|
I strong disagree with that. I mean if I want to run a DnD game that is low magic conan like game. Then i don't want to allow one of my players to play a fire breathing dragonman shaman. It doesn't fit the game.
So i strong disagree that one should just allow anything. Sometimes things just flat don't fit and shouldn't be forced.
Now I do agree if it fits the campaign concept then it should be allowed.
But as i said the problem with core is the perception that core brings. Players flat expect to be allowed to use core stuff.
But I was just expressing my opinion on the topic and why I personally think it is a bad idea and why in my eyes it is a bad idea for everything to be core.
Am I missing something?Flavor or not, it is a big enough change (from the core) to warrant a write-up...
Yes, it is. But what does this have to do with our discussion on DM control? It's clear that, in either edition of the game, if you want to make an iconic monster a significant star of your game, you probably should give it some campaign-specific flavoring.
I strong disagree with that. I mean if I want to run a DnD game that is low magic conan like game. Then i don't want to allow one of my players to play a fire breathing dragonman shaman. It doesn't fit the game.
I think a different issue is at play in this example - not that rule elements are conflicting with your particular campaign, but rather that your campaign is conflicting pretty strongly with D&D. D&D is unapologetically a fantasy role-playing game with strong elements of magic and the like. Trying to force a low-magic setting where something as staple-fantasy as fire-breathing is unheard of is probably something you should give a second thought to.
That said, is your problem with the fire-breathing? There are ways around that. Perhaps the character is a member of a barbarian tribe that shoots high-proof "fire water" out of their mouth and lights the spray with a torch to intimidate their enemies. Is your problem with the dragon-man? Re-flavor it so that he's not actually a dragon, but rather a more mundane race of humanoid that receives identical stat modifiers. Is your problem with the magical nature of the shaman? I should think that would mesh a lot better with a low-magic setting than, say, a wizard, which is about as core as it can possibly get.
None of these are insurmountable obstacles by any stretch.
I hate to contribute to what is really getting more and more off topic, but let's take a couple of assumptions and see how they work in the real world.
1. Don't say "no" to new options.
2. 4E is the a breeze to prep for the DM.
Now, 4E DM comes to the table with some hastily thrown together encounters that he still thinks are going to be fun for the PCs. PC comes to the table with his brand new, totally "legal" (because the DM shouldn't say "no") character.
The battlerager fighter of PC runs into these fights, that the DM didn't make up any ranged attacks for, and basically makes the rest of the party feel worthless because nothing can touch him.
4E DM now has to specifically put things into every encounter that will actually harm battlerager because, well, otherwise the other party defenders look like chumps. You can always say that some day that dragon fight will be rough for him, but part of 4E's stated goal is that there isn't a "someday," everyone should be having fun all the time, and fun means that every defender is just as useful at their role in every fight.
4E DM also builds his world based on assumptions in the core rulebooks from last year. He has an epic campaign based on the idea that there were two, and only two, major cosmic players involved in the war between the gods and primordials, those being the gods and primordials.
He also built up some lore explaining how, say, lycanthropes work in the campaign and where they came from, and the nature of living things.
Then players show up at the table with primordial characters, which introduces the idea that, despite 4E DM's best laid plans, his epic culmination no longer makes sense because there were primal spirits involved in the (previously) two party war. His lycanthrope lore is invalidated by shifters, and his lore on the nature of living beings and their souls is invalidated by warforged.
Suddenly, all that prep time seems like its multiplying, unless 4E GM isn't running a very story heavy campaign.
I guess my point is that I just don't think its wise to assume that to be a good DM someone must allow players every option that is "official." The only campaign that seems to work well on that premise is one that is based entirely on pre-printed adventures that the DM adds nothing to, just runs as is.
|
|
I was just using it as a big example. My only point is that sometimes a GM has very specific view of how they want their world and/or game to be and sometimes things just don't fit that view. When those cases occur I don't think they should feel obligated to included stuff. I mean everyone is suppose to have fun players and GM and often for GM's a big part of the fun is making a living breathing world from their imagination come to life.
We'll go issue-by-issue here:
Now, 4E DM comes to the table with some hastily thrown together encounters that he still thinks are going to be fun for the PCs. PC comes to the table with his brand new, totally "legal" (because the DM shouldn't say "no") character.
The battlerager fighter of PC runs into these fights, that the DM didn't make up any ranged attacks for, and basically makes the rest of the party feel worthless because nothing can touch him.
4E DM now has to specifically put things into every encounter that will actually harm battlerager because, well, otherwise the other party defenders look like chumps. You can always say that some day that dragon fight will be rough for him, but part of 4E's stated goal is that there isn't a "someday," everyone should be having fun all the time, and fun means that every defender is just as useful at their role in every fight.
First, battleragers are one of the few examples of particularly powerful basic characters. They are, however, not unstoppable. While they are fantastic at holding their own against a single standard monster, which usually can do almost nothing to bring him down, they are very quickly overwhelmed if the monsters gang up on him (which is, unsurprisingly, the goal of a defender).
Second, the DM should always build balanced encounters. A "hastily thrown together encounter" is only okay if it is balanced. But making balanced encounters is really easy in 4th Edition.
4E DM also builds his world based on assumptions in the core rulebooks from last year. He has an epic campaign based on the idea that there were two, and only two, major cosmic players involved in the war between the gods and primordials, those being the gods and primordials.
