in play.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 22, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Deriving a world from the rules is a large part of the fun of DMing, at least for me. "Looking at these facts, what kinds of worlds can I build? If I change one thing, what else changes?"




I would guess that many people of the opposite opinion see the rules not as an aid to world building but as a possible hindrance. They're a straight jacket to hold you in place. If you want to add something to the world, first you must consult the rules and determine if it is feasible. If you find something that contradicts what you want, then you have to alter the rule and see how that works with your world. And so forth.

Fourth Edition comes out and says "these rules aren't how the world works, they approximate the PCs' interactions with things." So you get the most important thing, IMO, that rules should provide, a consistent framework for players' decision making. But, they don't necessarily dictate how the world itself works. 

That's the beauty of PCs being special. The world doesn't have to operate as if all the people are under the PCs' rules. Take how hit points work. You don't have to base your armed conflicts around how combat occurs with PCs. You can have that wound point based world you talked about in D&D. And, it doesn't contradict anything. 

You can say that the necromancer has the power to raise a bunch of undead and don't have to go digging through source books to make it work. How many threads have we seen where DMs want to create this exact plot but can't by the rules. If you define the world by the rules you have this problem. If you don't constrain yourself to the rules when developing plots or individual monsters, you don't have this problem. Exception based design, in other words.


----------



## Cirex (Apr 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> It's not hard. But that are 4 lines that will never come up in play.





Like how much the Phane has in the nature skill. Not required, not written.
Simple.


----------



## kilpatds (Apr 22, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Steely Dan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I like this analogy.  Because while I'm pretty good at making things out of LEGO, I'm a very poor modeler given raw clay.


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 22, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'd rather have rules I don't need than need rules I don't have.




QFT.  Apparantly opinions on this differ, but I don't find ignoring things to be nearly as big of a chore as making them up from scratch.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 22, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Fourth Edition comes out and says "these rules aren't how the world works, they approximate the PCs' interactions with things." So you get the most important thing, IMO, that rules should provide, a consistent framework for players' decision making. But, they don't necessarily dictate how the world itself works.
> 
> That's the beauty of PCs being special. The world doesn't have to operate as if all the people are under the PCs' rules. Take how hit points work. You don't have to base your armed conflicts around how combat occurs with PCs. You can have that wound point based world you talked about in D&D. And, it doesn't contradict anything.




That just gives me a headache. I do not like Schrodinger's World, which works one way when it's being observed by PCs and another way when it isn't. The world should not know who is and isn't a PC.

Obviously, a lot of people do like this. So be it.


----------



## FourthBear (Apr 22, 2008)

For myself, I definitely place abilities to be used in rapid, immediate encounters such as combat on a different shelf than those needed out of such situations.  As a DM in combat or deathtraps or natural disasters, I want abilities that are quick to read, rule on and lead to interesting table play.  I don't want play to slow down because I've got to pick up rulebook X or read through two paragraphs of text to adjudicate an ability.  Of, if I do, the effect on the table game had better be damn well worth it.  

Out of combat abilities can be far more relaxed in their descriptions and effects.  However, I also tend to alter these abilities to suit my world building and specific adventure building very frequently.  Specifically, I don't find the charm person abilities of the succubus in previous editions very satisfying.  As many have noted, as described in 3e they often wouldn't suit their purpose as written.  They would be detected too quickly (heck, a single character with a good sense motive would spot it, even in a completely non-magical society).  They are too easy to circumvent via magical countermeasures, which should be standard in a consistent magical society.  And they tend to suck away any sense of wonder once you've got them, IMO.

I would much rather open such abilities up such that a temptress (of succubus nature or not) might use skill, mind-altering potions, diabolical rituals, weird parasitic creatures or any number of other possibilites to achieve long term control.  I've never had a problem coming up with such things out of combat.  It's *in* combat (and similar situations) that I prefer not to have to rule on the fly.  I'd prefer that they kept out of combat power descriptions to a minimum, so as to decrease expectations on both sides of the DMs screen about what is prescribed in any way.


----------



## DandD (Apr 22, 2008)

You don't build a world with game rules. You play a game with them. For world-building, there is physics and social studies classes in universities. In real life. I'm not going to pretend to have a working world if I play the settlers of catan, or D&D for that. 
Sometimes, D&D-rules just get into the way and hinder the actual goal of the game itself.  That's what happened with the 3.X-rules. 
And now, some people have been conditionized to follow such crude and unrealistic attemps in world-simulation, by using game rules for a pen-and-paper-rpg nonetheless...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 22, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> That just gives me a headache. I do not like Schrodinger's World, which works one way when it's being observed by PCs and another way when it isn't. The world should not know who is and isn't a PC.



The world doesn't know that. Only the DM and the players know that. And they cannot not know it. Why does all this stuff always happens to the PCs? I mean, okay, clearing a kobold nest sounds reasonable. But why do they also solve the murder of Mr.Nearlyharmless. And fight the Orc Raiders. And defend a caravan. And stop the Vampire Baron. And help the king assemble an army to fight the giant invasion. And fight against Orcus and his attempt to take the place of the Raven Queen? How do they always end up in such a mess? Why do they never retire? 
For PCs, the world does work differently. But the world itself doesn't know it. They just know that this stuff happens to the PCs. The players and the DM understand that this happens because they are playing the game, and the show game must go on!


----------



## Torchlyte (Apr 22, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> QFT.  Apparantly opinions on this differ, but I don't find ignoring things to be nearly as big of a chore as making them up from scratch.




It's not like the 10 lines of text is being sacrificed for simplicity. The space just goes to adding other content.



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The world doesn't know that. Only the DM and the players know that. And they cannot not know it. Why does all this stuff always happens to the PCs? I mean, okay, clearing a kobold nest sounds reasonable. But why do they also solve the murder of Mr.Nearlyharmless. And fight the Orc Raiders. And defend a caravan. And stop the Vampire Baron. And help the king assemble an army to fight the giant invasion. And fight against Orcus and his attempt to take the place of the Raven Queen? How do they always end up in such a mess? Why do they never retire?
> For PCs, the world does work differently. But the world itself doesn't know it. They just know that this stuff happens to the PCs. The players and the DM understand that this happens because they are playing the game, and the show game must go on!




Interestingly enough, try replacing "PCs" in all these arguments with "heroes." It makes the whole "PCs heroes are special" aspect stronger.


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 22, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Seriously, how can anyone look at the much lower granularity of 4e and say it gives you MORE options?




It seems to me that 4e will focus on _resolving conflicts between PCs and monsters, NPCs, and the environment._  When you have a solid resolution system that resolves conflicts and doesn't pretend to model the world, you can apply the system in many more places.

There is _nothing_ I can't cover with a skill challenge.  

There is _nothing_ I can't cover with "Roll attack vs. Defense/skill vs. DC or Opposed skill check".

I can do the same thing in 3.5, but: I don't know how spells/feats/class abilities will tie into it, and the text doesn't support it - I'd have to house rule in order to get there.


----------



## drjones (Apr 22, 2008)

I consider monsters to be _less_ than their stats.  Stupid worthless monsters, pshaw,  you make me laugh!


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 22, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Y'know, I was thinking something similar.  Only not jigsaw for 3e, but Lego.  Lego's great.  I love Lego and I'm so jazzed that my wee ones have started liking it too.
> 
> But, when you make something out of Lego, it's blocky and has all sorts of extra bits that you probably wouldn't have if you used another medium.  So, yeah, Lego's great, but, if you want something that doesn't have all those right angles, then modeler's clay is maybe better.



Do you know how to sculpt?  Well enough for personal use, perhaps?  Maybe well enough to get in a showing or sell for a reasonable price?

Throw a lump of clay (and tools) and a pile of Legos in front of Average-Person-On-The-Street.  See which one they go for.  Then have them try to create something specific.  See which they prefer.

If your analogy holds, 4e assumes that even new DMs are latent sculptors that can mimic classical Greek works from memory or rough sketches.  Of course, the degree of 'mimic' is a reasonable topic for debate, but it appears to assume a bit much in any case.  While 3e monster design can be rough and blocky, with a bit of practice, you get consistency, and a rather easier time modifying on the fly.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 22, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Deriving a world from the rules is a large part of the fun of DMing, at least for me. "Looking at these facts, what kinds of worlds can I build? If I change one thing, what else changes?"




I get a lot of enjoyment out of that, too. Frequently, though, I find myself having less time to wander that path than I'd like. A system with better support for ad hoc decision-making has begun to appeal to me.

And if I decide that I want to go back to deriving worlds from rules, I still have all my 3E books; I'd prefer not to buy them a second time.


----------



## KidSnide (Apr 22, 2008)

A question for folks who seem bothered by rituals:

Did it bother you in 3E that a villian could have a magic item that performed the plot-necessary mechanics?  Because 4E seems to be treating rituals and magic items in pretty much the same way.  There will be a bunch of each in the book, and you can make up more as necessary.

And, really, why not?  If casting a teleport ritual doesn't come at the cost of a cone-of-cold, is there really a difference between knowing a /ritual/ of teleport and having an /item/ of teleport?  As far as I can tell, the only difference is that you can sell (or lose) an item of teleport while you can (presumably) teach someone else a ritual of teleport without losing it yourself.  

It seems to me that there will probably be some sort of long-term charm ritual in the book.  As a player facing a succubus, I expect to either face that ritual or some "secret devil" ritual that isn't in the book (but may be in that "infernal magic" supplement on my DM's shelf) that also has coherent rules that I need to discover in the game.  

Which leads to the second half of my question: Do you think 4E will be different than what I've described?  And, if so, how?  And, if not, what is bothersome about this scenario?


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Apr 22, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> What the hell is everyone seeing in this that I'm not? Where's the Awesome? I feel like I'm watching people get gifts from the Wizard of Oz. "Dudes! You ALWAYS had the power to Just Make Stuff Up! It was within you all the time!" I can't get excited about 4e letting me do what I've always been able to do, while taking away the tools I can use when I don't want to just wing it, or the worldbuilding inspiration I've found in detailed mechanics.



QFT.  There's nothing in 4e I want and a bunch of stuff I can do without.


----------



## DandD (Apr 22, 2008)

Yep, that's what I feel about 3.X too, which is why I dislike playing it as a GM.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 22, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> What the hell is everyone seeing in this that I'm not? Where's the Awesome? I feel like I'm watching people get gifts from the Wizard of Oz. "Dudes! You ALWAYS had the power to Just Make Stuff Up! It was within you all the time!"




The difference is in 3e, making stuff up was, while not expressly _against_ the rules, also not the default assumption.  I always knew there were skill points I should be allocating or PrCs I should be applying to give the monsters the abilities I wanted them to have.  Could I deal with it?  Sure.  But it bugged me to have to do it.

In 4e, on the other hand, "Just Make Stuff Up" (tm) is the RAW, which makes me feel much better while playing.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Why does all this stuff always happens to the PCs? I mean, okay, clearing a kobold nest sounds reasonable. But why do they also solve the murder of Mr.Nearlyharmless. And fight the Orc Raiders. And defend a caravan. And stop the Vampire Baron. And help the king assemble an army to fight the giant invasion. And fight against Orcus and his attempt to take the place of the Raven Queen?



Great points. D&D has always treated protagonists differently. Specifically, in ways that increased the likelihood they remain the protagonists (ever more so with each new edition).



> For PCs, the world does work differently.



Especially since most other characters in the game world don't have access to character classes and leveling. One physics for PC's ("No worries, it was just a 100ft fall!"), another for NPC's ("Nearly beloved, we are gathered here to pay our final respects to Nearsighted Ned").



> The players and the DM understand that this happens because they are playing the game, and the show game must go on!



This seems to get lost in these debates. The rules and the setting are just tools for emulating serial adventure stories.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Apr 22, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> That just gives me a headache. I do not like Schrodinger's World, which works one way when it's being observed by PCs and another way when it isn't. The world should not know who is and isn't a PC.
> 
> Obviously, a lot of people do like this. So be it.



As a lurker and reader of your posts Lizard, I get the feeling you and 4e is like a vegetarian in a BBQ joint.  Your not gonna stop them from eating meat and they'll never get you to try the ribs.  Just grab some potato salad and get out before all the pig and cow makes you sick.

Also, can we get some examples of monster blocks that have descriptive text that provides inspiration?  It would be nice if we had real monster blocks to compare too.   

This product also seems to be worth mentioning...
http://paizo.com/pathfinder/pathfinderChronicles/v5748btpy82r5
This just seems to be very relevant to the topic


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 22, 2008)

> "Just Make Stuff Up" (tm)




Hahahahahahaha, I like that I helped start this trademark. 

That's all. Back to your regularly scheduled re-hash.


----------



## Just Another User (Apr 22, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> Tangent: You know what charm needs that it has NEVER had in any version of the game, and has always made it (in my mind) a half-baked spell? A description of what happens to the subject when the spell wears off. Does the subject realize he was magically manipulated and now HATES the caster? or does he have fond memories of good times with the caster, in which case he probably still feels some residual affection for the caster? or are his feelings somehow reset to the point before the casting took place? This makes a huge difference in how charm works in non-combat situations, and merits at least a sentence in one of the 6 or so previous editions.




I don't remember if it was a rules or from some number of Dragon or just an home rule but i always played it  that it depended on what you asked the subject to do. If it was something in the limit of reason he just thought it was his own idea, even if he could wonder why he did it, if it was something unreasonable, let's say something against his nature, that forced some extra soaving throw he'll understand he was under some magical compulsion and hate you to death.
Just my 2 cents


----------



## Just Another User (Apr 22, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> And you think this isn't a corner case?
> 
> Show me then.  Poll the collective posters here at En World and ask how many times they've attempted to take a succubus alive.  EVER.  I'll bet dollars to donuts that less than 5% of respondents say yes.




