|
FRINGE posted:(Also, I challenge your claim that "Anyone can poo poo out lore, carefully craft their own, or draw from the entirety of human folklore." Even after the filters of editing/publishing, look at most of the fantasy-fiction out there...) Sorry, is the argument here really that D&D's fluff is above the level of most mass-market fantasy fiction? Like, sure, I'll agree that really good fiction takes effort...but most of what gets put between two RPG covers hardly qualifies as "good fiction" to begin with. I feel like pointing out, in light of the notion that basic stats take no effort to whip up, that D&D Next (remember that?) has been in development for over a calendar year straight now, and yet when a bunch of people sat down to crawl a dungeon they got TPKd-in-name-only by a pack of ghouls, not exactly the most complicated monster D&D has ever gifted the world.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
FRINGE posted:Making up basic stats takes no effort at all, whereas designing thoughtful lore takes time. I would never waste a dollar buying a book full of stats. Yeah, I could make up my own, but I always struggle with powers. It's really hard to figure out exactly what's appropriate for the level and role. But if they gave me a pick list of balanced and tactically interesting abilities (ideally, integrated into the online tools with check/radio boxes that just print out your selections and dynamically fix the math for your selections) I'd probably never use anything else. Except the MV dragons. Those things own.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Type A, Type B, Type A is a lost cause obviously. Type B and C seems to be about people rather than systems. Type B is going in with a specific expectation and I guess would be upset if the GM said 'hey im changing stuff around, give me a lore roll to see if you identify stuff' or if your going to put mechanical dependency on things maybe like..I don't know...mention that in your description? Like 'this is dangerous a GM should explain the symptoms of their weakness to see if players pick up on it!' in a cool little box. I've never experienced adversarial GMs, seems like that's going to be terrible regardless of what you put in the game. Type C doesn't make much sense outside of people not working together to have fun. If the GM says the fluff is fact, hes still the sole world builder. That doesn't change from the GM changing things to not changing the default. The players don't have control of what is and isn't there anyway. They don't suddenly get narrative control just because they know kobolds worship dragons. I mean if your a part of the game where you want narrative control but arent allowed to have any your screwed regardless. God forbid the players and GM all work together to have fun. Splicer posted:What about the Kobold or Yuan-Ti fluff blocks are insufficiently detailed? Contextually, it seems that by "detailed" you mean "verbose" (I can't think of a way to phrase that doesn't sound snarky but I mean it at face value). If what you mean is verbose then that's fine, I can understand why for you the cons of the "bullet point" style of fluff might outweigh the pros. If not, what is missing? Beholders seem super rad. I know literally nothing about them. This is their entire entry in MM1: quote:A character knows the following information with a successful They are egotistical as a species. Thats...helpful I guess? I think talented writers could put together an entire book on this species. That seem loaded with potential, i mean the giant eye being some kind of metaphor for their belief in all knowing understanding of the universe? That sounds awesome, I would eat that poo poo up. A big solo monster like that and all the potential motivations and origins they could have would be perfect fuel for entire campaigns! I ask questions like: The big ones never work together? What would make them work together? Being egotistical is one point. What else, explain stuff too me. Are they magical or is it like superman eyes? Are they fey creature? Do they want to dominate other species or just think they would to a better job? I want way more than whats there. I mean a beholder is a fairly mainstream/iconic dnd monster right? Their stats indicate they are HUGELY intelligent and charismatic they gotta be operating on a pretty complex level.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
Spoilers Below posted:This is a point I'm not sure I understand. What exactly is the mechanical difference between walking past an oak vs. an elm tree? Should a malamute and a poodle do different bite damage? Or is it just entertaining fluff for the DM to come up with? OK, I'll bite. I am not an unreasonable person, and by many estimations I run a pretty decent game, so I am gonna go ahead and say I love that level of detail. I like having it there. My favorite book for the L5R game is Emerald Empire; I like knowing what sorts of plants and woods and animals are around. I am not really clear on the weird fluffshaming that is going on here, there is nothing wrong with details that are not spun whole from the head of the DM. "Why not use wikipedia" is not really a satisfactory answer to that, if I wanted to use my own world and make up my own poo poo I wouldn't be using FR or Rokugan or Athas or whatever published setting I am using. It is sort of the point of using a published setting. In fact having a world everyone agrees on helps the fiction in my estimation, but that is a different issue. It is neither unreasonable to want this stuff, and it is not terribly crazy to not want it either if you just want some hit points and some powers to stab and get on with it either. The sort of lines in the sand moths and FRINGE are drawing are loving moronic. The argument that players will abuse poo poo is also sort of bizarre to me. I mean, as was used in an example earlier people will do that for anything. An rear end in a top hat player will ruin a D&D game or a nWoD game or a Dungeon World game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