He also built up some lore explaining how, say, lycanthropes work in the campaign and where they came from, and the nature of living things.
Then players show up at the table with primordial characters, which introduces the idea that, despite 4E DM's best laid plans, his epic culmination no longer makes sense because there were primal spirits involved in the (previously) two party war. His lycanthrope lore is invalidated by shifters, and his lore on the nature of living beings and their souls is invalidated by warforged.
Easy solution: those primal spirits don't exist. The PCs derive their powers from another, already existing source. Their abilities function the same, but a few of them might need name-changes. That's it, though. Problem solved.
Now, on the subject of the magazines . . .
These don't feel like Dungeon and Dragon have in the past. There is no way around it. Its not a matter of if the articles are good or not. Some of them have been quite good, and others have been so so, or worse, but there has been some quality stuff for the 4E player in them.
The point is, they still feel like web articles under an artificial construction that is meant to portray the continuation of the print magazines.
I hate to make assumptions based on a guess, but I have a theory that had there not been an uproar about Dungeon and Dragon being canceled, the original plan was probably to just provide web articles under the DDI banner, and the Dungeon and Dragon banners and division of articles only came about as a belated PR move.
I could be wrong.
But, yeah, what Erik said. Its not really much of an issue one way or the other under the current marketing scenario.
I strong disagree with that. I mean if I want to run a DnD game that is low magic conan like game. Then i don't want to allow one of my players to play a fire breathing dragonman shaman. It doesn't fit the game.
Well, your exemple seem pretty bad because if you want to run a Conan type of game with any DnD edition you will pretty much need to tell your players that you don't allow almost half the basic core rulebook in your game (no elf, no dwarf, no hafling, no paladin, no magic for ranger, etc... you will have to bane a lot of spells and a lot of core monster won't even exist in your campaign... there is a few reasons that Mongoose is oublishing a d20 conan rpg)...
So what's the problem of having more core rules? Rules that have been tested and approved by the designer of the core rules? Every DM will have to choose the rules (or options) he want to include or not in is own campaign if he wish to keep the flavor of some specific world or universe...A low magic setting imply that the DM have made choice to reduce the amount of options available to the players...
Most published core campaign world (for 3.5ed or 4e) have try to be all inclusive... but this is not necessaerly true to your own campaign... So all the powers is and have always been in the hand of the DM...
I was just using it as a big example. My only point is that sometimes a GM has very specific view of how they want their world and/or game to be and sometimes things just don't fit that view. When those cases occur I don't think they should feel obligated to included stuff. I mean everyone is suppose to have fun players and GM and often for GM's a big part of the fun is making a living breathing world from their imagination come to life.
And my point is that a DM's vision of his world will not be compromised by adding a rule element. You can almost invariably reflavor a rule element to work seamlessly with your own campaign world. The fact that you used that example above and I was able to give you ways (in about two minutes!) that you could mesh those rule elements with the scenario described is evidence of what I'm talking about.
Now, on the subject of the magazines . . .
These don't feel like Dungeon and Dragon have in the past. There is no way around it. Its not a matter of if the articles are good or not. Some of them have been quite good, and others have been so so, or worse, but there has been some quality stuff for the 4E player in them.
The point is, they still feel like web articles under an artificial construction that is meant to portray the continuation of the print magazines.
I hate to make assumptions based on a guess, but I have a theory that had there not been an uproar about Dungeon and Dragon being canceled, the original plan was probably to just provide web articles under the DDI banner, and the Dungeon and Dragon banners and division of articles only came about as a belated PR move.
I could be wrong.
But, yeah, what Erik said. Its not really much of an issue one way or the other under the current marketing scenario.
They're sure providing a lot of content for it to be an artificial construction meant to merely make it look like they were continuing to produce the magazines. You'd think that if they were faking it, they'd be putting out a lot less than 120 pages a month.
|
|
Except the more that is "core" the more exceptions you have to make. Which is why I said a small core set of rules and the rest options in my opinion is better.
I am not saying you have to agree with me, doesn't matter to me if you do or not. I merely read a forum thread, then posted a opinion and then explained why i felt that way about my opinion.
Since i have now completely and totally expressed my opinion I won't respond further about it.
First, battleragers are one of the few examples of particularly powerful basic characters. They are, however, not unstoppable. While they are fantastic at holding their own against a single standard monster, which usually can do almost nothing to bring him down, they are very quickly overwhelmed if the monsters gang up on him.Second, the DM should always build balanced encounters. A "hastily thrown together encounter" is only okay if it is balanced. But making balanced encounters is really easy in 4th Edition.
But said encounter could have been balanced, i.e. fun, dangerous for everyone, varied creature types, just not with any ranged attacks, before the battlerager showed up at the table.
And before you assume I'm a 3.5 defender "on pain of death," I bring up this example because I was playing in a 4E campaign, and I have to say, I was not having fun as the paladin trying to be a defender when the battlerager showed up.
The DM never had to spend extra time to make sure my paladin, the cleric, the rogue, the warlock, or the ranger were challenged. Ranged attacks and ganging up only happened once he realized how the battlerager worked.
Plus, it felt a bit like metagaming. Either the battlerager runs roughshod over the monsters, or the monsters somehow know how his powers work and gang up on him and start shooting at him, as if he were wearing a sign saying "I'm a battlerager, please attack accordingly."