That just because before 4e succubus had magical ways for ethereal travel and teleport. To capture one was very difficult, except maybe at high levels when you could do everything she can, only better . In  4e all you need to keep a succubi prisoner is a net and some strong rope, I strongly doubt you can do rituals while tied up, so she can't escape. Oh, yes and a blindfold to avoid domination. And you have a good reason to do it because she can do things you can't do and you want to learn how or that she does them for you.


----------



## Just Another User (Apr 22, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> There's also an aspect of that it seems like spell-like abilities trump actual non-magical abilities a.k.a skills. For example, looking at the 4E succubus, couldn't she have simply seduced him via her SKILLs? She does have Bluff and Diplomacy scores of +15




Does this mean that any PC with bluff and diplomacy 15+ can seduce the king (or anybody else) and make him do whater he/she want?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 22, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> And you have a good reason to do it because she can do things you can't do and you want to learn how or that she does them for you.




Do your players often beg and plead you to send them to their untimely end by their own hand?


----------



## DandD (Apr 22, 2008)

Well, if they invest their times and are ready to have sex with him, perhaps even marry him, I would say yes. It's not like the Succubus has to only roll once for the skill-check, and it's done. There would be many weeks of seduction, which means many many skill-checks that need to be successfull... 

Which for the plot, we simply assume that the Succubus already managed to do that. 

If player characters want to do the same, they can, if they have the time, and acrue enough successes.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 22, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Does this mean that any PC with bluff and diplomacy 15+ can seduce the king (or anybody else) and make him do whater he/she want?




Skill challenge time.


----------



## katahn (Apr 22, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Does this mean that any PC with bluff and diplomacy 15+ can seduce the king (or anybody else) and make him do whater he/she want?




It just means that the succubus doesn't have to only use her charm ability.  Selective use of charm, enhanced by her skills, can produce better results than either alone.  Charm the king, use her nonmagical social skills on the various flunkies of said charmed king.  Suddenly the nobles of the land are "entranced and delighted by the king's consort" who has a "lively wit and certainly puts a sparkle in the king's eye" followed by knowing nods and winks.

Relying purely on political maneuvering and nonmagical social skills she could make life difficult for anyone she couldn't bring under her sway.  Use of magic would best be kept minimal, after all you never know when someone will break free of the charm and realize what happened, or when some annoying adventurer finds evidence of magic.  Social skills aren't as potent, but they're a lot less likely to backfire on you or be noticed by an antagonistic queen or court magician.

If nothing else, consider Palpatine from the Star Wars setting.  He most certainly used the Force (magic) to accomplish his goals, but often had to "disconnect" from it in order to hide his activities from the collective eyes of several jedi masters.  This meant he also had to be a very skilled and adept politician and manipulator, able to "win friends and influence people" without needing to always rely on magic.


----------



## LEHaskell (Apr 22, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> Skill challenge time.




DM: You want to do WHAT with your Acrobatics Skill?


----------



## jackston2 (Apr 22, 2008)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> In 4e, on the other hand, "Just Make Stuff Up" (tm) is the RAW, which makes me feel much better while playing.




I agree, but to further clarify for 4e haters:

4e is not merely "make stuff up" which, yes, you always could have done. Instead, 4e tells you what stuff you should make up and what stuff you shouldn't touch.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 22, 2008)

LEHaskell said:
			
		

> DM: You want to do WHAT with your Acrobatics Skill?




The greatest sin of the succubus preview is that she doesn't have that skill trained.


----------



## med stud (Apr 22, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Does this mean that any PC with bluff and diplomacy 15+ can seduce the king (or anybody else) and make him do whater he/she want?



Why would a king be immune to seduction? A PC with that amount of skill could most likely assassinate the king, beat him in a straight fight and, with 3e power levels, kill his body guards, burn his castle and fly away invisible.

So seduct him, very much yes.

I think it's perfectly alright that the succubus uses her "natural" charm for seduction, but not only that. The succubus could assassinate the queen or even the king himself and take her/his place. She starts out as the lover, learns the kings manners of speech and body and then she kills him and takes his shape.

If she is only to seduce, she can take any form what-so-ever. The king like blonds? He gets a blonde. Same thing with all hair colours and bodies and what have you. Add to this centuries or millenia of experience, a high intelligence and a sociopathic personality and you have the most dangerous honey trap imaginable. Most other classic beauty queens are in their teens to their low twenties; this one is old and evil. For me, that's enough.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 22, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> The greatest sin of the succubus preview is that she doesn't have that skill trained.




Not a problem, just shift a few skill points around or change a feat to 'Skill Focus' and...oh, wait.


----------



## LEHaskell (Apr 22, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> The greatest sin of the succubus preview is that she doesn't have that skill trained.




If she did, it would just lead to even greater sin.


----------



## AntiPaladin (Apr 22, 2008)

This approach sounds good to me, a monster should be more than it's stats.  Off-page rituals are par for the course, and trust in the DM is paramount as always.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 22, 2008)

LEHaskell said:
			
		

> If she did, it would just lead to even greater sin.




Mmmm... Greater Acrobatic Sin.... mmmmm....


----------



## jackston2 (Apr 22, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Does this mean that any PC with bluff and diplomacy 15+ can seduce the king (or anybody else) and make him do whater he/she want?




You know what, as a side note, Succubi should refrain from using diplomacy.  Bluff is fine as a means of masking her identity, but if she obliterates the king with diplomacy she has denied the King free will, which means she won't get to have his soul.


----------



## med stud (Apr 22, 2008)

Besides, I eat my hat* if the charming kiss- ability the succubus has isn't a magical charm in other ways than making the victim your bodyguard. She can keep the effect going by kissing the victim once per day; I can't see any other way this ability is to be used this way if the character is still free willed but have some compulsion to throw himself in her way.




*I don't have a hat at present. I will buy a nacho-hat if I'm wrong


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 22, 2008)

jackston2 said:
			
		

> You know what, as a side note, Succubi should refrain from using diplomacy.  Bluff is fine as a means of masking her identity, but if she obliterates the king with diplomacy she has denied the King free will, which means she won't get to have his soul.



Diplomacy is not magical compulsion. If it would be, then Bluff also should be.

If the King felt that the Succubi had convincing arguments for her side, he is on the way to hell. You have to be stronger than that! You should be able to tell right from wrong, even in the face of adversity!


----------



## Lackhand (Apr 22, 2008)

jackston2 said:
			
		

> You know what, as a side note, Succubi should refrain from using diplomacy.  Bluff is fine as a means of masking her identity, but if she obliterates the king with diplomacy she has denied the King free will, which means she won't get to have his soul.



Uh? I think you've misinterpreted what diplomacy does (or at least, should do).

Especially in a game claiming skill challenges, a diplomacy skill that reads "they now agree with you" -- as opposed to "they (however grudgingly) do what you specifically requested" -- is a diplomacy skill that's still broken.

In other words, they can always stop talking to you and turtle; it's just that that represents a loss of a diplomacy contest, too.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 22, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Uh? I think you've misinterpreted what diplomacy does (or at least, should do).
> 
> Especially in a game claiming skill challenges, a diplomacy skill that reads "they now agree with you" -- as opposed to "they (however grudgingly) do what you specifically requested" -- is a diplomacy skill that's still broken.
> 
> In other words, they can always stop talking to you and turtle; it's just that that represents a loss of a diplomacy contest, too.




I think your humor meter might be broken.


----------



## Lackhand (Apr 22, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> I think your humor meter might be broken.



hu... mor? I don't understand. I thought this was an English-language website?


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 22, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> hu... mor? I don't understand. I thought this was an English-language website?




Now I'm thinking _my_ humor meter might be broken


----------



## Iron Sky (Apr 22, 2008)

This is a DnD forum, shouldn't it be hew-more?


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 23, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Does this mean that any PC with bluff and diplomacy 15+ can seduce the king (or anybody else) and make him do whater he/she want?




If the PC can shapechange into pretty much any humanoid AND has the time (I'm imagining the Succubus took at least 5 years worming her way into the court and for her, that's not a big deal) AND has the skills (do you think that a Succubus is going to be BAD in the sack?), then yeah, I fully support any PC seducing the King.

In fact, this is why I like the Succubus since even if tey do capture her and the PCs say they want to use her (that has all types of connotations....) it is quite easy to point out that it took her 5 years to get where she was.


----------



## Imp (Apr 23, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> (I'm imagining the Succubus took at least 5 years worming her way into the court and for her, that's not a big deal)



Five years? That's crap for a mortal! Come on, a hellspawned archetype of evil seduction ought to be able to get wherever she wants in ordinary circumstances within a month. That's how you know something is Wrong.  That's the whole point of using supernatural monsters, they – in this role, succubus, nymph, sirine, whatever – do their shtick much much better than their mortal counterparts. Otherwise it's like saying giants regularly lose bar fights, pegasi lose races to mules, and dragons have to be careful or they'll get kicked out of their caves by bears.

Five years is how long an ordinary devil might take to worm its way into a court.


----------



## Torchlyte (Apr 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Not a problem, just shift a few skill points around or change a feat to 'Skill Focus' and...oh, wait.




Oh noes! We don't have skill points and feats for monsters! However will we give them +4 to Diplomacy checks?!


----------



## DandD (Apr 23, 2008)

My idea is even more horrendous... Let's just make them trained in class X. Oh noes! 
That means +5 to a skill. What will the poor 3.X-enthusiasts do against that simplicistic approach that eliminates the cumbersome skill points-system?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 23, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> QFT.  Apparantly opinions on this differ, but I don't find ignoring things to be nearly as big of a chore as making them up from scratch.




The irony of this statement just makes me giggle.



			
				Just Another User said:
			
		

> That just because before 4e succubus had magical ways for ethereal travel and teleport. To capture one was very difficult, except maybe at high levels when you could do everything she can, only better . In  4e all you need to keep a succubi prisoner is a net and some strong rope, I strongly doubt you can do rituals while tied up, so she can't escape. Oh, yes and a blindfold to avoid domination. And you have a good reason to do it because she can do things you can't do and you want to learn how or that she does them for you.




If I've got a succubus tied up and blindfolded.... err hang on, I'll be in my bunk.


----------



## Steely Dan (Apr 23, 2008)

jackston2 said:
			
		

> 4e is not merely "make stuff up" which, yes, you always could have done. Instead, 4e tells you what stuff you should make up and what stuff you shouldn't touch.




And _how _ to make it up/implement.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 23, 2008)

Imp said:
			
		

> Five years? That's crap for a mortal! Come on, a hellspawned archetype of evil seduction ought to be able to get wherever she wants in ordinary circumstances within a month. That's how you know something is Wrong.  That's the whole point of using supernatural monsters, they – in this role, succubus, nymph, sirine, whatever – do their shtick much much better than their mortal counterparts. Otherwise it's like saying giants regularly lose bar fights, pegasi lose races to mules, and dragons have to be careful or they'll get kicked out of their caves by bears.
> 
> Five years is how long an ordinary devil might take to worm its way into a court.




Ordinary circumstances != Royal court of a major kingdom.

Sure, I doubt it would take a succubus even a week to seduce the mayor of Noswhereville but say the Emperor of a major kingdom (say along the lines of England or Rome at their height of glory)? 

No, I don't think a succubus should take less than a couple of years if she wants to be subtle (your method lacks any subtlety whatsoever). She's going to be whispering in the king's ear AND the major courtiers so that any idea that she has, they'll think that they came up with it themselves. More importantly, others around them won't notice the difference.

(If in one month, the King is acting ENTIRELY different than before, that kind of screams, "he's been bewitched" but a slow gradual shift in policy won't get noticed by most people and that's how I see a succubus using subtle influences).

Frankly, if you want a sledgehammer, then ANY creature with charm should be able to do it.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 23, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> Oh noes! We don't have skill points and feats for monsters! However will we give them +4 to Diplomacy checks?!




The magic of handwavium?

I find it interesting that people were afraid to say, "Whatever, she's got +5 Bluff" in 3e, but feel that 4e grants them some new and special power they never had before...

3e let you make changes at-will, as any DM does, but also provided a formal mechanism if you wanted it. The low granularity boolean skills of 4e means it's hard to make a given succubus (or anything else) just a *little* bit different within the rules; if you use the RAW, you can say, "Well, she knows Bluff, but loses Diplomacy" (or whatever). Or you can just, as always, handwave it and add trained skills, but then why bother with rules/guidelines for how many skills should be trained a for a given creature?


----------



## Lizard (Apr 23, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> My idea is even more horrendous... Let's just make them trained in class X. Oh noes!
> That means +5 to a skill. What will the poor 3.X-enthusiasts do against that simplicistic approach that eliminates the cumbersome skill points-system?




Point out that it uses a sledgehammer to do the job of a scalpel?

4e is clay? Riiiight. If it were, I'd be camped outside my FLGS waiting for it. High granularity games with lots of things to adjust, fiddle with, tinker, and set are my favorite style; 4e ain't that, as its ardent defenders will happily tell you.


----------



## katahn (Apr 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Point out that it uses a sledgehammer to do the job of a scalpel?
> 
> 4e is clay? Riiiight. If it were, I'd be camped outside my FLGS waiting for it. High granularity games with lots of things to adjust, fiddle with, tinker, and set are my favorite style; 4e ain't that, as its ardent defenders will happily tell you.




Why do you feel you need to use a sledgehammer or that it is impossible to use a scalpel in making adjustments to monsters or encounters in your campaign?  You're right that 4e is not bogged down and drowning in the kind of rules that 3e was, but that still doesn't mean that one loses the ability to make subtle or nuanced changes to things.

I'm curious what benefit you feel you gain from the large and (in my opinion) overly complex and frequently tedious rules in 3e that you simply couldn't mimic in 4e.  If anything, the lack of high granularity in 4e, its lack of lots of things to adjust, fiddle with, tinker, and set should make a highly detail oriented DMs life easier instead of harder.  More things are left open for you to implement as you see fit.  