Pages of monster ecology and the differences between two types of trees and tons of fluff for everything is great for like, a settings book where there's a certain world in mind and everything can have description on how it fits in that world. For just a core monster manual, I'd much rather have something closer to 4e's, where the book' primart concern is how the creature plays in combat (because D&D is first and foremost a game about killing monsters and taking loot no matter what else it claims to be), with extra bullet points or general things that can be used for story hooks for dms that dont want to improvise entirely but don't have the material for a specific setting. I really loved DW's monster section in terms of fluff. A good paragraph describing them and how they act, their general motive as adversaries, and a few points on how they act in combat. Edit: Also I'd be one of the people who would love a little book for a game like 4e that is just stat blocks and powers for creatures that are distinct in how they play during combat. I have no problems improvising on lore enough to satisfy a typical pc group (it's not like a d&d grouo expects their dm to be some master neil gaiman level storyteller), but would love the help in being able to quickly create encounters that are mechanically interesting and unique. Evrart Claire fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Making up basic stats takes no effort at all FRINGE posted:You just gave examples of monsters being used (from the books) in a variety of ways, and then said that the books somehow stop you from using monsters in a variety of ways. FRINGE posted:You then claim that having less lore "made worldbuilding easier". I assume when you say "worldbuilding" you mean putting figures on a grid and calling the package Goblin figures "Snuggletoothglumphs" and giving them extra hitpoints. FRINGE posted:Worldbuilding (very generally) has two requirements: 1) The lore stuff (all the fluff the edition warriors are suddenly against because "oh no all those words!", and 2) the plot structures that make things happen based on the lore stuff. (2) is best built by having a decent amount of (1) to manipulate. Unless your game starts and stops on a tactical map, in which case there is no "worldbuilding" and no need to have an opinion on why it is bad. (edit: People can produce (1) allon their own, in which case they are not buying many fluff books to begin with. This takes a lot of time to do well/thoroughly.) If there's no canon Goblin then how the Goblins are in your world can come out during play. If the book says that Goblins are always chaotic evil then you're going to have to say "Goblins are not always Evil" (in which case if these particular Goblins are evil you're going to have some annoyed players on your hands) or the game will suffer due to your players' assumptions (if these particular Goblins are good) or their lack of surprise (if these particular Goblins are evil). You like lore. We get it. So why not have Monster Manuals be Monster Manuals and Setting Books be Setting Books? Splicer fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
Splicer posted:You like lore. We get it. So why not have Monster Manuals be Monster Manuals and Setting Books be Setting Books? Not to defend FRINGE or anything, but the 2nd Ed Monster Manuals which have been so besmirched did exactly this. There were base monster sets, and then "plug in" supplements for settings. Ferinstance:  They all went in a three ring binder, so in theory you could have a monster manual specific to your game, forever, and leave all the other sheets at home. It worked out less well in practice, because the binders were loving huge, but it was a good idea in spirit anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
My personal preferance would be that the published book (in real top-notch quality and very low print run) be reams of fluff and lore and detail with associated stat blocks. Then have a digital copy (free to owners of the deluxe version) that you intend to be the main product be an organized and searchable version of with a "stat-blocks only" toggle for ease of use in game sessions and maybe even a setting toggle to turn on/off abilities associated with certain settings. I really just want the promise of modules and DnD insider to provide a cohesive, easy to piecemeal and run game of DnD. I love good math but I'd forgo even that if I had a digital library of my stuff that I could easily sift and sort and puke out onto either the tabletop or preferably the groups laptop and tablets with the modules that fit our needs. Winson_Paine posted:They all went in a three ring binder, so in theory you could have a monster manual specific to your game, forever, and leave all the other sheets at home. It worked out less well in practice, because the binders were loving huge, but it was a good idea in spirit anyway. They were also, at least in my stupid and tiny hands, easy to tear at the hole punches or be difficult to flip quickly through when I was looking for one specific monster or detail. I will also admit to reading way too much of the first edition Fiend Folio fluff and loving how committed they were to being absolute assholes to the players and using way toned down versions of those things in my campaign that I never would have thought of without the meandering fluff. Barudak fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I feel like pointing out, in light of the notion that basic stats take no effort to whip up, that D&D Next (remember that?) has been in development for over a calendar year straight now, and yet when a bunch of people sat down to crawl a dungeon they got TPKd-in-name-only by a pack of ghouls, not exactly the most complicated monster D&D has ever gifted the world. You understand grasshopper. Winson_Paine posted:OK, I'll bite. I am not an unreasonable person, and by many estimations I run a pretty decent game, so I am gonna go ahead and say I love that level of detail. I like having it there. My favorite book for the L5R game is Emerald Empire; I like knowing what sorts of plants and woods and animals are around. I am not really clear on the weird fluffshaming that is going on here, there is nothing wrong with details that are not spun whole from the head of the DM. "Why not use wikipedia" is not really a satisfactory answer to that, if I wanted to use my own world and make up my own poo poo I wouldn't be using FR or Rokugan or Athas or whatever published setting I am using. It is sort of the point of using a published setting. In fact having a world everyone agrees on helps the fiction in my estimation, but that is a different issue. It is neither unreasonable to want this stuff, and it is not terribly crazy to not want it either if you just want some hit points and