Now, as to the primal spirits "simple" solution . . . what if the PCs really like the flavor of the primal classes? What if they really want their power to come form Mortal world bound powerful spirits that opposed the Gods and the Primordials?
If I can say no to fluff that the player really likes, how is this less "unfun" than saying no to a class, class feature, or race that doesn't seem to fit the campaign that I've created?
Except the more that is "core" the more exceptions you have to make. Which is why I said a small core set of rules and the rest options in my opinion is better.
That's true, if there are a lot of non-core options that your players think are really cool, you'll have to do a little more reflavoring. It could take a whole 10 minutes.
They're sure providing a lot of content for it to be an artificial construction meant to merely make it look like they were continuing to produce the magazines. You'd think that if they were faking it, they'd be putting out a lot less than 120 pages a month.
Hm . . . its funny, because I know you would never misconstrue what I said to nullify my point by arguing against something I didn't actually say, so I went back to see where I had said there there wasn't enough content to claim that the content was a magazine.
I know I must have said that, because your refutation of my comment was based solely on the idea that I had said that the reason that magazine didn't feel like previous versions of Dungeon and Dragon was based solely on the amount of content provided.
I'll keep looking for that comment, I'm sure its here somewhere, but while I'm looking, let me elaborate about why it doesn't feel like Dungeon and Dragon of the past did.
For one, there is just no way to replace a physical copy of something with a purely digital construct, and no matter what they do, there is no way around the fact that the magazines only exist in virtual form.
Also, many, many articles in Dragon over the years were predicated on the notion that not every campaign would use the content in the article all of the time, and in many ways, this made for much more creative articles.
Also, I must admit, there are some intangibles that I can't quite elaborate (but will cogitate upon in case I come up with some better way of expressing said feelings) that just aren't present in the magazine. For lack of a better term, a lot of the articles are good and solid, but overall there just isn't much personality to the whole affair.
And please, keep in mind, I've said several times that I like a lot of the articles. I'm not making a blanket condemnation here.
But said encounter could have been balanced, i.e. fun, dangerous for everyone, varied creature types, just not with any ranged attacks, before the battlerager showed up at the table.
And before you assume I'm a 3.5 defender "on pain of death," I bring up this example because I was playing in a 4E campaign, and I have to say, I was not having fun as the paladin trying to be a defender when the battlerager showed up.
The DM never had to spend extra time to make sure my paladin, the cleric, the rogue, the warlock, or the ranger were challenged. Ranged attacks and ganging up only happened once he realized how the battlerager worked.
Plus, it felt a bit like metagaming. Either the battlerager runs roughshod over the monsters, or the monsters somehow know how his powers work and gang up on him and start shooting at him, as if he were wearing a sign saying "I'm a battlerager, please attack accordingly."
The monsters should figure out pretty quick that the battlerager is made of meat and will require a team effort to take down. It should also be noted that an equally valid choice for the monsters is to ignore the battlerager. He can't keep all of them locked down, and when the monsters ignore the defender, the rest of the party needs to look out.
But you'd have the same problem if your DM decided he liked minions, throwing a minion-heavy encounter at the party before realizing that the completely-core-built wizard who is new to the group can wipe out half of them in a single action. This sounds like an issue you have with 4th Edition design philosophy, not with the core-vs.-not-core concept.
Now, as to the primal spirits "simple" solution . . . what if the PCs really like the flavor of the primal classes? What if they really want their power to come form Mortal world bound powerful spirits that opposed the Gods and the Primordials?
If I can say no to fluff that the player really likes, how is this less "unfun" than saying no to a class, class feature, or race that doesn't seem to fit the campaign that I've created?
It's not. And while I'd encourage you to do what you can to include that character's concept, sometimes there's just no way to reconcile the flavor. I don't think a lot of players are under the impression that flavor meshes as well as mechanics do, though. But that raises another point that I think is worth making: when designing a campaign, you should try to leave it as open as possible. You're already probably going to make some flavor options unplayable, so you should at least attempt to make as many mechanical options playable as you can.
It could take a whole 10 minutes.You know the way you post, you really come off as if you are talking down to people all the time and you seem flat unable to just agree to disagree. To accept that others have a opinion different than your own, that they find just as valid as you find your own.
Sometimes, and this may shock you, people can have bad opinions. And people can have opinions about opinions. Why can't you just agree to disagree about my opinion of your opinion?
You, however, chose to share your opinion in an open forum, where a discussion is being had. As a general rule, if you are not comfortable with people telling you what they think of your opinion, you should probably keep your opinions to yourself.
Hm . . . its funny, because I know you would never misconstrue what I said to nullify my point by arguing against something I didn't actually say, so I went back to see where I had said there there wasn't enough content to claim that the content was a magazine.
I know I must have said that, because your refutation of my comment was based solely on the idea that I had said that the reason that magazine didn't feel like previous versions of Dungeon and Dragon was based solely on the amount of content provided.
My refutation of your comment was not based solely on the idea that you had said that. Because you didn't. I was inferring that, perhaps, there was an unstated belief that the magazines were merely pretending at the titles of Dragon and Dungeon because the quality and level of content was not on par with the previous magazines. No need to make any leap beyond that, and if I was wrong you can feel free to tell me so.
There is a big difference between an encounter that has only one type of opponent (your hypothetical all minion crew), and one that lacks artillery or a controller, meaning that five other types of creatures could still be used, and used the way they are suppose to be used, in the encounter.