At least, that's how I see it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The magic of handwavium?
> 
> I find it interesting that people were afraid to say, "Whatever, she's got +5 Bluff" in 3e, but feel that 4e grants them some new and special power they never had before...
> 
> 3e let you make changes at-will, as any DM does, but also provided a formal mechanism if you wanted it. The low granularity boolean skills of 4e means it's hard to make a given succubus (or anything else) just a *little* bit different within the rules; if you use the RAW, you can say, "Well, she knows Bluff, but loses Diplomacy" (or whatever). Or you can just, as always, handwave it and add trained skills, but then why bother with rules/guidelines for how many skills should be trained a for a given creature?



The only point where it will really matter fiddling with skills is not if you shift 2 skill points from Bluff to Diplomacy or vice versa.
This degree of granularity will not be noticeable to anyone but those that check your stat-blocks. If you shift 5 ranks, it might make a difference. 

Considering that you might have changed from (Bluff 13 ranks, Diplomacy 0) ranks to (Bluff 8 ranks, Diplomacy 5), you probably just have weakened the Succubus in both aspects. Against the skill-maxed character, neither skill will do you any good. So you're probably better off switching entirely from Bluff to Diplomacy.  Interestingly, this coincides with the way Skill Training in 4E works. You change the total modifier by 5 points, and now have invested in the second skill instead in the first.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The magic of handwavium?
> 
> I find it interesting that people were afraid to say, "Whatever, she's got +5 Bluff" in 3e, but feel that 4e grants them some new and special power they never had before...



I find it strange that people think that

Acrobatic: A succubus receives a racial bonus to Tumble of... crap, I want a +18, and this succubus is a 6 hd monster, so that's 9 ranks, plus 1 for dex mod, so +10.  I could give her a feat or two that improves Tumble checks, but I need her feats for other purposes... can I give her Skill Focus: Tumble and drop Persuasive?  Nah... she needs the points in Bluff and Diplomacy...  I'll just use a racial bonus.  There.  Ahem.  A succubus receives a racial bonus to Tumble of +8.

is superior to

Acrobatics: +18

I guess its only rewarding if you have to work for it.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 23, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I guess its only rewarding if you have to work for it.




Which would you rather get? A box containing a jigsaw puzzle or a puzzle someone else already finished and laminated?


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Which would you rather get? A box containing a jigsaw puzzle or a puzzle someone else already finished and laminated?




A book with RPG rules in.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 23, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> A book with RPG rules in.




Yeah, me too, but unless you call "Make some stuff up" a rule, I think we're both gonna be disappointed...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 23, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> A book with RPG rules in.



Some analogies limp more then others... 



Spoiler



Can you say that in English? It's pretty much literally translated from German. Google Translate seems to agree, but that proves nothing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Yeah, me too, but unless you call "Make some stuff up" a rule, I think we're both gonna be disappointed...



I thought we were talking about D&D 4E, not some made-up book? I have seen plenty of rules so far that apparently will be found in the new edition. 

But in the end, I wouldn't be surprised if you will in fact be disappointed. I would be surprised if I would be disappointed, and - without wanting to give the impression I could speak for him - I don't think Laycon will. There will certainly be stuff that could be better, but I haven't yet seen something that gravely worries me.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Yeah, me too, but unless you call "Make some stuff up" a rule, I think we're both gonna be disappointed...




Doubtful.

Your analogy posits that you enjoy putting together rules pieces to construct what you want for the game. I enjoy that too, but it is time-intensive and not directly related to the purpose of the product.

Getting a box that contains a constructed (or mostly constructed) "puzzle" that, when finished, can be used to play an RPG is better for people who want to play RPGs than a box containing a unconstructed puzzle. Both of these are ok for people who want to _construct_ an RPG from the parts, as you simply deconstruct the puzzle and rebuild it as you see fit. Some people, like me, prefer _both_, and for this purpose, the preconstructed puzzle is definitely the best fit.

If it comes pre-laminated, that will be a problem for the second group (and people like me, who want both). But I don't think the puzzle I get will be pre-laminated, and even if it is, I have plenty of unlaminated puzzles already.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Which would you rather get? A box containing a jigsaw puzzle or a puzzle someone else already finished and laminated?



Yes.  This is a perfect analogy.  The REAL game of D&D is about skill point allocation for monsters.  If that's already done for you, or there's no difficulty or challenge in doing that, you might as well not even play.  D&D is about meticulous DM prep work.  The game itself, you know, the part with the players?  You remember those guys, they're the real people without statblocks?  Pointless.  Don't know why I bother.

If you'll excuse me, I have to go refine salt from seawater and grind wheat into flour so that I can bake bread, which I will then throw away.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 23, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Yes.  This is a perfect analogy.  The REAL game of D&D is about skill point allocation for monsters.  If that's already done for you, or there's no difficulty or challenge in doing that, you might as well not even play.  D&D is about meticulous DM prep work.  The game itself, you know, the part with the players?  You remember those guys, they're the real people without statblocks?  Pointless.  Don't know why I bother.
> 
> If you'll excuse me, I have to go refine salt from seawater and grind wheat into flour so that I can bake bread, which I will then throw away.




Have you tried diceless roleplaying? Sounds like it's what you're looking for. (And a lot of other people posting on this thread. I mean, if you don't LIKE high-crunch systems, why play D&D? It's hardly the only game out there. )

The player/GM dynamic is pretty much system-independant; it feels the same in every game I've played, and I've played a LOT. It's rote by this point. 

I enjoy building things for games. Sue me. I should show you my Traveller notebooks from college. 

From what I can tell, though, the "unit of interest" in 4e isn't the monster, it's the encounter. An individual 4e monster doesn't have enough fiddly bits, in and of itself, to interest me. But if you consider that a monster is now 1/5th of an encounter (usually), then the total level of customization for *the entire encounter* is enough to look like it might be fun to play with. I can see a lot of fun in setting up the complex interactions and synergies of an entire encounter 'group', fiddling with swapping in an elite for two normals, or adding in minions, etc. Solo creatures (which I don't think we've seen yet) should be pretty rare beasts.


----------



## Steely Dan (Apr 23, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> If it comes pre-laminated, that will be a problem for the second group (and people like me, who want both).




Time to pull out the X-Acto knife.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Have you tried diceless roleplaying?



Have you?

Because removing dice doesn't necessarily remove system complexity.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Have you tried diceless roleplaying? Sounds like it's what you're looking for. (And a lot of other people posting on this thread. I mean, if you don't LIKE high-crunch systems, why play D&D? It's hardly the only game out there. )



Are you trying to counter hyperbole with hyperbole? 
There is something between diceless and rules-heavy. I really don't see 4E as a "rules-light" system. Ever considered the interaction between player and monster powers? Synergy effects within each class and the classes with each other? The amount of (meaningful) options you get each level, each encounter and each round? 

But it makes the rules lighter where they don't need to be heavy. 
Creating monsters and NPCs doesn't need to be hard, as long as in the end, I get the monster I want. 
And I usually don't care for Bluff 9 ranks or Bluff 7 ranks. But I care a lot whether a monster can bluff well at all. I don't need to know that a Dragon could cast Magic Missile with his Sorceror spells. When would he ever need that ability? 


But if you want to play a rules-heavy game, why do you play D&D? Wouldn't GURPS be a lot better? There are even more options to take and dials to change.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 23, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> If you'll excuse me, I have to go refine salt from seawater and grind wheat into flour so that I can bake bread, which I will then throw away.



Beautiful! Remember that all work is noble work even when it's pointless work.

You know, I think my problem understanding one side of this debate stems from not finding a certain kind of minutiae inspiring. Different strokes and all...


----------



## D'karr (Apr 23, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Beautiful! Remember that all work is noble work even when it's pointless work.
> 
> You know, I think my problem understanding one side of this debate stems from not finding a certain kind of minutiae inspiring. Different strokes and all...




You see that is completely fine.  I agree wholeheartedly.  I think the problem stems from wanting D&D to be the game for everyone and if its not for me it sucks or if its not for you it sucks.  Sucks is a matter of opinion.   

It is obvious that 4e has a different design philosophy from 3e.  Is that good or bad?  That is a matter of opinion.  But nothing prevents anyone from playing the edition that they prefer, or even another game.

Some people unfortunately want D&D to do things that it does not do well, and then complain, and complain, and complain.

That ship has sailed.  The books are at the printers.  Whether they suck or not will be apparent come June 6th.


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 23, 2008)

As I recall, back in the time of the edition wars, grognards bemoaned the loss of "DM power" that resulted from 3E having rules for things that formerly were undescribed in the game.  "I can just *decide* whether or not a ranger can climb a tree based on how I'm feeling that day - rather than have the rules *dictate* to me what the chance of success should be." was the general argument.

That wasn't convincing to 3E players back then, but now suddenly when the same idea is packaged as 4E this seems like a good idea?  Seems to me like this design philosophy of 4E is going to be very similar to the way I played 1st edition when I was 12.  I've spent many years playing some version of DnD that didn't have a complete set of rules for things - such a situation doesn't seem as innovative or exciting to me as it does to some folks apparently.  I don't need 4E to dispense with the non-combat rules just so I can make up a succubus with non-standard seduction powers.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 23, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Beautiful! Remember that all work is noble work even when it's pointless work.



Perhaps its more noble _because_ its pointless?

Maybe Lizard is kind of like a poet, who, sitting at the banks of the Danube, writes a beautiful verse to his lover.  A piece of poetry for the ages, one which would bring tears to the eyes of the most heartless, and cause them to change their ways.  And as the ink dries on the page, he lifts the paper on which it is inscribed, and lets the wind carry it out into the dark waters, lost forever.  For she has left him, and this empty world does not deserve such beauty.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 23, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> Some people unfortunately want D&D to do things that it does not do well, and then complain.



Rather than complain, I simply stopped running 3.5

4e, however, seems to be a better fit for my gaming style. If I'm right---yay me. If I'm mistaken, then I'll see y'all around.

edit: what won't happen is another quixotic attempt to hammer the unfun out of the game.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 23, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> As I recall, back in the time of the edition wars, grognards bemoaned the loss of "DM power" that resulted from 3E having rules for things that formerly were undescribed in the game.  "I can just *decide* whether or not a ranger can climb a tree based on how I'm feeling that day - rather than have the rules *dictate* to me what the chance of success should be." was the general argument.
> 
> That wasn't convincing to 3E players back then, but now suddenly when the same idea is packaged as 4E this seems like a good idea?  Seems to me like this design philosophy of 4E is going to be very similar to the way I played 1st edition when I was 12.  I've spent many years playing some version of DnD that didn't have a complete set of rules for things - such a situation doesn't seem as innovative or exciting to me as it does to some folks apparently.  I don't need 4E to dispense with the non-combat rules just so I can make up a succubus with non-standard seduction powers.




Except that 4e still gives you rules to determine whether you can climb the tree or not.  Some people just like to make it look like it does not.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 23, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> As I recall, back in the time of the edition wars, grognards bemoaned the loss of "DM power" that resulted from 3E having rules for things that formerly were undescribed in the game.  "I can just *decide* whether or not a ranger can climb a tree based on how I'm feeling that day - rather than have the rules *dictate* to me what the chance of success should be." was the general argument.
> 
> That wasn't convincing to 3E players back then, but now suddenly when the same idea is packaged as 4E this seems like a good idea?  Seems to me like this design philosophy of 4E is going to be very similar to the way I played 1st edition when I was 12.  I've spent many years playing some version of DnD that didn't have a complete set of rules for things - such a situation doesn't seem as innovative or exciting to me as it does to some folks apparently.  I don't need 4E to dispense with the non-combat rules just so I can make up a succubus with non-standard seduction powers.



There is an enormous difference between the DM _just deciding_ that an NPC ranger has +5 to climb instead of +8, and the DM _just deciding_ that a PC ranger succeeds or fails at climbing the tree.  The difference is so enormous that its hard for me to see why there is confusion on this score.


----------



## evilbob (Apr 23, 2008)

I haven't read through all 11 pages of comments so far (no offense), but to me, the "fewer specific rules" dilemma comes down to one major issue:  is your DM an ?

Seriously.  The thing that I believe made previous editions potentially _annoying_ (besides restrictive character generation) but also potentially _great_ was that the DM could basically make up any old crap he wanted, and you - as a player - would have to go along.  Whether or not this is a good thing ultimately comes down to whether or not your DM was a good DM.  Codifying the rules more exactly - a la 3.5 - took some of the "make up any old crap" power away from the DM.  This enabled poor DMs to just use the RAW to run adventures without the extra time and worry to develop material, and it also helped "protect" players from overt abuse ("ah, but that red dragon can't just turn us all to stone - it's not that powerful!").  Conversely, it also stymied the DM's ability to make up good original stuff as well, or to effectively fool long-time (read: MM-memorizing) players.

You gotta take the good with the bad.  And in this case, open-ended rules allows for extremely wide-ranging plots and devices, constantly fresh material, and potentially great storytelling.  It also allows for narcissistic, over-compensating, sadistic s to take out their lives' frustrations on unsuspecting, unassuming (and potentially innocent) players.  Heavily codified rules reduce the chance for both.

Which is better?  It's really up to the individual/gaming group/DM.  Apparently WotC tried B and they're swinging back toward A now.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 23, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> As I recall, back in the time of the edition wars, grognards bemoaned the loss of "DM power" that resulted from 3E having rules for things that formerly were undescribed in the game.  "I can just *decide* whether or not a ranger can climb a tree based on how I'm feeling that day - rather than have the rules *dictate* to me what the chance of success should be." was the general argument.




I don't want to decide how good the ranger is at climbing trees. Fortunately, he's still going to use his athletics skill roll in 4E to determine that.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> That wasn't convincing to 3E players back then, but now suddenly when the same idea is packaged as 4E this seems like a good idea?  Seems to me like this design philosophy of 4E is going to be very similar to the way I played 1st edition when I was 12.  I've spent many years playing some version of DnD that didn't have a complete set of rules for things - such a situation doesn't seem as innovative or exciting to me as it does to some folks apparently.  I don't need 4E to dispense with the non-combat rules just so I can make up a succubus with non-standard seduction powers.