some powers to stab and get on with it either. The sort of lines in the sand moths and FRINGE are drawing are loving moronic. God yes. I never shut up about Dark Heresy but it does a lot of thing I love. That game's equivalent of the monster manual is the Creatures Anathema. In that theres a monster called the Dreaming Dead of Hive Gloriana. They are zombies/mutants. Super simple and boring but this book dedicates 2 pages to it. They spend a huge amount of time talking about rumours and whispers from the population about what they are, tell about the environment they hang out in. Does a big song and dance about not knowing what they truly are and where they are from listing a series of potential causes. Then theres a big box explaining adventure hooks for this specific monster and a big piece of fluff being a report from someone who went down there. Essentially just spend a long time talking atmosphere when using these guys and some reasons WHY you might give a poo poo about them. Thats perfect for the investigation game Dark Heresy is. I fully understand not doing it to that extent but it still a very important thing to get the atmosphere right in DnD. It detracts very little from people who want to ignore it and/or just want dungeon crawls but giving me all this information about the creature lets me pass on to the players why THEY might give a poo poo about the encounter/adventure/campaign other than seeing this as just XP. Sure its not for every game but its a good thing and doesn't really hurt people unless they are going to be problems already. I mean is it really such a huge deal talking to these players and explaining 'hey I want to deviate and/or want you to work with me to get involved in using a creature because I find the default thing not to my liking for reasons'. I mean if they object to working together to find something everyone can have fun with then you have time bomb regardless of what you do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
Am I drawing lines? I'm trying to say it doesn't matter how well you detail the lifestyle and description of a ghoul when you give it the stats of a slap-medusa. Both halves are important! Creatively tinkering with lore gives you a more rewarding game than loving with the stats and killing the party because whoops numbers do matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:OK, I'll bite. I am not an unreasonable person, and by many estimations I run a pretty decent game, so I am gonna go ahead and say I love that level of detail. I like having it there. My favorite book for the L5R game is Emerald Empire; I like knowing what sorts of plants and woods and animals are around. I am not really clear on the weird fluffshaming that is going on here, there is nothing wrong with details that are not spun whole from the head of the DM. "Why not use wikipedia" is not really a satisfactory answer to that, if I wanted to use my own world and make up my own poo poo I wouldn't be using FR or Rokugan or Athas or whatever published setting I am using. It is sort of the point of using a published setting. In fact having a world everyone agrees on helps the fiction in my estimation, but that is a different issue. It is neither unreasonable to want this stuff, and it is not terribly crazy to not want it either if you just want some hit points and some powers to stab and get on with it either. The sort of lines in the sand moths and FRINGE are drawing are loving moronic. Winson_Paine posted:Not to defend FRINGE or anything, but the 2nd Ed Monster Manuals which have been so besmirched did exactly this. There were base monster sets, and then "plug in" supplements for settings. Ferinstance: Splicer fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:OK, I'll bite. I am not an unreasonable person, and by many estimations I run a pretty decent game, so I am gonna go ahead and say I love that level of detail. I like having it there. My favorite book for the L5R game is Emerald Empire; I like knowing what sorts of plants and woods and animals are around. I guess I just want a good balance. I too like knowing the ecology of an area, its history, its inhabitants, what makes it unique. But I don't want a chart of "Elm tree - between 10-100 feet tall, suitable for firewood (begins good burn in 2d10 round); handmade clubs of elm wood break on a natural 20, doing double damage in the process, but reducing the damage die from 1d8 to 1d4 until repaired. Doors made from elm can be broken with a DC 20 strength check." I want "In this region, elm trees are considered sacred to the Bear Druids, and they will attack anyone who violates a grove of them. Elm leaves hung above a door may indicate the owners are members of the Bear Druids, or that the occupants have paid the Druids for protection." The latter I can actually do something with, either straight out of the book or adapting it to my own purposes ("It's the Wolf Druids who like Oak leaves!"). The former I can make up, possibly checking wikipedia to see if elm is a hard or soft wood, and getting estimates about how high and with what radius the trees grow. edit: Barudak posted:They were also, at least in my stupid and tiny hands, easy to tear at the hole punches or be difficult to flip quickly through when I was looking for one specific monster or detail. Same here! I loved the idea, but the execution? I ended up buying a ton of little reinforcing circles to add to all the punched holes... Toph Bei Fong fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
Part of the issue, and I started up a post about this something like 50 replies ago but deleted it after deciding to go do something else instead, is the weird half-generic/half-implied-setting state of "core D&D." Pretty much everybody here seems to be saying "yes, fluff and lore is really great when you're dealing with specific settings." So where does the bog-standard Monster Manual fall in that regard? D&D seems to want to have it both ways, it wants to present itself as this "Make poo poo up! Do whatever! Make your own world and your own setting and have adventures there!" game and also a game with its own particular implied/overtly-stated setting even in the "generic" corebooks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Yeah, but as you said, those are settings. If you want setting information you buy a published setting. If you want a book of generic fantasy monsters to populate your homebrew too many assumptions about these monsters will get in the way of your brewing. Here is your goblin:  I think some of the wordy descriptions being complained about in here are actually a result of the Compendium format, neither 1st nor 3rd edition waxed at length about the monsters like 2e did, but then again in 2e each monster had to fill at least one page because otherwise it becomes more impossible to alphabetize than it already was. So the real estate on the page had to be filled with something, so we got that. Some of them are kind of ridiculous (I saw the bears on the way to finding this goblin) but this seems to me to be like, roughly what is needed. They live in caves, they have this sort of social structure, yadda yadda.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Spoilers Below posted:
It helped if you really did make smaller binders for monsters you were actually using with a standard three ring binder. The giant cumbersome loving monstrous compendiums even sucked on the shelf, where they stuck an inch past my actual bookshelf shelf.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Part of the issue, and I started up a post about this something like 50 replies ago but deleted it after deciding to go do something else instead, is the weird half-generic/half-implied-setting state of "core D&D." Pretty much everybody here seems to be saying "yes, fluff and lore is really great when you're dealing with specific settings." In theory I thought this is what modules was supposed to solve rather elegantly. In print you launch with the Campaign Season 1 book which is core rules and setting and book. Online you either piecemeal it or you provide it as a subscription bundle. For the rest of season 1 you release monsters/adventures/spells/whatever the hell that ties into the season 1 setting and tagged as such. At the same time you can release other lines that use the same core rules but range frommaybe generic "pile of monsters" and "way too many goddamn spells seriously" to licensed properties (Marvel: Next or equiavlent) which share the core rules but come bundled with their own separate setting and fluff. People who want things with fluff and connection to season one get their modules, people who just want a pile of toys regardless of setting can have their stuff, and people who are here for expansions to the DnD: Next line can have theirs. Owing to the fact that the core rules are identical, however, you aren't unable to use your alternate line stuff and the game never has to pay any sort of lipservice to being setting neutral. Then once Season 1 has run its course (I'm assuming its the mandatory setting for the DnD campaign adventures in stores and comes with various upsells for stores to participate in for lets say 1 year) you launch Season 2 which is again, completely self contained as presented but workable with the other sets. Thats how you merge modules and fluff into contained but cross purpose units. Spoilers Below posted:Same here! I loved the idea, but the execution? I ended up buying a ton of little reinforcing circles to add to all the punched holes... Winson_Paine posted:It helped if you really did make smaller binders for monsters you were actually using with a standard three ring binder. The giant cumbersome loving monstrous compendiums even sucked on the shelf, where they stuck an inch past my actual bookshelf shelf. The fact that I did both of these and remember the staggering boredom of doing it is why I am so desperate for a good online database I can cross search while DMing. Oh you guys want to play with something from another setting? Let me just go home, haul out the huge rear end binder, find the pages I want and add it in for next week. Barudak fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Type A is a lost cause obviously. Type B and C seems to be about people rather than systems. kingcom posted:Type C doesn't make much sense outside of people not working together to have fun. If the GM says the fluff is fact, hes still the sole world builder. That doesn't change from the GM changing things to not changing the default. The players don't have control of what is and isn't there anyway. They don't suddenly get narrative control just because they know kobolds worship dragons. I mean if your a part of the game where you want narrative control but arent allowed to have any your screwed regardless. God forbid the players and GM all work together to have fun. kingcom posted:Beholders seem super rad. I know literally nothing about them. This is their entire entry in MM1: kingcom posted:They are egotistical as a species. Thats...helpful I guess? I think talented writers could put together an entire book on this species. That seem loaded with potential, i mean the giant eye being some kind of metaphor for their belief in all knowing understanding of the universe? That sounds awesome, I would eat that poo poo up. A big solo monster like that and all the potential motivations and origins they could have would be perfect fuel for entire campaigns! I ask questions like: The big ones never work together? What would make them work together? kingcom posted:Being egotistical is one point. What else, explain stuff too me. Are they magical or is it like superman eyes? Are they fey creature? kingcom posted:Do they want to dominate other species or just think they would to a better job? That said, the encounter guidelines say "Beholders use a wide range of minions and strike alliances with other powerful monsters. Eyes of flame prefer to fight behind a group of submissive soldiers or brutes." kingcom posted:I want way more than whats there. I mean a beholder is a fairly mainstream/iconic dnd monster right? Their stats indicate they are HUGELY intelligent and charismatic they gotta be operating on a pretty complex level. All of these are good things to ask, and wanting to read more about beholders is far from strange! But how much of this is required to be written down to actually run a game? Because that's what a monster manual is for, to give you what you need to run a game. Look at all this neat story stuff you've already come up with! If you want an adventure featuring a beholder already written for you, then that's what setting books and adventure modules are for. Yes, an entire book could be written about Beholders... so they totally should! I'd read it. But that's not going to work for every monster in the book, and it would be a shame to leave out the Beholder because the Beholder Wars went over their allotted page space. I'm not against fluff. I'm against excessive fluff in the Monster Manual. e: I'll not lie though, it could have had a bit more... waffle. Looking at that page I'd say some of it got cut for space. It has all the information it needs, but it's not very well expressed. Splicer fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