My refutation of your comment was not based solely on the idea that you had said that. Because you didn't. I was inferring that, perhaps, there was an unstated belief that the magazines were merely pretending at the titles of Dragon and Dungeon because the quality and level of content was not on par with the previous magazines. No need to make any leap beyond that, and if I was wrong you can feel free to tell me so.
Hey, thanks for giving me permission. I'm feeling really free now.
You're wrong.
There is a big difference between an encounter that has only one type of opponent (your hypothetical all minion crew), and one that lacks artillery or a controller, meaning that five other types of creatures could still be used, and used the way they are suppose to be used, in the encounter.
I didn't say all-minion. I said minion-heavy. In any fight where minions are present, the controller is going to shine. In any fight where no ranged-only monsters are present, defenders are going to shine. This is part of 4th Edition design philosophy, and is an example of why creating balanced encounters is important. Variation is good, but you need to make sure that, on the whole, everyone is able to contribute meaningfully.
My refutation of your comment was not based solely on the idea that you had said that. Because you didn't. I was inferring that, perhaps, there was an unstated belief that the magazines were merely pretending at the titles of Dragon and Dungeon because the quality and level of content was not on par with the previous magazines. No need to make any leap beyond that, and if I was wrong you can feel free to tell me so.Hey, thanks for giving me permission. I'm feeling really free now.
You're wrong.
Okay. I'm sorry for making that assumption.
Which, I believe, was a flavor revision, and didn't actually touch the creatures' statistics. I don't own Classic Monsters Revisited, so I can't be sure. This is nothing more than Paizo giving goblins their own niche in their world, and it's something that needs to be done for any campaign, in any edition. I don't see how this is a problem with 4th Edition. Am I missing something?
The write-up was exactly the same as the one from the Monster Manual except for the dogslicer as the weapon of choice and a slightly higher skill modifiers. All they did, and they did it well, was breath their own life into the goblins, just as so many of us DMs do in all our campaigns. If I wish to make all my goblins into asexual creatures that produce offspring when they get wet, I can do this without adding anything to the stat block. No matter what game we're playing, my players know better than to try to hold me to what is printed in some book. Maybe in my world I use ogre stats for my trolls because that is how I envision them. It is my job to create interesting and fun worlds for the players to play in.
I've seen this "If it's not in the stat block you can not do it" or "I need the mechanics in order to run it" mentality before and it is very disheartening. Have people really become this dependent on stats or mechanics? I don't remember worrying about mechanics this much back when I was playing AD&D. It's one of the reasons I like the new edition so much. It seems to have focused the mechanics where its needed, in combat, and loosened the hold of mechanics where its not needed, outside of combat. Imagination seems to free again rather than being quantified at every turn.
Just some thoughts.
I've seen this "If it's not in the stat block you can not do it" or "I need the mechanics in order to run it" mentality before and it is very disheartening. Have people really become this dependent on stats or mechanics?
I hope not. There is such a thing as too many rules, and I think this argument touches on the necessity of that balance.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading that the phrase "core" had a second meaning for 4E in that it also meant that material designated as core would be supported in future supplements/products. Hence the swordmage from the FR setting getting additional goodies from non-FR books such as Arcane Power.
Now I'm not sure if this new meaning is meant to replace or be in addition to what most of us have previously understood "core" to mean, but as a DM I've always understood that if I wanted my campaign setting to have or not have various rules elements then it didn't matter whether those elements were designated core or not as long as I could justify/explain the changes in a way that was consistent with the setting.
At the start of my current 4E campaign, I restricted the players to the PHB (and some elements of the FRPG) unless there was something in the additional material that supported the character concept the person wanted to play. This was more because the group consists of several players new to D&D and I felt there were already a lot of options available in these books and I didn't want to overwhelm them with too many choices. As new material has been released, then I've gone through and noted which elements are available for the players to choose from.
As time goes on and we become more familiar with the system then I'm going to just give a blanket approval to almost everything except where it doesn't (or can't be made to) fit with the setting I'm using (Golarian). This is quite a different approach from one I've taken in the past, and I wouldn't be honest if I didn't say it scares me a little to give up this "control" of the game rules I previously had, but I do feel that my game (specifically, the enjoyment of my players) will be the better for it.
I've seen this "If it's not in the stat block you can not do it" or "I need the mechanics in order to run it" mentality before and it is very disheartening. Have people really become this dependent on stats or mechanics? I don't remember worrying about mechanics this much back when I was playing AD&D. It's one of the reasons I like the new edition so much. It seems to have focused the mechanics where its needed, in combat, and loosened the hold of mechanics where its not needed, outside of combat. Imagination seems to free again rather than being quantified at every turn.Just some thoughts.
I think a lot of it comes from standards of what is required to have a fair game, one in which the players can feel that they aren't playing "gotcha" with the DM. And as far as the combat/out of combat issue with stats - who's to say when combat will or will not occur? More complete stat blocks give you a place to turn when a non-combat encounter goes south fast. Grazz't may teleport away by DM fiat, but players who thought they had him cornered may feel cheated about that unless they can understand the rules that allow the pet NPC to get away.
I think a lot of it comes from standards of what is required to have a fair game, one in which the players can feel that they aren't playing "gotcha" with the DM. And as far as the combat/out of combat issue with stats - who's to say when combat will or will not occur? More complete stat blocks give you a place to turn when a non-combat encounter goes south fast. Grazz't may teleport away by DM fiat, but players who thought they had him cornered may feel cheated about that unless they can understand the rules that allow the pet NPC to get away.