I don't know why you need Succubi to have non-standard seduction powers, unless you want kings to be generally immune from standard seduction attempts. Seduction powers shouldn't be necessary at all.


----------



## DandD (Apr 23, 2008)

For me, it rather looks like C: a mixture of A and B. Some rules and guidelines more than in A, but not the time-consuming mathematical challenge that was B.


----------



## Steely Dan (Apr 23, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But if you want to play a rules-heavy game, why do you play D&D? Wouldn't GURPS be a lot better? There are even more options to take and dials to change.





Yeah, I've never thought of D&D (any edition) as particularly rule-heavy, as far as many other games are concerned, just clunky.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 23, 2008)

evilbob said:
			
		

> Codifying the rules more exactly - a la 3.5 - took some of the "make up any old crap" power away from the DM.



No it didn't. Because the power to 'just make stuff up' ultimately resides in the player's consent, not the rule set used. The problem I have with 3.x is that when I want to rely on the framework provided by the rules, I find it increasing unmanageable as my group levels. 



> ...and it also helped "protect" players from overt abuse...



The only thing that can really protect players from the DM is a stout hitting-stick and the will to use it.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 23, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> I think the problem stems from wanting D&D to be the game for everyone and if its not for me it sucks or if its not for you it sucks.



Sure, and that's endemic to D&D as the FRPG with the largest player base. For all intents and purposes D&D _is_ pen-and-paper fantasy role-playing.


----------



## vagabundo (Apr 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> From what I can tell, though, the "unit of interest" in 4e isn't the monster, it's the encounter. An individual 4e monster doesn't have enough fiddly bits, in and of itself, to interest me. But if you consider that a monster is now 1/5th of an encounter (usually), then the total level of customization for *the entire encounter* is enough to look like it might be fun to play with. I can see a lot of fun in setting up the complex interactions and synergies of an entire encounter 'group', fiddling with swapping in an elite for two normals, or adding in minions, etc. Solo creatures (which I don't think we've seen yet) should be pretty rare beasts.




I think you have hit the nail on the head with this one.  It is all about the encounter for 4e. I think I got annoyed at 3e as I would intro a new monster and it could fire off 1 or 2 interesting things and the lads would dog pile it and destroy it in 3 rounds.All about the actions I suppose.

It was possible to do complex encounters in 3e but the dynamic was different. I'm looking forward to dogpiling the PCs and (hopefully) them coming out on top, but the fight will look more heroic to me. More 300!!!


----------



## Steely Dan (Apr 23, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> I'm looking forward to dogpiling




I did that at a furry convention in Vegas.


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 23, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> Except that 4e still gives you rules to determine whether you can climb the tree or not.  Some people just like to make it look like it does not.




That really wasn't my point though - I didn't think anyone was making that case about tree climbing in 4E.  Maybe I've misunderstood this issue.  I'm using the example of a ranger climbing a tree because it seemed to be a standard example back in the "1E vs. 3E" days and I thought folks would recognize it.  The point was - what is the significant difference between the rules not telling you what a ranger's chance is for climbing a tree, and the rules not indicating the significant parameters (duration, level of effect, etc.) for a succubus' seduction ability?

The ranger example, granted, is a case of a PC using a power.  But is it really there really that much of a difference with a seduction power?  As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, there are circumstances where the PCs might be very much interested in the particulars of how a given monster power works - in the case where the monster is working for them, for example.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 23, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> That really wasn't my point though - I didn't think anyone was making that case about tree climbing in 4E.  Maybe I've misunderstood this issue.  I'm using the example of a ranger climbing a tree because it seemed to be a standard example back in the "1E vs. 3E" days and I thought folks would recognize it.  The point was - what is the significant difference between the rules not telling you what a ranger's chance is for climbing a tree, and the rules not indicating the significant parameters (duration, level of effect, etc.) for a succubus' seduction ability?




Do you frequently roll dice behind the screen to determine if an NPC succeeds in seducing someone? Do you roll it 6 months before you expect the PCs to discover that it's happened? If the roll goes badly, do you just throw away your seduction plot?



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The ranger example, granted, is a case of a PC using a power.  But is it really there really that much of a difference with a seduction power?  As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, there are circumstances where the PCs might be very much interested in the particulars of how a given monster power works - in the case where the monster is working for them, for example.




Yes. Monsters-as-PCs (or assistant PCs, or hirelings, or whatever) need something much closer to full-PC writeup than monsters-as-enemies.

We also know that some monsters get Monster-as-PC writeup, and others don't. I don't see much need for the Succubus to get one, and would rather have the time, energy, and pagecount that could have been spent there devoted instead to a new monster, or a Monster-as-PC writeup that's more likely to see use than the Succubus.

I'm also perfectly fine with the idea that kings aren't immune to ordinary seduction attempts, so I don't see the need to make anything special for the succubus - she can use the ordinary rules for it and be better at it than the average barmaid simply by virtue of her higher skill modifiers.


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 23, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> There is an enormous difference between the DM _just deciding_ that an NPC ranger has +5 to climb instead of +8, and the DM _just deciding_ that a PC ranger succeeds or fails at climbing the tree.  The difference is so enormous that its hard for me to see why there is confusion on this score.




I don't think my issue has anything to do with that.  As I understood the "succubus seduction" example, the rules were going to propose a complete lack of rule framework for that ability - anything beyond flavor text.  It wasn't a matter of the rules saying "you (the DM) decide on what the Will DC is to resist the seduction and what it's duration is".  It's the matter of the rules not outlining *any* of the significant parameters of the ability.  

This, then, becomes analagous to the DM deciding whether the ranger succeeds or fails, rather that what the rangers chance should be.  Because if the DM decides on every parameter of the ability, then it's pretty simple to encourage/nerf the ability.  So fine then: take a +8 instead of a +5 climb - but then I as a DM decide that you have to make the check every foot that you climb, and that your climbing movement rate is 1/100 your base speed.  So enjoy your +8 bonus.  

My point here is that completely open-ended determination of parameters is not a whole lot different from arbitrarily deciding on success/failure.  Whether or not actual climbing rules exist is sort of beside the point, the fact that sections of the game will be governed with this sort of "nebulous non-rule" design philosophy means the problem will arise somewhere.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 23, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> My point here is that completely open-ended determination of parameters is not a whole lot different from arbitrarily deciding on success/failure.  Whether or not actual climbing rules exist is sort of beside the point, the fact that sections of the game will be governed with this sort of "nebulous non-rule" design philosophy means the problem will arise somewhere.




It's a good thing when you don't need to look up rules to determine what happens off-stage.

If it's happening on-stage, I recommend trying to use the skill challenge rules, the combat rules, or the basic skill rules to adjudicate the PCs' interaction with it.

I'm not sure I see where the actual problem is, except that some people want kings to be immune to nonmagical seduction, which implies that succubi need a magical seduction power, which further implies that since one isn't written there, you have to make it up.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 23, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I don't think my issue has anything to do with that.  As I understood the "succubus seduction" example, the rules were going to propose a complete lack of rule framework for that ability - anything beyond flavor text.  It wasn't a matter of the rules saying "you (the DM) decide on what the Will DC is to resist the seduction and what it's duration is".  It's the matter of the rules not outlining *any* of the significant parameters of the ability.



I misunderstood what you were responding to.  The most recent debate in this thread involves Lizard, who believes that giving a succubus +18 to acrobatics because you think its a good idea is somehow sinful or cheating or too easy, in comparison to his preferred methods of extrapolating skill points from a base hit die, ability score, relevant feats, and then a racial bonus to make up the difference.  The rest of us think it would be a lot easier to just say "A succubus has a +18 acrobatics check" and be done with it, since you get to the same place in the same way, you had to do the same amount of "making stuff up" when you create the racial bonus anyways, and this way saves you a bunch of intermediate steps that produced no value.  I assumed you were responding to this because you immediately used an example that involved the allocation of skill ranks.

You, instead, are discussing some sort of assumed magical supernatural seduction power, and whether or not it has rules.


> It wasn't a matter of the rules saying "you (the DM) decide on what the Will DC is to resist the seduction and what it's duration is". It's the matter of the rules not outlining *any* of the significant parameters of the ability.



Its worse than that.  The rules don't provide any framework for believing that the succubus' long term magical supernatural seduction powers _even exist at all._

Otherwise Lacyon handled this well.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 23, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I don't think my issue has anything to do with that.  As I understood the "succubus seduction" example, the rules were going to propose a complete lack of rule framework for that ability - anything beyond flavor text.  It wasn't a matter of the rules saying "you (the DM) decide on what the Will DC is to resist the seduction and what it's duration is".  It's the matter of the rules not outlining *any* of the significant parameters of the ability.
> 
> This, then, becomes analagous to the DM deciding whether the ranger succeeds or fails, rather that what the rangers chance should be.  Because if the DM decides on every parameter of the ability, then it's pretty simple to encourage/nerf the ability.  So fine then: take a +8 instead of a +5 climb - but then I as a DM decide that you have to make the check every foot that you climb, and that your climbing movement rate is 1/100 your base speed.  So enjoy your +8 bonus.
> 
> My point here is that completely open-ended determination of parameters is not a whole lot different from arbitrarily deciding on success/failure.  Whether or not actual climbing rules exist is sort of beside the point, the fact that sections of the game will be governed with this sort of "nebulous non-rule" design philosophy means the problem will arise somewhere.



Well, what you describe would probably be bad, but - it doesn't seem to relate much to 4E. That's the deal. 4E has rules that a DM can follow. It gives monsters skill modifiers, ability scores, hit points, levels, attack bonus, defenses, saving throws and what-you-want. 

The problem is more that some people need even more stuff to define a monster (skill points, additional powers that don't affect its combat abilities, but its story purpose). There is a range between "make everything up as you see fit, you're the DM" and "to give the Succubus spells, add Sorceror levels, including HD, skill points, BAB and Saves.". 
4E is trying to find something in between, and from what I see, it's still a little more closer to the second then to the first. The parts where monsters "interface" with the PCs (typically combat, but also social encounters), they are still well-defined. The part where they just affect the story-line is mostly up to the DM.


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 23, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> Do you frequently roll dice behind the screen to determine if an NPC succeeds in seducing someone? Do you roll it 6 months before you expect the PCs to discover that it's happened? If the roll goes badly, do you just throw away your seduction plot?




Perhaps as a tangent - I don't "throw away" plots or keep plots.  I'm of the "the plot is what happens in the game" game philosophy.

The issue for me is not whether or not I roll behind the screen.  The issue is whether the parameters and chance of success are well defined.  If, for example, we were in a rule system that allowed you to specifically determine that the succubus has a 5% chance of seducing the king, that "seduction" means what it means in the "charm person" spell, and that the effect takes a week to create, then that tells me what I need to know as a DM.  It means somewhere in my narration of the event should probably be the recognition that the chance of success by the succubus was pretty remote.  Whether or not I'm actually rolling dice is a different issue for me.  If the rules are there, then I can give a plausible and consistent description of the action, regardless of the method I use to generate the random numbers (including, for example, just picking the numbers).  If the powers are well-defined, the capabilities of the monster won't suddenly change when they're "on screen".


----------



## evilbob (Apr 23, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> No it didn't...



I guess we've had different experiences then, because I disagree with this completely.

(Please note that I do not mean my statements in an absolute way; I mean that in general, codified rules make it harder for DMs to abuse players and in general, non-codified rules make it easier.  There are always exceptions in both directions.)


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 23, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I assumed you were responding to this because you immediately used an example that involved the allocation of skill ranks.




Ok, I think I see - the example I used was misleading then because I don't have a strong opinion about what specific bonuses should be.  I like the idea of some general guidelines about monster design that mimic player design, but having the guidelines and being forced to use them are two different things.

For example, one case that I've seen (and forgive me for not researching the details) is that of a deva who can remove disease at will.  Had the deva, as a monster, been designed according to "PC-esque" design parameters, then it would not have such an unlimited power.  It has the unlimited power because the designer assumed that the deva's remove disease ability would be sufficiently limited by DM-fiat.  The problem immediately arises when the players summon the deva, and then ask it to use it's power.  The DM then has to immediately concoct excuses for why the deva doesn't use it's unlimited remove disease power to eliminate disease on the Prime Material.  There are other examples of problems that arise due to an arbitrary division between PC and NPC that's not really warranted.

And this is an example of a general problem that I have in that the various boundaries that are being argued to exist really don't IMO.  People say when something is "plot-related" then it should use one set of (virtually non-existent) rules, whereas if it's "combat-related" then another set of rules should apply.  It very well may be the parameters of a succubus' seduction power have a direct bearing on the PCs successes in an adventure - in fact it's likely considering that 99% of "plot" stuff hopefully has to do with the adventure.  

So if there's a PC who is a bard-type, and he tries talk the king out of being enamored with the succubus, then basically I'm back to the situation that we had in the 1E days where I'm making it up off the top of my head.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> Its worse than that.  The rules don't provide any framework for believing that the succubus' long term magical supernatural seduction powers _even exist at all._




I was assuming, based on an earlier example given of some lich's ritual, that the power would at least be mentioned in some flavor text for the module.  Whether or not that counts as a "rule providing a framework for belief in existence" I guess is a matter of interpretation, and I'm not sure myself.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 23, 2008)

gizmo33- That's a perfectly reasonable and logical point to make.  However, it is completely 100% misapplied when you use it on the ability of a succubus to seduce someone.

If we were debating something like how a dragon breathes fire, and I was arguing that a dragon doesn't need rules on how to breathe fire because, honestly, most of the time a dragon breathes fire a PC isn't around to see it anyways so you can just fudge it, well, then I'd be dumb.  Because a dragon breathing fire is something that a dragon often does to PCs, and to which PCs respond by using abilities and defenses, so it needs rules.