I think there's general agreement that we don't want demographic stats for the population of goblin villages, nor for how many Type Y and Z Goblins there are for every Type X Goblin, except as it concerns encounter stats. I think those details are only popular with people who insist on playing with overland maps statted out as terrain types, and want their D&D to do procedural world generation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Historically, even in the fluff-heavy 2nd edition, the idea was for Monster Manuals to give you the stats blocks and enough description to use as a starting point, and then a full, detailed fleshing-out of the kind kingcom is asking for would be the province of a Dragon Magazine article (or, in the case of beholders, their own book.) I do agree the 4e MM1 was pretty sparse on fluff even by those standards, although not cripplingly so. Monster Vault was about perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Yeah, but as you said, those are settings. If you want setting information you buy a published setting. If you want a book of generic fantasy monsters to populate your homebrew too many assumptions about these monsters will get in the way of your brewing. Generally if a setting had goblins they'd get their own entry in that settings MM that was different from the regular MMs entry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Generally if a setting had goblins they'd get their own entry in that settings MM that was different from the regular MMs entry. But then that asks the question of, if each setting has a list of monsters that deviate from the baseline, what baseline exactly is the MM describing? This is not a rhetorical question. I completely think it could save a lot of word count if most monsters are listed as "assume the MM information is in place" for multiple settings. Do we all agree that the D&D implied setting exists?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
The Bee posted:My apologies, then. Don't think we were entirely on the same page. J. Alfred Prufrock posted:Well, sort of. An RPG book that is meant to be sold in brick-and-mortar stores as an actual, physical product can only have so many pages. So either the book needs to cut elaborate mechanical statblocks short, it needs to cut "each orc tribe has 1d6+1d4 baby orcs" short, or it needs to cut down the number of different types of monsters it has. As I mentioned before, in 2E, they were able to jam a picture, detailed stat block and multiple paragraphs of fluff on one page. The picture was often silly, the stat block had a lot of relatively useless information, and the fluff could be lame population figures, but you can keep that quantity of content while bringing it up to the 4E level of quality. I agree regarding the Monster Vault. It's probably the best all around monster book of the WotC era. Splicer posted:What about the Kobold or Yuan-Ti fluff blocks are insufficiently detailed? Contextually, it seems that by "detailed" you mean "verbose" (I can't think of a way to phrase that doesn't sound snarky but I mean it at face value). If what you mean is verbose then that's fine, I can understand why for you the cons of the "bullet point" style of fluff might outweigh the pros. If not, what is missing? Take aboleths. All you get in MM1 is that they're fish monsters who live in the underdark, enslave humanoids, and sometimes work with kuo-toa. You don't really get anything about their lifespan or their lifestyle or their place in the fantasy ecology or their motivations or whether they're servants of some higher power or any stuff that can help you build an adventure or campaign around them. Yeah, I can totally make all that stuff up if I want, and I should have the freedom to do so, but I also like when that stuff is provided for me, and I can choose to use or ignore it at my leisure. D&D really isn't a generic fantasy toolset. Every edition has been built around an implied or explicit core setting that is very generic fantasy and can be easily modified and hacked, but it's still a setting, and I like being given a lot of that setting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
I can see a dimly lit tavern, a barkeep polishing a dirty glass with a corner of his apron, one eye grey and dead in a scarred socket. He looks over the party grimly, and in a conspiratorial whisper he says "There's been disappearances in this parts. Some say it's the orcs in the hills but I knows better. It's the fish monsters. Aboleth. They send up their disgusting fish-men cohorts and steal away families in the night. Drag 'em screaming to the Underdark they do... and I've seen 'em, with my good eye. I swears it." The party mulls over this horrid information. They had arrived in town on rumors of disappearances, and they didn't know that deep aquatic beasts would be to blame. A hushed round of whispers begins amongst them, before the bard looks up at the bartender. And with a skeptical look on his face, he asks "Well now hang on here, how long til these aboleth as you're callin' em die from old age? Because we still gets the XP same as what."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