I've heard this one before. I do not buy it. Sorry. This comes across like D&D is an adversarial game between the DM and players and the only way their can be fairness is for there to be transparency. My players have to trust that I am not there to screw them over, or it is just not worth playing together. If you have played with DMs that have screwed you over in the past, that is a personal issue and has nothing to do with game mechanics.
In the example with Grazz't, if he teleported in from whatever plane to do something with party, whether it's to talk, tease, taunt or whatever, and they choose to attack him, then that's when you switch to the stat block. That has been supplied for you. Up till then he just an NPC to interact with and really needed no stats, but once combat starts that is where the mechanics kick in. Just because he teleported in from wherever doesn't mean he can just teleport out unless I so choose. Personally, I'd use him to kick their collective butts and leave them lying around unconscious for having annoyed him by attacking him. Then I'd teleport him away.
This idea that a DM can only be fair if he has the mechanics to back it up is an artifact of 3.5 that I just do not agree with.
|
|
You're making excuses for loose rule design.
No, I'm praising it. Just like you are when you say how much freedom 4E gives you for playing monsters outside combat. We're praising different instances of loose design, but praising it we both are.
Instead of simply accepting that certain rules are constructed poorly, you're saying that loose rule design is acceptable, instead pushing the act of tightening the rule design onto the players, who are now forced to operate under a set of arbitrary social environment pressures while determining whether it is okay to use Spell X, rather than simply having rules which explain what Spell X can and cannot be used for. (...)
Social considerations are a regulatory force. They're just a poor one in a tabletop game. Not only are they dependent upon completely informal sanctions, but they cannot be relied upon universally, which is all game design cares about.
Thanks for summarizing the 4E design ethos better than I could have - so much so that I bookmarked your post. To think that social environment pressures cannot be anything but "arbitrary" speaks leaps and bounds here.
I enjoy 4E for my occasional home game, and I vastly admire your conversion of Burnt Offerings which (over at forum.dnd-gate.de) I always recommend to new 4E DMs as their first place to go. But when I read posts such as yours I'm glad I'm no longer part of the design mentality 4E was so unabashedly designed to cater for.
To me, the point of RPGs is that they are active entertainment - you get to create things yourself, you get to excercise your common sense and judgement, and you get to share these two things with your friends to get something else you may not have even thought of. Very few things come close (although I have taken up level editing for the Thief2 computer game in the last year, which is stimulating in a different kind of way - more like LEGO than D&D). The third aspect is socialisation - someone on RPGNet once called RPGs hospitality games; games where you invite people into your own home in an age of decreasing face to face communication. That's also a good point.I worry that new D&D, and in fact the new common face of gaming is undermining these progressive features of roleplaying games. In-play options are reduced by rule codification and the standardisation of "fair play" (instead granting the illusion of choice through character customisation - I argue that this is far less substantial than it is considered). Common sense is being attacked as "neither common nor sensible"; instead, designers and the game culture suggests yet more regulations over play by people who know best. This is the tyranny of fun part, and also the part where resentment/distrust of GMs and GMing comes up most regularly. There is a sort of assumption that GMs are not suited to create source material, even adventures for their players; that they are in dire need of Official Game Designer Wisdom, to be had for $29.90 in slick, glossy volumes (and you'd better be prepared to buy five or six of these to really begin playing). Finally, the process and environment of roleplaying itself has been attacked through citing extreme negative examples, portraying it as an inherently dysfunctional hobby.
Finally, there is the matter of the fetishisation of "game design" [in 4E]; that is, how officially appointed game designers are touted - and gradually being accepted! - as the infallible arbiters of what is good and bad fun. I find this a very suspicious development in roleplaying. In a participatory hobby, where the roles of consumers and creators have been strongly blurred (and this blurriness was a core contributor to what made the games so addictive, so different from anything else - RPGs are a form of active mental/social entertainment which are otherwise very rare), we are seeing movement towards a stronger separation between the two. Officially designed and meticulously balanced fun is contrasted with the straw men of "bad DMing", supposedly so epidemic that very few people can "enjoy" games properly. It is suggested that only a qualified elite who "really" understand games can save us from the effects of horrible, horrible game design and our own supposed dysfunctions. Instead of fostering individual creativity, this philosophy casts suspicion and disapproval on it; "house rules", the elementary tools of customisation, are treated with derision and contempt. The message is clear: "you are incompetent, stupid and you need our help (that will be $39.90, please)". Gary Gygax tried this crap at his worst, and fortunately, people just pointed and laughed. Can the Wizards designers do what Gary could not? So far, it seems to me they are winning.
D&D, for me, is at heart an incomplete game by design (i.e. by intention): only the players and the DM make it complete, and that begins with rules interpretation (as per OD&D, booklet I, final paragraph, quoted shortly). Making the game one's own at that level is what makes the D&D experience so fulfilling and individual.
These rules are as complete as possible within the limitations imposed by the space of three booklets. That is, they cover the major aspects of fantasy campaigns but still remain flexible. As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity - your time and imagination are about the only limiting factors, and the fact that you have purchased these rules tends to indicate that there is no lack of imagination.
Or as Dwarvenforge founder Stefan Pokorny put it, "You see, the beauty of this game is that everyone plays it differently."