Seducing someone is NOT an analogous ability.  If we were talking about a magical "seduce man" spell with a range of 30'+3 per level and a duration of 1 day per caster level, that would be different.  But we're not.  We're talking about a beautiful woman trying to use sex to manipulate a man.  That doesn't need a die roll.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 23, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> So if there's a PC who is a bard-type, and he tries talk the king out of being enamored with the succubus, then basically I'm back to the situation that we had in the 1E days where I'm making it up off the top of my head.



Except that now you have a robust framework for player characters using social skills, including guidelines on how to set DCs based on how difficult you want the task to be.  And in 4e you even have a framework for using combinations of multiple skills of varying DCs.

And no, the rules don't need DCs written out to tell us specifically how difficult it is or isn't to convince a man to mistrust his mistress.  3e got by without that just fine.


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 23, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> gizmo33- That's a perfectly reasonable and logical point to make.  However, it is completely 100% misapplied when you use it on the ability of a succubus to seduce someone.




Saying anything is 100% completely anything is setting the bar a bit high logically, regardless of the subject.  I think there's some reason to be skeptical about your ability to confidently put these issues into the categories that you do, and I'll try to explain why below.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> If we were debating something like how a dragon breathes fire, and I was arguing that a dragon doesn't need rules on how to breathe fire because, honestly, most of the time a dragon breathes fire a PC isn't around to see it anyways so you can just fudge it, well, then I'd be dumb.  Because a dragon breathing fire is something that a dragon often does to PCs, and to which PCs respond by using abilities and defenses, so it needs rules.




What if it doesn't do it often?  What if the ability is "the dragon can breathe fire once in it's lifetime".  Even in such a case, I really think frequency of use is not the relevant issue here - from what I can tell it's possibly that you might actually not believe that to be the case.  So the significant question to me is what *are* the conditions under which you should want rules?



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> Seducing someone is NOT an analogous ability.  If we were talking about a magical "seduce man" spell with a range of 30'+3 per level and a duration of 1 day per caster level, that would be different.  But we're not.  We're talking about a beautiful woman trying to use sex to manipulate a man.  That doesn't need a die roll.




How is seducing someone not an ability that's analagous to throwing a rock into a bucket from a distance?  Whether or not either one has to do with a PC living or dying would be based on the context that we don't know, and setting up a rules system that arbitrarily decides it knows the answers to these questions seems to me to be a step backward.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 23, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> So if there's a PC who is a bard-type, and he tries talk the king out of being enamored with the succubus, then basically I'm back to the situation that we had in the 1E days where I'm making it up off the top of my head.




Unless you instead fall back on the skill challenge rules provided with 4E, for example.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I was assuming, based on an earlier example given of some lich's ritual, that the power would at least be mentioned in some flavor text for the module.  Whether or not that counts as a "rule providing a framework for belief in existence" I guess is a matter of interpretation, and I'm not sure myself.




There's no mention of any kind of 'seduce person' ritual in the Succubus description we've seen. Some people seem to think she needs one and that it should be well-defined in the rules or made up. Some of us are okay adjudicating it with the tools we've already caught a glimpse of. Still others are waiting to see what additional rules are going to be available.


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 23, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Except that now you have a robust framework for player characters using social skills, including guidelines on how to set DCs based on how difficult you want the task to be.  And in 4e you even have a framework for using combinations of multiple skills of varying DCs.
> 
> And no, the rules don't need DCs written out to tell us specifically how difficult it is or isn't to convince a man to mistrust his mistress.  3e got by without that just fine.




The first paragraph seems to contradict the second in the case of the mistress being a PC!  Again, I don't seem to find the distinctions that you make to be as well-defined as you seem to believe.  IME PCs get around to doing pretty much everything NPCs try to do - whereas apparently you're assuming AFAICT that only NPCs will seduce people because PCs are just about killing things.

In any case, I'm not saying that "complexity" isn't a limiting factor on what I'm talking about.  But if you don't measure a succubus' interpersonal skills on some sort of scale, allowing you to measure her abilities against the PCs, no matter how crude, then your really just left with DM fiat.  And yes, while this will happen in the future, and has happened in the past, deciding on DM fiat as an ideal design rather than a fall-back in overly complex situations IMO is undesireable, well-travelled territory, and something I'm surprised people want to revisit.


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 23, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> Unless you instead fall back on the skill challenge rules provided with 4E, for example.




I'm assuming that you'd have to know something quantifiable about the abilities of both participants in any sort of skill challenge situation.  To the degree that the succubus' skills here are well defined, then I don't see what the issue is and I'd have no objections.  It's the case of the rules saying nothing more than "a succubus is really seductive" and forcing me, as a DM, on the fly, to put numbers behind that general statement is what I have a problem with.  Such a situation doesn't help me actually utilize the proposed "skill challenge rules", so I'm not sure what good they do in that case.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 23, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The first paragraph seems to contradict the second in the case of the mistress being a PC! Again, I don't seem to find the distinctions that you make to be as well-defined as you seem to believe. IME PCs get around to doing pretty much everything NPCs try to do - whereas apparently you're assuming AFAICT that only NPCs will seduce people because PCs are just about killing things.




In the case where the mistress is the PC you reverse the roles (and rolls) and the challenge is to convince the man to continue trusting you in spite of the words said by the NPC. You still don't need the rules to say that this is DC X, because the DC can and should change based on situation.

It doesn't do too much for PC vs. PC action, but I'm okay with D&D rules being focused on cooperation between players instead of competition.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 23, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I'm assuming that you'd have to know something quantifiable about the abilities of both participants in any sort of skill challenge situation.  To the degree that the succubus' skills here are well defined, then I don't see what the issue is and I'd have no objections. It's the case of the rules saying nothing more than "a succubus is really seductive" and forcing me, as a DM, on the fly, to put numbers behind that general statement is what I have a problem with.  Such a situation doesn't help me actually utilize the proposed "skill challenge rules", so I'm not sure what good they do in that case.




It's even easier than that, IMO. Decide what level challenge this particular succubus' seduction is and look up the baseline DCs for that level skill challenge. She's a level 9 creature, so that makes a good default.

I mean, there's nothing _wrong_ with basing it on the succubus' skill ranks instead, but there's no reason that a) this should be required or b) every succubus needs to be equally good at it anyway.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 23, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> How is seducing someone not an ability that's analagous to throwing a rock into a bucket from a distance?



I honestly don't know how to answer that.  

I mean, I know what the difference is.  The former is an act of roleplaying that depends on the personalities and interactions between two characters.  The latter is an attack roll.  

I don't know how to explain the difference to someone who looks at the two and insists that he can't tell them apart.


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 23, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> In the case where the mistress is the PC you reverse the roles (and rolls) and the challenge is to convince the man to continue trusting you in spite of the words said by the NPC. You still don't need the rules to say that this is DC X, because the DC can and should change based on situation.




Well the rules don't really tell you what the DC is for anything in 3E.  At best you get a chart with general circumstances (ex. "the wall is slippery") matched with a general target number, and some suggestions for possible modifiers.

And I'm not arguing that it should be different.  And it doesn't matter to me who rolls - the seducer or the target, it's still the same basic logic - you have to figure out the actor's chance of success, and the target's chances of avoiding the actor's success.  

If I'm waist deep in quicksand, with flies buzzing in my face and shooting a bow at a kobold in leather armor hiding behind a tree, the obviously there are ALL KINDS of modifiers to my chance of success.  But given that this is the case are we to assume that the ideal game design dispenses with dice rolling and that the DM just decides what the chances of success are without guidelines?  Or that a succubus' archery skill is described in the rules as "pretty good" and the specifics are left to the DM to work out every single time he wants a succubus to use that skill?


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 23, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> If I'm waist deep in quicksand, with flies buzzing in my face and shooting a bow at a kobold in leather armor hiding behind a tree, the obviously there are ALL KINDS of modifiers to my chance of success.




But you can, in general, assume that the challenge is going to be something like level-appropriate, no?



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> But given that this is the case are we to assume that the ideal game design dispenses with dice rolling and that the DM just decides what the chances of success are without guidelines?  Or that a succubus' archery skill is described in the rules as "pretty good" and the specifics are left to the DM to work out every single time he wants a succubus to use that skill?




Why are you assuming no guidelines?

(The succubus' archery skill isn't described _at all_, but it's still easy to extrapolate from the basic system - Dex attack versus AC).


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 23, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Or that a succubus' archery skill is described in the rules as "pretty good" and the specifics are left to the DM to work out every single time he wants a succubus to use that skill?




Are we talking about 4e still or some theoretical debate that doesn't have anything to do with 4e anymore? I'm a bit confused.


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 23, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I honestly don't know how to answer that.
> 
> I mean, I know what the difference is.  The former is an act of roleplaying that depends on the personalities and interactions between two characters.  The latter is an attack roll.
> 
> I don't know how to explain the difference to someone who looks at the two and insists that he can't tell them apart.




Ok - well I'm not honestly trying to throw you off.  Obviously there is a difference between throwing a rock and using a social skill.  But there's also a difference between throwing a rock and climbing a wall.  So IMO the relevant question is what are the *significant* differences between rock-throwing, wall climbing, and seducing, and do such differences warrant an entirely different methodology for determining success in one case but not the others?  Isn't my ability to convince someone of something a skill that's affected by circumstances in the same general way as me trying to hit them with a sword?  

Yes, there are a seemingly limitless set of circumstances that could affect a seduction die-roll.  But then realistically hitting someone with a sword is also very complex - it's just that DnD settles on a certain set of standard modifiers when it comes to sword swinging and all other realistic circumstances are ignored.  For example, no one seriously considers the chance that a sword breaks during the swing - even though a DM could be obsessive about such complexity in the case of interpersonal skills.


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 23, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Are we talking about 4e still or some theoretical debate that doesn't have anything to do with 4e anymore? I'm a bit confused.




Theoretical - I'd be quoting chapter and verse if it were otherwise.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 23, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Theoretical - I'd be quoting chapter and verse if it were otherwise.




Phew. I thought I had missed something very important!


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 23, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> But you can, in general, assume that the challenge is going to be something like level-appropriate, no?




Actually IMC no, that's not the case at all.  If you jump off a cliff, the damage you take is not going to be level-appropriate.  What I have is a set of objective guidelines (in this case "1d6/10 ft") and I apply modifiers (ex. "+2d6 becuase you're landing on glass").  Whether you're 1st level or 10th level is not a factor.  In fact, the point of getting to 10th level is somewhat lost on me if the challenges immediately and arbitrarily increase as well - but maybe I've misunderstood your implication here.



			
				Lacyon said:
			
		

> Why are you assuming no guidelines?
> 
> (The succubus' archery skill isn't described _at all_, but it's still easy to extrapolate from the basic system - Dex attack versus AC).




I'm assuming very little guidelines beyond flavor text because that's what I thought was being advocated here.  Something like - "A succubus' seduction ability is too complex to adjucated with well-defined rules and/or will only happen off screen so we don't need rules" or something to that effect.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 23, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Actually IMC no, that's not the case at all.  If you jump off a cliff, the damage you take is not going to be level-appropriate.  What I have is a set of objective guidelines (in this case "1d6/10 ft") and I apply modifiers (ex. "+2d6 becuase you're landing on glass").  Whether you're 1st level or 10th level is not a factor.  In fact, the point of getting to 10th level is somewhat lost on me if the challenges immediately and arbitrarily increase as well - but maybe I've misunderstood your implication here.




So if you're jumping off a cliff and _expect to survive_, it's level-appropriate (or less), no?

Nothing holds you back from saying "this is a level 9 challenge, and as such I expect my first-level PCs to fail at it and my 20th-level ones to waltz through it with no trouble."

And, y'know, since the succubus is a level-9 monster, that seems like a fine baseline to work with.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I'm assuming very little guidelines beyond flavor text because that's what I thought was being advocated here.  Something like - "A succubus' seduction ability is too complex to adjucated with well-defined rules and/or will only happen off screen so we don't need rules" or something to that effect.




Some small number of people are probably actually advocating that very position. For many, I suspect it's a shorthand for "the succubus' ability to seduce doesn't need to be totally well-defined because its actual implementation is going to vary so widely - _only_ give us the guidelines we need instead of the thorough definition we're so likely to just throw out anyway. Spend your valuable design and development time on getting the stuff we _are_ likely to use with some frequency out of the box to work well."


----------



## bramadan (Apr 23, 2008)

I would argue that the confusion here stems from the rules specialization in DnD which is (and always has been) very difficult for some people to accept.

DnD is not a system for simulating all the interactions in a (pseudo-fantasy) world. It is not even a system for simulating all the possible *interesting* interactions in such a world. 
It is, and always has been since the first Gary Gygax booklet, game of fantasy combat within the context of a role-playing narrative. 

A hint that this may be so is the page-count of abilities and rules devoted to combat in every edition of DnD thus-far compared with page-count dedicated to any other interaction.

Over time designers of DnD have introduced certain amount of secondary rules to the game (utility spells, proficiencies, skills etc...) to enhance the narrative aspect of the game but have quite consciously retained original philosophy of DnD as a combat-game and of characters defined by their combat abilities. 

It is therefore utterly pointless demanding that a social (non-combat) situation gets nearly as much attention within DnD rules as a combat one.

The social conflict (Sucubbus against the Bard-y type PC for the attention of the King) is very far from the original "core competency" of the DnD game and will thus *by design* be much more open to the DM adjudication then the physical conflict would be. 

A great virtue of DnD4 is that it explicitly recognizes this fact and is striving to make all characters combat-balanced meaning that none of them lose out on what is squarely heart of the game, but it does not mean that the previous edition put any more actual emphasis on the non-combat interactions. 

I have worked myself on a game where social conflict resolution is given as much emphasis as the combat and I can tell you - it is a *very* different beast from DnD, from the way PCs are constructed down to the sort of narratives that play out. 

For good or bad, if you play DnD you better accept that non-combat interaction will always be reasonably ad-hock affair.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 23, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> Unless you instead fall back on the skill challenge rules provided with 4E, for example.