I ran a pre-gen fighter through the Vault of the Dracolich D&D Gameday event a few weeks ago, and I've been putting off doing a post-mortem for a while now. I was one of seven people in a party of two fighters, two rangers, a wizard, a paladin, and a barbarian. No Cleric, no rogue/thief. It was... not very enjoyable. We started with the DM reading a few paragraphs of exposition as our benefactor, a half-elf wizard, is about to teleport us into the dungeon. We are told that we must retrieve the Diamond Staff and that time is crucial, as it's mere presence is causing the Dracolich to stir in it's dormancy. First Problem: We might have made things easier and quicker by splitting into two groups of three, but none of the players or the DM had thought to bring a laptop. You see, nowhere in any of the 6 D&D Gameday adventure folio packets are there ANY STATS FOR ANY MONSTERS IN THE ADVENTURE. You're supposed to go off of stats in the playtest rules, which were in the DM's bigass binder. Nobody wanted to run home, and the store's computer was being used for pricing a MtG card collection being sold (That was really more misfortune than anything). Still, considering we only had the Paladin and one Ranger capable of healing, it may have been for the best. So, we start off down the entry hallway. The heal-Ranger rolls 'Spot' to see if he sees anything, and a roll of 21 says it's all clear! Which it was, except for a trap that takes off a third of his health, oopsie!  Heal-Ranger is righteously pissed and derails with the DM for around 10 minutes with regards to 'What the gently caress.' The DM tries to explain that the Rules As Written specifically state that you need an intelligence check to find traps. Finally the Wizard player says if he had known that, he'd be the one looking for traps and the DM retcons back the lost third of heal-Ranger's health. As nobody is a rogue, the party agrees that it's probably best if the two pregen fighters block the blade spitters with their shields and let the others pass. We do so and actually get to the first room. TREASURE: (1) Badly Rusted Sawblade, looted by me.The handout map provided to players said we needed to wait in the room, so we did. Since we set off the trap, there wasn't any hope for surprise. ROLL INITIATIVE! Combat was over relatively quickly, and burned both of my expertise dice. Since short rests now take an hour (me and a few others did a double take at that) and time is of the essence, we press on to the next room, a torture chamber. The Wizard and Sneaky-Ranger actually get surprise, which is nice. The rest of us rush in. This is a bit of a longer slog, as it's a much smaller room with beefy AC/health guards keeping us from the 'Wimpy Wizards'(those are the handout map's words, not mine). It's also here that both fighters are informed that, since we burned our expertise dice in the last fight, we don't have them back. Now both of us argue with him, and ten minutes later we retcon that we spent two actions while everyone was investigating the room/corpses to get them back. The Wizard drops a few bigger spells and we interrogate/release the prisoner. We're battered, so we kill an hour and get some HP back. There's an iron link portcullis separating us from the next room. The 6 cultists here somehow didn't hear the fighting and are getting reamed by a superior pallet-swap cultist. The Sneaky-Ranger gets one shot with advantage, misses, and combat starts. Those cultists mooks I mentioned before? They have not-Death-Touch. When they are bunched up, each one can deal 4d8 on a successful save as an encounter. The Fighter goes from not-quite-full to dropped. The DM stops the session, says that the power is total bullshit, and gives the fighter back some health. I'm not really sure what he replaced it with, but it still left us in a lurch. The Wizard drops more of his big guns as several people keep whiffing rolls and got dropped to single digit HP. It concluded with the wizard using Shocking Grasp on a dude who hadn't been touched, killing him instantly with a roll of 8. It's then that everyone realizes we're fighting glass wand cannons. On the upside, the room has the first decent loot of the night: dozens and dozens of crates, containing multiples of any mundane gear valued at 5gp or less. Both the Heal-Ranger and Paladin dropped all their healing spells to let us push on without waiting another hour. Then things got worse... The next room was a posh bedroom with longsword hauling skeletons. None of us have hammers. This was not the bad thing I was talking about. Also behind the curtain is a Named-Cultist and his Flesh Golem. Flesh-Golems are immune to all physical attacks. The Wizard has two shots and a cantrip(Cone of Cold, and the Golem's immune to cold btw) left, and the Paladin burns the last of her spells to deal 1d8 damage to the fucker. The Flesh Golem absolutely wrecks our poo poo and drops the paladin and the other fighter, and I'm tied up with skeleton duty. Heal-Ranger charges around the room in a mad dash for something to damage the thing and spys a chest! He slips up, says he's rolling spot again, and we're derailed another twenty minutes as he demands what Spot can be used for if he can't use it to 'spot' traps. The DM caves and lets him roll Spot. A Natural 1 later and he's down to 6HP, but a PLUS ONE DAGGER RICHER, BITCHES. The ranger kills the skeleton I've been trying to hit for the past thirty minutes, and I try to start a fire to kill the golem with. I am told it will take me three rounds to light up a torch. This is bad. The Wizard, having run out of acid flasks to throw at the thing, drops his last Magic Missle and kills the thing with a decent roll. The Heal-Ranger also finds the plot device Idol which awakens the Dracolich. You see, we could have had an hour rest after each room; the Dracolich only pops when someone picks up the idol. The DM says he'll let us spend any HD we have left since we are beat to poo poo, which does us some good. The DM decided that half the monsters in the next room had to be amended on the fly from 'Dark Adepts' to 'puny assholes with slings.' Why? Because in addition to 6 of those puny assholes, we also had 6 of those beefy warriors from the torture chamber. The fight took over an hour. Nobody could hit anybody, except for the Wizard with the cone of cold (which was pretty effective). TREASURE: a shitload of cash, totally useless at this point. Next room was the bossfight against 4 badass priests. The priests hit like trains, outright killing the Heal-Ranger and Paladin two rounds in. !!!BUT!!! There are special rules since this is a VAULT OF DEATH. The first time you die, you roll a d6. You can become a zombie warrior, ghost, not-quite-dead-yet, or just dead - each have a hindrance (d6 for initiative, speed reduced to 10 ft, ect) and a bonus that is immensely helpful for this specific dungeon (resist necrotic, undead avoid you as though you can use Turn Undead, ect.). There's a lot of commotion, and then the Wizard reads that When you die and come back, you get ALL YOUR SPELLS BACK. Some heads got hot, which was understandable at this point because we had been playing for over six and a half hours. The Wizard, Sneaky-Ranger, and other Fighter all give the DM an ultimatum: they're leaving in five minutes, and he can end the game or not. I had been trying to lasso the diamond staff (I had handle animal and some rope, so I bullshitted that this was JUST LIKE my childhood at the snake ranch), so the DM tells me to reroll. I get a decent roll, he says we got the staff and *POOF*, we're back with the benefactor. The DM hands out the playtest packets to anyone who stayed and helped put the room back in order for the night (which included me). TRIP REPORT: I did not enjoy this playtest. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Wow. Thank you for the detailed writeup. Comparing your playtest experience to mine, it seems that what has evolved over the dev cycle is how many on-the-spot amendments the DM has to make to the module for it to be playable. Edit: VVV That's sort of a crappy version of a mechanic from the Tome of Battle, if I reckon right. Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