But this beauty is completely at odds with wanting to have a universal set of rules for organized play. A game can't cater to both needs at once, and 4E is my game of choice to point to when demonstrating that.
|
This idea that a DM can only be fair if he has the mechanics to back it up is an artifact of 3.5 that I just do not agree with.
Well, when I talk about needing complete stat blocks for creatures, I do not mean solely for fairness. I like to know what a creature is capable of doing, period...
It is not out of a lack of creativity. I just don't like the notion that it can be assumed that any creature can do anything possible outside of it's stat block simply because I want or need him to do so (again, with no clear rules to do so)...
For example, I may need the orc shaman to be able to teleport, but if his racial or class abilities prohibit him from doing so, than IMHO, to handwave it in is an abuse of DM power...
I guess I am a relic of the past. Because I like knowing EVERY aspect of a given creature. I like knowing that the rules say that this or that creature cannot do what I want him to do UNLESS I give him something that within the rules, allows him to do whatever it is I want him to do. Simply saying "Make it so" does not wash with me...
My example of the fire belching orcs. In order for me to justify that (as that is clearly not in the RAW), I would have to come up with a valid reason for them to be running around, belching fire (And I can assure you, that reason would NEVER be as simple as "Make it so")...
Likewise, if a demon lord is capable of teleporting from plane to plane, I want to know. Further, I want to know WHY AND HOW...
Obviously, the 4e supporters do not agree...
That's fine...
*EDIT*
And before you start with the cries of "So just come up with a valid reason to have them do it and be done with it!", that's not my point. If I buy a book, and I have come up with my own abilities (and reasons for them) for every damned creature in it, I'm already asking myself why did I even bother buying the book in the first place, if I have to do 90% of the work (yes, an exaggerated percentage, but my point remains the same) ...
Sure, some creatures need individual tailoring to fit your campaign world (whether that be flavor or statistical). But should it be too much to expect that some creatures can be used right out of the book? To be able to look in that book and see right there that the "standard orc shaman" is not capable of teleporting, but has a side note that says "but if you need him to, add this class to him"...
From what I have seen, I guess not. It's just too simple and irresistible to say "Make it so, and be done with it. Takes all of five minutes!"...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
There was a lot of heat and little light in an exchange on these boards, concerning an incident where the chief villain in an adventure path offed a 9th level NPC with a single blow by shoving a crossbow bolt through his eye. For some people (including me) it was a cool bit of flavour and plot. For others, it was an appalling breach of the rules - you can't kill a 9th level character with a single crossbow bot, especially when it is used as an improvised weapon.
It went on and on, but basically it boiled down to this - for some people, if it ain't in the rules it ain't possible. Sometimes this even transcends common sense - having a sharp object rammed through your eye is likely to kill you in real life, so I failed to see the problem. But for others "common sense" was what was embodied in the rules, not in real life experience. So it was effectively impossible for the baddie to do what they did, and they felt that their expectations of what could happen in-game had been violated as a result.
In the end, it's about what you expect to happen and whether you see the rules as a guide to what can happen in the game world, which the DM can alter to fit the story, or as the sole embodiment of the rules of physics, chemistry, biology and their magical equivalents - inviolate and eternal. This isn't a value judgement on my behalf, though I have my views of the subject - both approaches have their adherents and they can both be supported in rational argument. But it also isn't a 3e v 4e or anything else issue - the adventure path was The Curse of the Crimson Throne and very much in 3.5. It's about DM'ing and adventure-writing style. For me, rules exist to arbitrate what the players can do - not what NPCs do to one another. Nor should rules prevent plot where something is reasonable - like Grazzt being able to teleport about when he feels like it out of combat. What is reasonable depends on the DM's judgement and players' expectations.
|
|
For me, rules exist to arbitrate what the players can do - not what NPCs do to one another. Nor should rules prevent plot where something is reasonable - like Grazzt being able to teleport about when he feels like it out of combat. What is reasonable depends on the DM's judgement and players' expectations.
Ah, now see. There is the root of my argument!
I am an advocate of "if the PCs can do it, then so can the NPCs!"...
This rule is also true for me in the reverse...
If any of my players feel it fair and reasonable that should they thrust a crossbow bold through the eye of an NPC and expect that NPC to die, then if an NPC should thrust a crossbow bolt through his eye, he in turn should die from that as well...
And yes, it is reasonable for a demon lord to "teleport about when he feels like it out of combat", but, it is just as reasonable to expect that little tidbit of knowledge to be in the friggin' rule book!!!
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Well, when I talk about needing complete stat blocks for creatures, I do not mean solely for fairness. I like to know what a creature is capable of doing, period...
It is not out of a lack of creativity. I just don't like the notion that it can be assumed that any creature can do anything possible outside of it's stat block simply because I want or need him to do so...
For example, I may need the orc shaman to be able to teleport, but if his racial or class abilities prohibit him from doing so, than IMHO, to handwave it in is an abuse of DM power...
I guess I am a relic of the past. Because I like knowing EVERY aspect of a given creature. I like knowing that the rules say that this or that creature cannot do what I want him to do UNLESS I give him something that within the rules, allows him to do whatever it is I want him to do. Simply saying "Make it so" does not wash with me...
My example of the fire belching orcs. In order for me to justify that (as that is clearly not in the RAW), I would have to come up with a valid reason for them to be running around, belching fire (And I can assure you, that reason would NEVER be as simple as "Make it so")...