This is fair. You could use Diplomacy to win the king back, Arcana to learn of a powerful Word Of Liberation, Nature to brew an herbal concoction to weaken the spells magic, or Intimidate to try to get the succubus to back off ("The power of Pelor compels ye! The power of Pelor compels ye!") (Or would that be Religion?)

So, how many successes do you need to break a succubus' charm? How many failures until the king tells you to get lost and orders his guards to attack you?

THAT'S the kind of mechanical detail needed to make the system work -- and that's what the OP views as an anathema (and the MM doesn't seem to think of as necessary).

As a caveat, it might be the Charm spell itself contains this data, but I'd like to think a succubus was better at it than J. Random Wizard.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> This is fair. You could use Diplomacy to win the king back, Arcana to learn of a powerful Word Of Liberation, Nature to brew an herbal concoction to weaken the spells magic, or Intimidate to try to get the succubus to back off ("The power of Pelor compels ye! The power of Pelor compels ye!") (Or would that be Religion?)
> 
> So, how many successes do you need to break a succubus' charm? How many failures until the king tells you to get lost and orders his guards to attack you?



This might be hard to swallow, but this depends a lot on how important the task is for the story you want to tell. If your entire adventure has the goal to uncover the Succubus deception, then you will probably have a lot more detail (even beyond that of a skill challenge. Stuff like finding contacts that tell you something, minions send by the Succubus to deal with you, a skill challenge to get access to the neccessary counter-ritual (assuming there is need for that) and so on) then when it's only part of your goal to win the King over to lend you troops in battle against the Orc camps. Heck, for the very "player-empowered minded", the Succubus could actually something that was created on the spot during a skill challenge. 

And that's why it's ultimately not part of the Succubus entry. The only level of detail for 4E that is fixed is if you want to go to combat with someone. But everything else can be detailed to the extend the DM desires to. Ideally, the DMG will provide him with the tools (rituals, challenges, adventure hooks etc.) to make this easy for him, compelling for the group and fair to the players.


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> So, how many successes do you need to break a succubus' charm? How many failures until the king tells you to get lost and orders his guards to attack you?
> 
> THAT'S the kind of mechanical detail needed to make the system work -- and that's what the OP views as an anathema (and the MM doesn't seem to think of as necessary).




I think of the # of success/failures as a pacing mechanic.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> This is fair. You could use Diplomacy to win the king back, Arcana to learn of a powerful Word Of Liberation, Nature to brew an herbal concoction to weaken the spells magic, or Intimidate to try to get the succubus to back off ("The power of Pelor compels ye! The power of Pelor compels ye!") (Or would that be Religion?)




What's more, you can use a skill challenge to find out what's up with the king's wacky new edicts. Or you can combine the two things into one skill challenge, but spread out (some of) the relevant rolls over a month-long sequence of adventures involving 



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> So, how many successes do you need to break a succubus' charm? How many failures until the king tells you to get lost and orders his guards to attack you?
> 
> THAT'S the kind of mechanical detail needed to make the system work -- and that's what the OP views as an anathema (and the MM doesn't seem to think of as necessary).




I won't speak for the OP, but why would the MM tell you what the DC and number of successes required for a level 9 skill challenge is? More to the point, why would it _repeat_ that information, since it's so likely to be in another rulebook, published at the same time?



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> As a caveat, it might be the Charm spell itself contains this data, but I'd like to think a succubus was better at it than J. Random Wizard.




I still don't think it even needs to be a spell.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 23, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> This might be hard to swallow, but this depends a lot on how important the task is for the story you want to tell.




Taken far enough, this makes player levels and skills meaningless.

How tough is the wall to climb? DC=Highest Athletics score in the party +8. One size fits all!

It's like Morrowind, where the monster toughness always scaled with you, so you never felt like you were getting any better.

And thus, we're back to my belief that if that's the playstyle you want (and There's Nothing Wrong With That TM), then you're better off diceless. Theatrix, for example, expliclty has success and failure based purely on story need, not on character skill. If the villain needs to get away, there's nothing players can do to stop him; if he needs to be beaten, the players can't lose.


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 23, 2008)

bramadan said:
			
		

> I would argue that the confusion here stems from the rules specialization in DnD which is (and always has been) very difficult for some people to accept.




I would suggest that you will always find that people have a difficult time accepting the universal truth of something that's largely a theoretical construction of someone's imagination.  Specifically:



			
				bramadan said:
			
		

> DnD is not a system for simulating all the interactions in a (pseudo-fantasy) world.




So you say.  The objective truth/falseness of this is not obvious to me.



			
				bramadan said:
			
		

> It is not even a system for simulating all the possible *interesting* interactions in such a world.




I would never argue, on logical grounds alone, that anything simulates "all possible" anything.



			
				bramadan said:
			
		

> It is, and always has been since the first Gary Gygax booklet, game of fantasy combat within the context of a role-playing narrative.




Maybe - but the earliest booklets had rules for stronghold construction, prices of weapons, loyalty of hirelings, and so forth, so I think you're overstating the simplicity of the situation or the intentions of the original designers.  It's not hard to find rules in ODnD that have nothing to do with combat, and the fact that the DnD rules grew out of wargaming rules would be a significant thing to consider before suggesting that every element of the design was intentional.  Wandering monster tables, for example, have nothing to do with combat resolution.



			
				bramadan said:
			
		

> A hint that this may be so is the page-count of abilities and rules devoted to combat in every edition of DnD thus-far compared with page-count dedicated to any other interaction.




I would agree with the objective part of what you're saying here, but I'm very skeptical about the cause/effect that you propose.



			
				bramadan said:
			
		

> Over time designers of DnD have introduced certain amount of secondary rules to the game (utility spells, proficiencies, skills etc...) to enhance the narrative aspect of the game but have quite consciously retained original philosophy of DnD as a combat-game and of characters defined by their combat abilities.




A universal set of rules for climbing or surprise, for instance, did not exist in rules prior to 3E.  Are you therefore arguing that such things have no effect on combat?  Whether or not a king likes you could have a lot to do with whether or not your character gets killed - IMO there is no basis for labeling some resolution as being "combat related" vs. "narrative related" and suggesting that there's some fundemental difference between the two regardless of circumstances.



			
				bramadan said:
			
		

> It is therefore utterly pointless demanding that a social (non-combat) situation gets nearly as much attention within DnD rules as a combat one.




I'm not sure anyone is suggesting this.  My actual opinion is more subtle than this, but I'm not sure that anything I say that doesn't use the words "utterly" or "100%" is comprehensible in the internet culture of hyperbole.



			
				bramadan said:
			
		

> The social conflict (Sucubbus against the Bard-y type PC for the attention of the King) is very far from the original "core competency" of the DnD game and will thus *by design* be much more open to the DM adjudication then the physical conflict would be.




IMO it's a bit bold to suggest that DnD's "core competency" is combat.  It's not hard to find a game system that came about as an "improvement" over what was seen as pretty lame by some.  Consider people's objections about the realism of DnD hitpoints or armorclass for instance.  Basically, what you've done is accepted a very abstract model for resolving combat, a model that ignores a myriad of circumstances that would exist in reality.  It ignores them in favor of simplicity and game-play.  But now somehow you're suggesting that there's a logical basis for saying that such a model (with the attendant abstractions and simplifications) is somehow impossible for non-combat situations.  I'm not convinced.



			
				bramadan said:
			
		

> I have worked myself on a game where social conflict resolution is given as much emphasis as the combat and I can tell you - it is a *very* different beast from DnD, from the way PCs are constructed down to the sort of narratives that play out.




Take an RPG that advertises itself as a "realistic combat simulator" and I'm sure you'd find that a very different beast from DnD as well.  But there's no reason IMO to logically assume that because you played out a situation according to a particular system, that there's something fundemental about that situation (combat, social interaction, etc.) that requires that it play that way.



			
				bramadan said:
			
		

> For good or bad, if you play DnD you better accept that non-combat interaction will always be reasonably ad-hock affair.




I better do what?  I would prefer to accept what makes sense to me.  You may not have thought this out completely, so advice about what I better do and not do is probably best deferred for a later time.  Your very speculative/presumptuous about the design goals of the original DnD designers, for instance.  I think this is unwarranted but seems to be the basis for your argument.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> And thus, we're back to my belief that if that's the playstyle you want (and There's Nothing Wrong With That TM), then you're better off diceless. Theatrix, for example, expliclty has success and failure based purely on story need, not on character skill. If the villain needs to get away, there's nothing players can do to stop him; if he needs to be beaten, the players can't lose.




Here's a radical thought: what if some people want the difficulty settings to be story-driven, but still not have guaranteed success or failure?

Diceless systems don't help these people. Abstracted dice-based systems do.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Taken far enough, this makes player levels and skills meaningless.
> 
> How tough is the wall to climb? DC=Highest Athletics score in the party +8. One size fits all!
> 
> ...



Taken far enough - in the meaning of "to far", yes. 

But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a baseline for level X skill challenges. 

It also depends on what you want - does it make sense to have the DC of climbing a specific wall scaling with level? Off course not. 
But, it might make sense to put a little more difficult to climb walls against a higher level party. A 1st level party can cover a 30 ft wall with conveniently placed foot holds. A 20th level party might encounter a 150 ft wall with some randomly distributed foot holds, some of them giving in if you look sternly at them, during a tornado.
Not dissimilar to how a 1st level party will usually avoid encountering an mature Dragon and fight Kobolds or Goblins, while a 20th level party might actively seek out and hunt down the Dragons. 

Or in other words, skill challenges need a level just like monsters. And just like you tend to assemble encounters appropriate for the PCs, you will try to create skill challenges appropriate for the PCs. And if you combine a monster and a skill challenge, it might make sense to give them similar levels. It definitely makes sense if the skill challenge is about dealing with the monster.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> It's like Morrowind, where the monster toughness always scaled with you, so you never felt like you were getting any better.



When it comes right down to it, hasn't D&D always scaled like that? Get tougher, face tougher monsters. Learn to teleport, start encountering dungeon rooms/whole fortresses made of teleport-proof bricks. Besides, the scaling-problem is a DM issue, not a system issue. A good DM varies the difficultly of challenges so the players experience their characters increased wahoo.  



> If the villain needs to get away, there's nothing players can do to stop him; if he needs to be beaten, the players can't lose.



Note that very crunchy d20-based systems like Mutants and Masterminds also feature mechanical support for stuff like that. Diceless isn't the only way to go for those who favor story...


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Apr 23, 2008)

It's been said a few times already, but I think it's worth repeating.

If you're looking for help with monsters, you go to the Monster Manual.

If you're looking for help with plot resolution, you go to the Dungeon Master's Guide.

So if you're looking in the MM for ways a succubus uses men as her puppets, or how many skill successes a PC needs to make to defeat her, you're looking in the wrong place.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 23, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> If you're looking for help with plot resolution, you go to the Dungeon Master's Guide.



And with this latest assurance that the contents of the DMG _Will Explain Everything_(tm), I think the final tally will be something like 15,000 pages.


----------



## Imp (Apr 24, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> If you're looking for help with monsters, you go to the Monster Manual.
> 
> If you're looking for help with plot resolution, you go to the Dungeon Master's Guide.
> 
> So if you're looking in the MM for ways a succubus uses men as her puppets, or how many skill successes a PC needs to make to defeat her, you're looking in the wrong place.



That doesn't say anything. If you want information on how, specifically, a succubus uses men as her puppets, a Monster Manual is a pretty logical place to look for it. It sure beats crossreferencing.

A different angle: while it's certainly possible to make up this sort of thing out of whole cloth, consider that it's also pretty easy in 4e to make up the whole entire monster out of whole cloth: level x, role x, fiddle with stats a little, add a couple special abilities, you're good to go. It almost seems easier than statting up individual instances of customized monsters from the Monster Manual entries in 3e! So then, more than before, the 4e Monster Manual entries have to sell themselves. A succubus! Why use it? Well...


----------



## bramadan (Apr 24, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I would suggest that you will always find that people have a difficult time accepting the universal truth of something that's largely a theoretical construction of someone's imagination.
> ...
> So you say.  The objective truth/falseness of this is not obvious to me.




I agree that one can take whatever one wants from the RPG but when discussing objective truths it is as safe bet as any to go by the words and actions of the designer(s).

Here is a quote from 3.0 DMG on styles of play:



			
				3.0 Dungeon Master's Guide said:
			
		

> *Kick in the Door*:
> ...
> This style of play is straight-forward, fun, exciting and action oriented. Very little time is spent on role-playing non-combat encounters...
> ...
> ...




He then goes on to say how normal DnD is usually a mixture of the two and should be treated appropriately. 

3rd ed DMG is pretty much explicitly making my point for me here: Rules of DnD are for primarily combat related, less emphasis there is on combat (under the DnD ruleset) more adjudication is required by the DM.

Similar caveats are given in both 1st and 2nd edition DMGs and I will be very surprised if we do not find something like it in the 4th. 




			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I would never argue, on logical grounds alone, that anything simulates "all possible" anything.



I am not talking about weird special cases here. Even such action-fantasy tropes as chases are virtually absent from the RAW DnD and require heavy DM adjudication to run under any  edition up to this day. 



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Maybe - but the earliest booklets had rules for stronghold construction, prices of weapons, loyalty of hirelings, and so forth, so I think you're overstating the simplicity of the situation or the intentions of the original designers.  It's not hard to find rules in ODnD that have nothing to do with combat, and the fact that the DnD rules grew out of wargaming rules would be a significant thing to consider before suggesting that every element of the design was intentional.  Wandering monster tables, for example, have nothing to do with combat resolution.




There was always some degree of non-combat rules but they were neither very deep nor very complete. We tried very much to run a feudal baron/mercenary company game using the stronghold/henchmen rules from 1ed ADnD. To say that considerable houseruling and DM adjudication was needed would be an understatement. 