I hadn't fully realised until reading that report that expertise dice are hosed. As they stand, you either have to wait an hour to recharge them (a "short" rest), or you can use an action to regain one, but only if you have none left. So in the height of battle, you can take a time-out to go "Hold on, I just need to recompose myself here" and get one back, but once it's over, then RAW you can do jack poo poo to recover them without spending a full hour sitting on your arse doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
theironjef posted:I can see a dimly lit tavern, a barkeep polishing a dirty glass with a corner of his apron, one eye grey and dead in a scarred socket. He looks over the party grimly, and in a conspiratorial whisper he says "There's been disappearances in this parts. Some say it's the orcs in the hills but I knows better. It's the fish monsters. Aboleth. They send up their disgusting fish-men cohorts and steal away families in the night. Drag 'em screaming to the Underdark they do... and I've seen 'em, with my good eye. I swears it." Uh, I think you missed the point. Without background, all your monsters are is hit points in funny suits that exist exactly long enough to be on screen and get killed. While I think that treating them that way mechanically makes sense, the lore for stuff has to have enough of a body to allow DMs to hang plots and stuff from it. That's 90% of the reason why the Monster Vaults are the best monster books in 4E-- the earlier monster manuals had me going back to my 2E books to see what was said about the creatures. Honestly, the whole thing with a million kinds of humanoids just hammers home how bad they are from a design perspective, and how creepy they are from a gaming perspective. I don't like including a bunch of intelligent races to kill "just 'cause". Hell, in my current campaign, the only humanoid monster types I've used have been a group that I 'humanized' and actually got the PCs to help out. Moving the game away from justified ethnic cleansing is a positive thing. Placing children and non-combatants into monster lairs tends to re-enforce this point with players who aren't sociopathic shits. Moving away from killing humanoids just because they're there is something I wish more designers did something with-- Eberron seemed designed on the cornerstone of every humanoid race being fleshed out instead of stupid stand-ins, and I wish they started pushing this forward a bit in FR and Nentir Vale too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Thanks for writing that up, it was fascinating train-wreck reading. The rules clusterfuck sounds bad (understatement), but what jumps out at me most is that they showcased rules-light not-4e by doing a totally combat-focused event - surely the aim is to get back to a more story-focused game, so why not, y'know, do that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
theironjef posted:I can see a dimly lit tavern, a barkeep polishing a dirty glass with a corner of his apron, one eye grey and dead in a scarred socket. He looks over the party grimly, and in a conspiratorial whisper he says "There's been disappearances in this parts. Some say it's the orcs in the hills but I knows better. It's the fish monsters. Aboleth. They send up their disgusting fish-men cohorts and steal away families in the night. Drag 'em screaming to the Underdark they do... and I've seen 'em, with my good eye. I swears it." First, I appreciate the callback to Night Below. Second, that's a ridiculous canard. I might be interested in their lifespan because that will help me decide how far in the future their scheme is supposed to extend and for how long have they been working on that scheme. Are these kidnappings some brand new plot, or are they the culmination of a scheme that the abolethic overlord has been hatching for the last thousand years, ever since he crawled forth from the muck? Again, it's really incidental and I can make it up, but if you give it to me, I can use it as a jumping off point from which to make up more stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Where I prefer not knowing because that way I can make them unfathomably ancient if the story demands it or give them a three-year lifespan so there's always more of them coming without the more well-read members of my group pushing their glasses up and starting in with the ecology of Aboleths lesson. But I can totally see your point, it's really just apples and oranges isn't it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:Thanks for writing that up, it was fascinating train-wreck reading. Well it's hard to do something story-focused at an event where you expect the DM to just pick up the module, skim it and go. You want there to be cool stuff to find, but without a DM who is in touch with the story the only stuff to be found is loot, monsters, and traps. These sort of events are basically always just tombs o' traps n' troglodytes n' treasure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Where I prefer not knowing because that way I can make them unfathomably ancient if the story demands it or give them a three-year lifespan so there's always more of them coming without the more well-read members of my group pushing their glasses up and starting in with the ecology of Aboleths lesson. But I can totally see your point, it's really just apples and oranges isn't it. I can see where you're coming from, but you can ignore what the book says and shake your head at the players who try to argue with your version of abolethic ecology. I might very well ignore the what the book says myself, but on the other hand, the stuff the book says might give me some inspiration for new ideas. Basically, I'd like them to give me everything, and then I can choose what to ignore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