Likewise, if a demon lord is capable of teleporting from plane to plane, I want to know. Further, I want to know WHY AND HOW...
Obviously, the 4e supporters do not agree...
That's fine...
*EDIT*
And before you start with the cries of "So just come up with a valid reason to have them do it and be done with it!", that's not my point. If I buy a book, and I have come up with my own abilities (and reasons for them) for every damned creature in it, I'm already asking myself why did I even bother buying the book in the first place, if I have to do 90% of the work...
Sure, some creatures need individual flavor tailoring to fit your campaign world. But should it be too much to expect that some creatures can be used right out of the book? To be able to look in that book and see right there that the "standard orc shaman" is not capable of teleporting, but has a side note that says "but if you need him to, add this class to him"...
From what I have seen, I guess not. It's just too simple and irresistible to say "Make it so and be done with it!"...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Are you serious??? So every non-teleporting monster has such a side-note, and let's not forget those creatures that can't summon undead will need a similar note, and those creatures that can't call lightning down from the skies above will need one as well. No sane publisher would ever do this, because they aren't capable of replicating the collective imagination of all their players.
In most cases the 4E stat block is all you will need to run the creature, but the MM also contains some additional info about the creatures society/habits/tactics. Some people may have preferred there to be more "non-combat" info in the book, but personally I like the fact that it provides me with several different versions of each monster instead. YMMV.
If you need to change a monster to fit your setting (e.g. fire-belching orcs) then change it. Expect your players to question the weirder changes, so you will probably need a justification for them that either references the rules framework or the setting itself. Talking about needing to modify every creature in the MM is just engaging in hyperbole unless your setting is so radically different from the implied setting of 4E. If this is the case, then you would likely have needed to convert every monster in previous editions anyway.
I don't really want to put words into other people's mouths, but it seems to me that Scott (and others) are saying that if you want an individual NPC to have access to a certain ability or power, then you can easily "make it so". Your players might want to know how a particular orc shaman is teleporting when none of the other orc shamans they have previously encountered were able to do so, but a creative DM should be able to easily think of a number of ways to achieve the desired effect (e.g. special rituals or magic items/artifacts) and can use the players questions as a hook to lure the players deeper into the storyline.
Our imagination and creativity are what fuels every edition of D&D.
Aubrey, always calm and collected. I hope to reach that level one day...
But, I have some differing opinions.
For me, rules exist to arbitrate what the players can do - not what NPCs do to one another.
I understand that point. But what if the players want to start repeating tactics NPCs do to each other? If an NPC can off another (mid-high level) NPC with an improvised weapon by describing using it in such a way to kill in one shot; why can't the PCs do it?
Nor should rules prevent plot where something is reasonable - like Grazzt being able to teleport about when he feels like it out of combat.
If Grazzt can teleport "at-will" outside of combat, why can't he inside combat?
Those kind of things infringe on my sense of "fair play." Besides, most GMs I have known have too much ego to not abuse that style of play.
As for the mags: If "everything is core," and "the DM shouldn't restrict anything," and "give the NPCs whatever you want/need them to have," is the correct way to play 4e, then why even separate the two mags?
If it is a matter of "players shouldn't see," there is nothing - currently - preventing them. Putting an adventure in a "player only" mag will be only slightly more tempting for the player to read, than the current setup.
Well, when I talk about needing complete stat blocks for creatures, I do not mean solely for fairness. I like to know what a creature is capable of doing, period...
It is not out of a lack of creativity. I just don't like the notion that it can be assumed that any creature can do anything possible outside of it's stat block simply because I want or need him to do so (again, with no clear rules to do so)...
For example, I may need the orc shaman to be able to teleport, but if his racial or class abilities prohibit him from doing so, than IMHO, to handwave it in is an abuse of DM power...
I can understand the need for full disclosure, I just do not agree with it. When you bandy about statements like "abuse of DM power", though, this implies to me an "us vs. them" mentality and not a "we" one. This should be about what is needed to make a fun and interesting game. If you have a DM doing stuff to screw over his players then the game is no longer fun and not exclusive to any edition. I usually go home at that point as the game is no longer fun.
I guess I am a relic of the past. Because I like knowing EVERY aspect of a given creature. I like knowing that the rules say that this or that creature cannot do what I want him to do UNLESS I give him something that within the rules, allows him to do whatever it is I want him to do. Simply saying "Make it so" does not wash with me...
My example of the fire belching orcs. In order for me to justify that (as that is clearly not in the RAW), I would have to come up with a valid reason for them to be running around, belching fire (And I can assure you, that reason would NEVER be as simple as "Make it so")...
Likewise, if a demon lord is capable of teleporting from plane to plane, I want to know. Further, I want to know WHY AND HOW...
Yes, you are a relic. It is not as simple as saying "Make it so" (although it could be) and has more to do with making it interesting and fun which, at the end of the day, is what every DM is usually striving for.
The fire-belching, though, is an example of something which has a direct effect in a combat encounter. It most definitely would need some kind of representation in the stat block. The teleporting, though, has no direct bearing on combat. How a character gets from point A to point B ultimately does not matter, unless you mean it to. He could have flown in on a nightmare or a magic carpet or used a teleporting portal. Since it is off-screen we don't need it all laid out.
This strikes me more as players and people feeling that they are entitled to see behind the curtain all the time. This comes back to the relationship between DM and players being implied as an adversarial one when it shouldn't be.