Wandering monster tables on the other hand were integral part of the game from the beginning and they were/are all about combat. If anything they are the perfect example of the basic kick-in-the-door style Monte speaks about above that is combat/rules heavy. 



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I would agree with the objective part of what you're saying here, but I'm very skeptical about the cause/effect that you propose.



I am not sure what other sort of cause/effect relationship could there be between preponderance of combat rules over rules for everything else, and designer intent to make a combat-based game. if you need further insight into how designers imagined DnD will be played take a look at any given published adventure from ODnD to the present day. Ratio of expected time spent in and out of combat in pretty much any one of those will illustrate it.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> A universal set of rules for climbing or surprise, for instance, did not exist in rules prior to 3E.  Are you therefore arguing that such things have no effect on combat?  Whether or not a king likes you could have a lot to do with whether or not your character gets killed - IMO there is no basis for labeling some resolution as being "combat related" vs. "narrative related" and suggesting that there's some fundemental difference between the two regardless of circumstances.




Surprise rules existed in ADnD2 and I am fairly confident they existed in ADnD1 as well.
Climbing rules did as well - they were just fairly simple rules (as they limited smooth surface climbing to one class only and assumed everyone can climb ropes).
Reason for this is exactly that climbing does not have great overlap with combat. DnD3 climbing rules are better but still infinitely simpler then DnD combat rules though I would argue that the actual process of rock/wall climbing is not much less complex then fencing or archery. 

In the second half of your statement you are mixing up outcome and the process. Fact that non-combat and combat encounter can both kill you does not make them a same thing. 
If king sentences my character to death I can plead for mercy or I can fight the palace guard. One will (under DnD) involve a diplomacy skill check roll and/or free form DM adjudication and will take 2 minutes. Other will involve lots of rules (initiative, armor, damage, BAB, etc etc...) and can take up to an hour. Not the same thing at all.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> IMO it's a bit bold to suggest that DnD's "core competency" is combat.  It's not hard to find a game system that came about as an "improvement" over what was seen as pretty lame by some.  Consider people's objections about the realism of DnD hitpoints or armorclass for instance.  Basically, what you've done is accepted a very abstract model for resolving combat, a model that ignores a myriad of circumstances that would exist in reality.  It ignores them in favor of simplicity and game-play.  But now somehow you're suggesting that there's a logical basis for saying that such a model (with the attendant abstractions and simplifications) is somehow impossible for non-combat situations.  I'm not convinced.




I grant you that DnD is over-all very abstract RPG. Yet for all its abstraction, DnD combat system is by far the least abstract part of the game. If DnD combat were as abstract as its skill system it would be resolved by one opposed d20 roll, modified by BAB with the high roller winning and killing the opponent. There would possibly be a table with modifiers DM can apply based on some common circumstances. 

I am not arguing that it is impossible to create the game that provides same level of abstraction in other things PCs may do that would be on par with DnD combat. I am just claiming that DnD is not  has never been, and has no demonstrated intention to become that game. 



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I better do what?  I would prefer to accept what makes sense to me.  You may not have thought this out completely, so advice about what I better do and not do is probably best deferred for a later time.  Your very speculative/presumptuous about the design goals of the original DnD designers, for instance.  I think this is unwarranted but seems to be the basis for your argument.




If the 3ed DMG guide is not enough I will provide more designer quotes as to the point that DnD rules are to be used primarily for combat situations and are to be heavily supplemented by DM fiat outside the combat situations. It is not speculation, it is stated intent of the makers of the game. Complaining about it is about as futile as complaining about the offroading performance of the Vespa.


----------



## Argyuile (Apr 24, 2008)

You don't need (or even want) rules for how often a vampire can create spawn or how long term out of combat sebducus abilities work because:

Chaos theory does not apply to PC's

Lets take the vampire.   If I have an encounter setup with the vampire and 5 minions and hes been there 10 days I guess he makes 1 minion every 2 days right?  If he has 10 minions I guess he makes 1 every single day right?  maybe he only made 2 and he brought 3 with him from Transylvania.   Does it matter?  Only insomuch as it matters to the story.  He creates as many minions as I need to make challenging encounters.  

Lets say the PC's come across a merchant and talk to him for 5 minutes stopping his progress instead of just letting him pass.  In the real world I've just created a butterfly effect.  Now that merchant is 5 minutes later.  maybe because of that his food arrives late and because  of that some little boy starves, and because of that his father swears vengeance against the merchant, the merchant blames it all on the PC's and now the Father wants the PC's dead.  Do I need a subset of rules for this crap?  Absolutely not.  It only matters where the PC's are concerned.  If I need some justification for some villain maybe I say thats why it happened.  If not I don't.  I don't need a table that says.

Father Vengeance for childs death
01-45 Gets over it
46-72 Hates the PC's but to pansy to do anything about it
73-00 Swears vengeance

OMG he swore vengeance but HOW

01-20 Becomes a rogue, tries to poison
21-30 Becomes SK decides to raise army
31-56 Becomes SK decides to kill in single combat
57-80 Becomes necro decides to make traveling undead circus
81-00 Dies trying to get necromancer to mentor him.

Bah rolled a 98 there goes that plot!  Guess I'll have to work on something else.

Like my post in another thread about the breading habits of orcs.  I don't need rules on orc sex so I can decide how big a tribe of orcs is.  Its exactly as big as it needs to be for the story.  The vampire makes enough spawn to make the encounter interesting.

Justifying more or less spawn is easy.

More:  he brought some with him, he made some on the way, he has a cult that follows him around and he makes them spawn to. Whatever

Less: He had a headache that day, he didn't want to attract to much attention, he just didn't have the opportunity.  Whatever.

I shouldn't have to adjust my story to fit some arbitrary set of out of encounter BS rules with 80 billion tables.   I don't need to know how often the king and queen have sex and what the probability of them producing an heir is and whats the probability that it will be a boy vs a girl.  They will have a child when its important/interesting to the story and it will be a boy or a girl based on whatever I happen to need.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 24, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> So, how many successes do you need to break a succubus' charm? How many failures until the king tells you to get lost and orders his guards to attack you?
> 
> THAT'S the kind of mechanical detail needed to make the system work -- and that's what the OP views as an anathema (and the MM doesn't seem to think of as necessary).




Rubbish. I just think it's part of adventure design, not monster design, and is likely covered in the DMG, not the MM.

Consider a possible seduction ability that's written out in the MM:

*Seduce Mortal*: Daily. Cha vs. Will; if this is successful the seduced mortal will follow one suggestion of the succubus per day; if the Succubus successfully uses this power on the same mortal seven days in a row, further successes are automatic and the mortal will follow any suggestion of the Succubus automatically. This may be broken by the Break Seduction ritual.

Now, how much of that is actually useful in the adventure? Only the very last sentence! And then you have additional problems if it falls into the hands of the adventurers (I polymorph into a succubus and take all her powers!) All the actual usage of the power is off-screen. If you actually use the power against a PC (and properly) then what you get is a way of turning a PC into an NPC which is NOT FUN to the extreme.

As it stands, the succubus does have abilities it can use against the heroes (and in a non-campaign-destructive fashion), and the plot-abilties are left up to the DM. The one thing that is left out is "how do you break the succubus's hold on the king?" and that is part and parcel of adventure design. Standard D&D players will be very happy with "Kill the succubus", but for the DM who wants a more epic plot (and the designers at Paizo are happy to oblige) then you can have the find-the-artifact gambit.

If it does boil down to a non-magic issue and it's just the succubus's skill use, and you "just" have to persuade the king that he's been misled, then we've been explicitly told that such interaction is handled in the DMG... and the Succubus does actually have a skill rating. Of course, the default succubus isn't brilliant at it, but she does have all the Charisma skills at their default level.


----------



## Kordeth (Apr 24, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Rubbish. I just think it's part of adventure design, not monster design, and is likely covered in the DMG, not the MM.




I agree. I remember a quote from one of the 2E books, I believe it was one of the Player's Option books, where it basically said "if the story calls for the PCs to discover a demon trapped in a giant glass ball by a rival demon lord, it isn't necessary to calculate the level of the spell, its saving throw, duration, or precise effects. It's enough to say that the demon lord did this, and the PCs must discover how and why." It looks like 4E is going back to that, and I for one couldn't be happier. On the other hand, I think this is going to be easily the biggest dividing factor on 4E for a lot of people. Players who don't/can't/won't accept "outside of combat, monsters can do what is a) appropriate to their role and theme and b) important to the plot" as a tenet of the game's design philosophy just aren't going to get behind 4E in general, I think.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 24, 2008)

> Rubbish. I just think it's part of adventure design, not monster design, and is likely covered in the DMG, not the MM.




Why shouldn't notes and details on how to run a monster be included alongside a monster's statblock?

Why separate them?


----------



## bramadan (Apr 24, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Why shouldn't notes and details on how to run a monster be included alongside a monster's statblock?
> 
> Why separate them?




Because every (interesting) monster can be used in a great number of situations and adventures. If they wanted to cover all the things succubus could do and all the possible resolutions to those situations entire MM would be renamed The Book of Succubus. 

If I want a single Succubus based adventure then 5-6 pages will suffice to tell me what did she do and what can be done about it.  It makes sense to put those 5-6 pages into the adventure though, not into the core book. Alternatively it makes sense that a DM who makes their own adventures will make up the off-stage monster behavior and abilities as well guided as ever by the vast fictional/mythological precedent.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Apr 24, 2008)

This well-tread ground and I don't feel the need to rehash it too much, but I will address your points.



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> And with this latest assurance that the contents of the DMG _Will Explain Everything_(tm), I think the final tally will be something like 15,000 pages.




It's going to have advice on how to DM.  I think it's fair to assume that it will advice specific to 4th edition.  I never said it will explain everything.

To be more clear, I was using the example put forth in this thread to hint at a general principle that has been stated before:  _the realm of encounters for PCs belongs in the MM, the realm of story resolution and plot belongs in the DMG._  Beyond combat, the succubus entry might include some information on a basic skill challenge.  If you want to talk about how the succubus has seduced the king's general and the PCs need to stop a civil war... that's story resolution.



			
				Imp said:
			
		

> That doesn't say anything. If you want information on how, specifically, a succubus uses men as her puppets, a Monster Manual is a pretty logical place to look for it. It sure beats crossreferencing.




I don't think there will be cross-referencing, specific monsters in the MM with specific monster-related plots in the DMG.  That'd be overkill and unnecessary.  I think what the DMG will have is general advice on creating stories around the monsters in the game.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 24, 2008)

> Because every (interesting) monster can be used in a great number of situations and adventures. If they wanted to cover all the things succubus could do and all the possible resolutions to those situations entire MM would be renamed The Book of Succubus.




No one ever asked for everything the succubus could do, per se.

But I will need *something* to be able to run the critter.

That's what the MM should be, right? A collection of ready-to-run monsters? A monster with only a statblock isn't ready to run.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 24, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> A monster with only a statblock isn't ready to run.




Yeah it is. I don't need the book to hold my hand and tell me what I should be doing with it, I just need the book to tell me what it can do.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 24, 2008)

> Yeah it is. I don't need the book to hold my hand and tell me what I should be doing with it, I just need the book to tell me what it can do.




*sigh*

No, it's not.

And the reason is right in the thread title.

Monsters ARE more than their stats.

That's why I need more than stats in my manual for monsters.

And, I'm pretty sure that at least most of the time, the 4e MM is going to give that to us. We've had hints of hobgoblins that engineer beasts, we have copius amounts of information on fire archons and formorians, we have hints that gnomes are getting a lair...

That's WAY more than stats.

Because the 4e designers, unlike, apparently, some of 4e's most rabid supporters, truly and really know that monsters are more than their stats.

Or would you like to pretend like you know what I need at a gaming table some more?


----------



## webrunner (Apr 24, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> No one ever asked for everything the succubus could do, per se.
> 
> But I will need *something* to be able to run the critter.
> 
> That's what the MM should be, right? A collection of ready-to-run monsters? A monster with only a statblock isn't ready to run.




The MM is a collection of ready-to-run-_in-an-encounter_ monsters.  A monster with a statblock is ready to run in a monster.

Monsters are in the MM.

Non-player-characters are DMG material.

A given succubus may part-times both roles..

It remains to be seen how specific the information is, but the information in the MM that we've seen is mostly about combat.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 24, 2008)

webrunner said:
			
		

> The MM is a collection of ready-to-run-in-an-encounter monsters. A monster with a statblock is ready to run in a monster.




No, it's not. Because an encounter is more than just stats vs. stats, and encounters don't exist in a vacuum. 

Again, from what we've seen of the 4e MM, it seems to realize this, even if some of the apologists here don't. It gives, for instance, allied monsters that it might show up with. That's useful information - I can look at a page in the MM and have a group of monsters to fight my PC's.

It gives, for some monsters at least, lairs! That's more than just stats, that's basically an entire night's gaming in one page! Traps and allies!

Take a look at the information that the MM5 gives! Or go even further with the Exemplars of Evil/Elder Evils books! As some of the pre-sages of 4e, the team was quite evidently thinking in terms of "complete" monsters that weren't just stat blocks!

I do believe the new, non-mythological monsters it DOESN'T do this for -- perhaps critters like the phane -- will end up being the "ythraks of 4e," creatures that are out there, but that nobody really uses, because their main reaction is "WTF?"

A statblock is not a complete monster. Allies, motives (preferably more diverse that "it kills because it likes to kill!"), lairs, setting information (even if you ignore it, it's good to steal), unusual ideas the monster holds, this doesn't always take up much space (3-4 sentences can convey it if you're efficient and you don't want to go any farther), but it makes it so that as the players are meeting each other in town, I can flip through the MM to a random creature of an appropriate level and have a night of gaming laid out in front of me. 

And what better place for that than alongside the stats of the monster itself? The less page-flipping and book-juggling I have to do, the better!