I think we have to accept that this is essentially a fight over a limited resource(page space) between people who use radically different parts of the monster descriptions as an important part of their DMing. I'm definitely on the side of a stat-block and almost nothing else, as I liberally reskin things in the manual to match the things in my head. I don't think I've used an ecology note in a meaningful way in the last decade. I'd rather they not go super deep into monster behaviors in the basic monster manuals because all that stuff is wasted ink for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:I can see where you're coming from, but you can ignore what the book says and shake your head at the players who try to argue with your version of abolethic ecology. I might very well ignore the what the book says myself, but on the other hand, the stuff the book says might give me some inspiration for new ideas. Basically, I'd like them to give me everything, and then I can choose what to ignore. If we acknowledge that it's all inspiration anyway, why not just have the book give you a handful of cool ideas and suggestions? Like, instead of stating the lore in absolute terms, why not give a few versions of the aboleth? That could be a pretty sweet approach to the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:Thanks for writing that up, it was fascinating train-wreck reading. Keep in mind this event was designed around the idea of multiple tables collaborating in the same dungeon and that there would be hot-swapping players between tables when you hit certain trigger events. Getting the benefits of a full rest when dying is a cop-out solution to "the other tables are still going strong!" and once the players figure it out there's absolutely no reason why they won't be dropping their dailies like they're going out of style and ritually slaughtering each other instead of resting. In short, the event was "how much bullshit can you get the players to wade through before they realize they're wasting their time".
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
counterspin posted:I think we have to accept that this is essentially a fight over a limited resource(page space) between people who use radically different parts of the monster descriptions as an important part of their DMing. I'm definitely on the side of a stat-block and almost nothing else, as I liberally reskin things in the manual to match the things in my head. I don't think I've used an ecology note in a meaningful way in the last decade. I'd rather they not go super deep into monster behaviors in the basic monster manuals because all that stuff is wasted ink for me. This is why Wizards needs to ditch books of limited space and hop into the world of online distribution. The lack of physical cost can lead to more effort put into each monster both statwise and fluffwise, more options and suggestions for games utilizing those monsters, and potentially cheaper prices. Also, being able to search for specifics would become so much easier! Granted, they'll probably just slap their standard book styles on a pdf and charge for the same price, but in a perfect world digital format would be an immense help.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
isndl posted:Keep in mind this event was designed around the idea of multiple tables collaborating in the same dungeon and that there would be hot-swapping players between tables when you hit certain trigger events. Getting the benefits of a full rest when dying is a cop-out solution to "the other tables are still going strong!" and once the players figure it out there's absolutely no reason why they won't be dropping their dailies like they're going out of style and ritually slaughtering each other instead of resting. This actually sounds like a lot of loving fun, and a great idea for an event honestly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:This actually sounds like a lot of loving fun, and a great idea for an event honestly. Yeah, but good luck finding a table that agrees to doing that before you've already wasted a good two or three hours trying to do things the 'normal' way. And hope your DM doesn't decide that he needs to put a stop to it because it's abusive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
The Bee posted:This is why Wizards needs to ditch books of limited space and hop into the world of online distribution. The lack of physical cost can lead to more effort put into each monster both statwise and fluffwise, more options and suggestions for games utilizing those monsters, and potentially cheaper prices. Also, being able to search for specifics would become so much easier! What I've been saying all along: if Wizards really took digital to heart with a new edition, it would work INCREDIBLY well. The amount and level of detail of D&D stuff in general, be it powers, feats, spells, monsters, races, classes, whatthefuckever, lends itself so well to online formats it's just not funny - but the chances of the design team both realising that and being able to follow through on it are slim to none. We'll be lucky to get an automatic character builder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:What I've been saying all along: if Wizards really took digital to heart with a new edition, it would work INCREDIBLY well. The amount and level of detail of D&D stuff in general, be it powers, feats, spells, monsters, races, classes, whatthefuckever, lends itself so well to online formats it's just not funny - but the chances of the design team both realising that and being able to follow through on it are slim to none. We'll be lucky to get an automatic character builder. That said it would seem quite straightforward to have each print book come with a core sample of whatever-it-is and a code in the back for access to the digital product, which has all that core stuff and a bunch of bonus material and B-sides. The access code can be bought independently, perhaps at full price for the first several months of a product and then for a smaller sum later.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 22:49
|
|