The thing is, 4e seems to realize all of this, and agrees with me, at least for some of the monsters (dare I hope most?).

Honestly, sometimes I think 4e's worst enemies can sometimes be its staunchest defenders. 



> A given succubus may part-times both roles..




Every single monster part-times both roles. Heck, PC's triple time, they play the role of adversary, NPC, AND player character. This is part of why some people have been a little wary of 4e's "different strokes" approach, since the line is not an in-game line, but rather a metagame line that they don't want to see. 

But I don't see why I should have to turn to the DMG and my own devices to run a succubus out of the MM when 4e is supposed to be easier to run with less cross-referencing. 

I want the designers to give me a game, not to give me bits and pieces I need to kit-bash together into a game in my spare time.

I don't have spare time.


----------



## bramadan (Apr 24, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> *sigh*
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> ...




Noone is arguing that the MM should be simple collection of combat stats and nothing else. 

Succubus entry should let us know that it is a shape-changer, that it often appears in a form of a beautiful woman and that it uses guile and seduction as its forte in getting people to do what it wants. It can also tell us that it is a Devil and that therefore all sorts of general info listed under "Devil" applies.
Details of how it does it do what it does, various plots and ploys and their mechanical implications they are the part that can be stretched out indefinitely and is thus best relegated to the adventures. Giving us exact mechanics of succubus seduction would be about as useful as giving us exact demographics of an average Gnoll village. Much too detailed for a core book and quite possibly constraining for some DMs.

I am not pretending to know what you need/want at your gaming table. I am trying to say what I believe you can reasonably expect.


----------



## Eldorian (Apr 24, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> (preferably more diverse that "it kills because it likes to kill!")




That's the motivation of some of the scariest monsters in literature/media.  And some fan favorite monsters, like the bullete.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 24, 2008)

bramadan said:
			
		

> I am not pretending to know what you need/want at your gaming table. I am trying to say what I believe you can reasonably expect.




Well, specifically, I was responding to Mourn, who told me that a statblock was a ready-to-play monster, after I just said that it wasn't.

"This isn't an argument! This is just contradiction!"

I think I can reasonably expect 4e to deliver on the "Easier, Faster, Better" angle it's promised.

Part of that is including information beyond a stat block in the monster entry.

Things like lairs, like other encounter buddies, like motives, like plots, like skill checks I can expect to make, like rituals it might use, like templated creatures I might consider...



> Noone is arguing that the MM should be simple collection of combat stats and nothing else.




Actually....


			
				webrunner said:
			
		

> The MM is a collection of ready-to-run-in-an-encounter monsters. A monster with a statblock is ready to run in a monster.




I guess that's not so much arguing as assuming? 



			
				bramadan said:
			
		

> Succubus entry should let us know that it is a shape-changer, that it often appears in a form of a beautiful woman and that it uses guile and seduction as its forte in getting people to do what it wants. It can also tell us that it is a Devil and that therefore all sorts of general info listed under "Devil" applies.
> Details of how it does it do what it does, various plots and ploys and their mechanical implications they are the part that can be stretched out indefinitely and is thus best relegated to the adventures. Giving us exact mechanics of succubus seduction would be about as useful as giving us exact demographics of an average Gnoll village. Much too detailed for a core book and quite possibly constraining for some DMs.




Actually, the same is true of, say, a combat -- the variables and implications can be stretched out indefinately. But they give us quick, succinct rules for summarizing and emulating fantasy combat.

I don't really think that summarizing and emulating the motives to get to combat (for instance), or the allies it has in combat, or place it conducts combat, is really too much to ask from the game.

I mean, again, take a look at MM5. Or, heck, even the original MM! Compare the salient differences in fluff between the 3e bodak and the 4e bodak as we know it now, and that will pretty much tell you what I need vs. what I'm most afraid we'll get.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 24, 2008)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> That's the motivation of some of the scariest monsters in literature/media. And some fan favorite monsters, like the bullete.




I did say "diverse."

Killing for the sake of killing can be good in moderation, with the right kind of monster. Bestial things that don't have much more complexity, or things that feed off of death, or something like that.

But if that's 95% of the motivations for the monsters (the other 5% being represented by the devils wanting to tempt mortals), I really don't need it 190 times in the same book.

Killing for the sake of killing might be fine for the bullette. But, take the beholder -- it kills out of xenophobic paranoia! Or the mind flayer -- it kills out of a need to feed on your brain. Or the bodak....wait, what's the bodak's reason d'arte in 4e? Oh yeah....


----------



## bramadan (Apr 24, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I do believe the new, non-mythological monsters it DOESN'T do this for -- perhaps critters like the phane -- will end up being the "ythraks of 4e," creatures that are out there, but that nobody really uses, because their main reaction is "WTF?"
> 
> A statblock is not a complete monster. Allies, motives (preferably more diverse that "it kills because it likes to kill!"), lairs, setting information (even if you ignore it, it's good to steal), unusual ideas the monster holds, this doesn't always take up much space (3-4 sentences can convey it if you're efficient and you don't want to go any farther), but it makes it so that as the players are meeting each other in town, I can flip through the MM to a random creature of an appropriate level and have a night of gaming laid out in front of me.
> 
> ...




I agree with you entirely that vacuum monsters with no lore or mythology behind them are idiotic (Attach and Yrthak and Digester and their kin were among the reasons I found 3ed rather unappealing). 

My point is, Succubus is not such a monster. Pretty demon-girl seductress is as plastic a concept as I can think of. It is hard to imagine what the MM can say in terms of description that does not come to mind immediately when they say "seductive, shape changing Devil-girl". On top of it, fiction and mythology are choke-full of this archetype. 

Phane sucks, I agree with you 100% it would probably still suck even if it had 40 lines instead of 4. Succubus on the other hand is awesome and will not be a Yrthak of any edition.

What I do not find useful is MM to contain *mechanical* rules for handling anything to do with Succubus. Frankly I do not think that DM guide will have any specific Succubus rules. DM may have rules on seduction which succubus may use but so may your local tavern wench (though on a different level of course).  Reprinting those (assuming they exist) with every monster which can interact socially with humans would be colossal waste of space. DM may not even have seduction rules, it may just have diplomacy rules from which I am able to extrapolate seduction rules and apply them to succubi. Reprinting those and the extrapolation ideas with every humanoid monster would be even more insane.

Orcs bully villagers into paying tribute - quick what are the Orc Bullying rules
Dragons are greedy - hand me those Bribe Dragon rules
Gnomes like riddles - here is MM Gnome-Riddle supplement...

If you really have no time and want a complete game that covers all its bases straight out of box I do not see how you can expect to get that out of a RPG, particularly out of the base books. Something like FFFs Descent seems much closer to what you seem to be looking for. 

PS: Putting a sample Goblin lair is not a horrible idea - but if I wanted to use MM as raw source of adventures in this way then MM would have about a dozen monsters on the outside and would be "spent" within two months of purchasing it. 

What you ask for is great in the ideal world but not feasible within the constraints of three publishable books.


----------



## bramadan (Apr 24, 2008)

Also, without wanting to be snarky...

DMing is a hobby, it requires some spare time. Even with maximum external support.


----------



## Voadam (Apr 24, 2008)

bramadan said:
			
		

> . . .
> 
> What I do not find useful is MM to contain *mechanical* rules for handling anything to do with Succubus. Frankly I do not think that DM guide will have any specific Succubus rules. DM may have rules on seduction which succubus may use but so may your local tavern wench (though on a different level of course).  Reprinting those (assuming they exist) with every monster which can interact socially with humans would be colossal waste of space. DM may not even have seduction rules, it may just have diplomacy rules from which I am able to extrapolate seduction rules and apply them to succubi. Reprinting those and the extrapolation ideas with every humanoid monster would be even more insane.




With the Succubus archetype I expect encounters where it has charmed something and the PCs want to oppose that influence.

In 3e I want to know if it can charm with a spell like ability, whether it is a charm or a dominate, what the caster level is if a PC tries to dispel it, does it require break enchantment to dispel, does it require wish or miracle to dispel it, can it do these charms in combat, does it instead rely upon outrageous social skill scores to manipulate people, or does it use some unique other type of mechanic that the PCs will be interacting with?

If these are defined ahead of time I can use the succubus out of the box in my encounters. If I don't like how something works I can house rule it to be different if I want but if it is not predefined then I have to spend the time myself figuring these things out before the PCs do interact with the charm or make rulings on the fly.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 24, 2008)

> Phane sucks, I agree with you 100% it would probably still suck even if it had 40 lines instead of 4. Succubus on the other hand is awesome and will not be a Yrthak of any edition.




The thing is that the time spent giving the phane something to do in the first place could be spent giving the succubus something FRESH to do.

Anyone who's vaguely familiar with fantasy tropes will be able to connect the dots for a succubus-tempting-the-king kind of plot. It's archetypal to the point of cliche. The succubus MM entry can nod at that in one sentence, and spend the rest of the entry describing one possible twist on the scenario (perhaps she's an intellectual succubus who is completely chaste but who warps people's minds by having their darkest desires embodied -- she doesn't promise them pleasures of the flesh, but pleasures of the mind!).

And in the space that they describe that, when it comes to the phane, they describe how it travels back in time to kill the PC's as babies (or whatever).

I do have enough confidence in the designers that they can give some pretty good coolness to any monster that they BOTHER to give coolness to. And in the case of monsters, I'm perfectly happy with ONLY the ones they give coolness to. 

And this includes (but isn't limited to) out of combat coolness. 

It's kind of a shame that we haven't seen or the phane didn't get any plot-love, because it doesn't HAVE to be the ythrak of 4e, and D&D can absolutely go beyond the mythic creatures with pre-packaged archetypal plots (the githzerai/githyanki/mindflayer triumvirate is pretty good, even the Shadar-kai aren't too bad in that respect).

But if what we saw is what we'll get on the phane, then that page is a bigger waste of space now than it ever could be if it were replaced with a goblin lair. 



> Reprinting those and the extrapolation ideas with every humanoid monster would be even more insane.




But something like: "The phanes know a ritual that allows them to travel exactly 20 years back in time. (print the four lines of the ritual) They often find themselves searching for treasure through lackeys and minions (such as creature X) to finance these rituals, in order to take out prominent champions of both good and evil gods retroactively, when they were children."

That's a solid adventure in 10 lines -- I have allied creatures, I have a motive, I have a target (some NPC cleric or paladin perhaps), I may even have a twist (the PC's have to save an evil priest from the phane in order to assure that the good he did while younger still remains in effect), or whatever. I even have a reward, of sorts -- if the PC's discover the ritual, they can go back in time and fix something that happened 20 years ago (which may itself lead to more adventures!). 

It doesn't need to be exhaustively extensive, any more than every sword wound is exhaustively extensive, but there needs to be something, because, as always, Make Stuff Up sucks as a rule.



> DMing is a hobby, it requires some spare time. Even with maximum external support.




This is kind of a bigger question, but I think that 4e wants to make it take as little spare time as possible, and if it can eliminate it all together, it will be a good thing.

As it is I can run 3e without any preparation time. If I just use the core books, it means fighting a lot of monsters and not a lot of NPC's, and ignoring the "filler" like the phantom fungus, but I can absolutely do it. That's the way I prefer to run games, and part of the reason I can do that is because, for instance, blink dogs and displacer beasts have an inherent rivalry written into the fluff in a single sentence, or because bodaks still retain some of their memories of their past lives, or whatever.

But if 4e removes that fluff (as it has apparently done for the bodak), it'll suck just that little bit more for those people who COULD run the critter fresh out of the box, but are left going "Meh. Sounds dumb." Just because it lacked a few key sentences about motives and, perhaps, a few key mechanics for how it does what it does when it's not beating up PC's.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 24, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> With the Succubus archetype I expect encounters where it has charmed something and the PCs want to oppose that influence.
> 
> In 3e I want to know if it can charm with a spell like ability, whether it is a charm or a dominate, what the caster level is if a PC tries to dispel it, does it require break enchantment to dispel, does it require wish or miracle to dispel it, can it do these charms in combat, does it instead rely upon outrageous social skill scores to manipulate people, or does it use some unique other type of mechanic that the PCs will be interacting with?
> 
> If these are defined ahead of time I can use the succubus out of the box in my encounters. If I don't like how something works I can house rule it to be different if I want but if it is not predefined then I have to spend the time myself figuring these things out before the PCs do interact with the charm or make rulings on the fly.



Theoretical solution: 
The DMG tells you to run a level 9 (=Succubus level) Skill Challenge (Social). 
For in-combat questions, just look the stat-block. Does it have a Charm power? (Yes). How does it work (Read). Use it.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Apr 24, 2008)

Here is my answer to The Succubus Question (that being, why aren't the details for the Succubus seducing the king in the Succubus entry?):

The Succubus isn't the only creature that can seduce another creature, either on stage or off. As noted by bramadan, if you put the seduction rules (although I'm happy that this falls under a Skill challenge if against a PC, and it doesn't need rules at all if it's between two NPC's) under the Succubus, then you'd logically need to do the same for every other entry in the MM.

Being as Seduction is independent of Succubus, the rules don't need to be there. Same goes for, say, Tunnelling. Not only Dwarves tunnel, therefore tunnelling rules can go elsewhere.

There are three ways a Succubus can seduce a King:

1) Entirely off-screen. The success or failure of the Succubus is down to the DM, based on what sort of plot he is setting up that the PC's may or may not get involved in.

2) Entirely on-screen. This sounds like an excellent opportunity for a skill challenge, as the Succubus uses sweet words and it's charm powers to seduce the king whilst the PC's battle against it using whatever they can.

3) On-screen, but hand-waved so the PC's can't interfere. I would be very annoyed if a DM pulled this on me, but it's possible.

I can appreciate that the MM entry could do with some information on what sort of seduction the Succubus might try, but as for rules, it seems to already be covered.

You can substitute another monster with another ability as needed (eg Dragon / Lair Building instead of Succubus / Seduction).


----------