Obviously, the 4e supporters do not agree...
That's fine...
Neither do the designers. Seems to me that players are less interested in having every last thing statted out this time around and just having direct combat related stats. The rest is left to be played as needed. You can certainly disagree with this approach, but it is not an invalid one. Most people tweak the the fluff, which is what this amounts to, to a lesser or greater degree and the designers have heard this. Now you can use the information supplied with the stat block or you can use your own, as needed.
And before you start with the cries of "So just come up with a valid reason to have them do it and be done with it!", that's not my point. If I buy a book, and I have come up with my own abilities (and reasons for them) for every damned creature in it, I'm already asking myself why did I even bother buying the book in the first place, if I have to do 90% of the work (yes, an exaggerated percentage, but my point remains the same) ...
Whether it is written in the book or not, there should always be a valid reason for what you are doing. Again, though, this is not exclusive to any edition. Many people felt there was entirely too much information being given out in previous editions, so all the fat was trimmed this time around. Was it too much? Possibly, but only time will tell.
and the Dungeon and Dragon banners and division of articles only came about as a belated PR move.
Not sure, but the latest thing sounds like PR to drum up interest. Having a semi-informed idea* of the subscription rates the DDI was seeing as of relatively recently (the rate of change rather than total subscriber number) I'd expect more PR as time passes to increase that rate.
*NDA or not, some developers like to talk
|
|
Are you serious??? So every non-teleporting monster has such a side-note, and let's not forget those creatures that can't summon undead will need a similar note, and those creatures that can't call lightning down from the skies above will need one as well. No sane publisher would ever do this, because they aren't capable of replicating the collective imagination of all their players.
I see you quoted my post, but did you even bother to read it (or any of my past posts)?
No, I do not seriously expect a literal side note on every creature...
My point was that if the stat block does not say he can do it, than he cannot do it in and of himself. Meaning that if you want him to, you need to look over the rules and make it happen through them, not just "make it so"
And as I clearly said in that post, "make it so" does not wash with me. I further said, that I want to know every little tidbit about the monster, you know, what it can and cannot do, period...
I don't want to HAVE to handwave something because I want it to happen...
Sure the players don't need to know that in order to make the shaman have the ability to teleport I gave him a class in Wizard, but I know it...
I am simply not comfortable in saying, "oh, well, I need him to teleport, so I'll just have him mystically be able to teleport. Stupid players don't need to know I just said "make it so"...
YMMV...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Ah, now see. There is the root of my argument!
I am an advocate of "if the PCs can do it, then so can the NPCs!"...
This rule is also true for me in the reverse...
If any of my players feel it fair and reasonable that should they thrust a crossbow bold through the eye of an NPC and expect that NPC to die, then if an NPC should thrust a crossbow bolt through his eye, he in turn should die from that as well...
Are you out to screw over your players? I would presume not. The only reason players would need to know why and how things happen this much in the game world is if they feel you are being unfair or they are envious and feel the need to have all the same toys as you. This agian comes back to the relationship between DM and player being an "us vs. them" one. If an NPC kills another NPC with a bolt through the eye, this is nothing more than a cut scene. Players, usually, should not be able to this. They may be able to learn a similar technique through a series of feats and/or class abilities. Neither, though, should this be done to the players as that would be unfair to all the work they put into the character.
And yes, it is reasonable for a demon lord to "teleport about when he feels like it out of combat", but, it is just as reasonable to expect that little tidbit of knowledge to be in the friggin' rule book!!!
Why? What if his means of transport is a magical chariot that takes him from plane to plane? Or he rides a mystical horse? Or whatever other myriad means of transportation? Is it too much to ask to just leave this kind of thing out so it can be decided on by the people playing the game?
|
|
But, I have some differing opinions.
For me, rules exist to arbitrate what the players can do - not what NPCs do to one another.I understand that point. But what if the players want to start repeating tactics NPCs do to each other? If an NPC can off another (mid-high level) NPC with an improvised weapon by describing using it in such a way to kill in one shot; why can't the PCs do it?
Nor should rules prevent plot where something is reasonable - like Grazzt being able to teleport about when he feels like it out of combat.If Grazzt can teleport "at-will" outside of combat, why can't he inside combat?
Those kind of things infringe on my sense of "fair play." Besides, most GMs I have known have too much ego to not abuse that style of play.
All valid cricisms. The former I could deal with fairly happily by saying the PCs would have to adhere to the rules and that's just tough. DM fiat is fine in dealing with the characters he controls entirely and how they interact with eachother - so NPCs can kill eachother in ways the PCs couldn't. While there is a degree of inconsistency in this it is really a protection for the PCs - they can have a reasonable expectation of what might happen to them, because it is enshrined in the rules, and anyway the nature of the game exists the challenge them. The NPCs don't get that protection and they don't need it - they exist to live and die at the whim of the DM to further his diabolical ends in terms of plot.
The Grazzt thing is more difficult, I admit. You could get round it by suggesting that he choses not to teleport long distances in combat (maybe bloodlust - uber-weak, I know) or can only do it (or not do it) in certain circumstances (like being in a particular place for the climactic encounter that restricts teleporting). None of those particularly appeal to me either. Or you just decide he can do it in combat too, at least as a means of escape - maybe as an encounter power for long range teleport. On the flip side from a game basis, having Grazzt only able to teleport short distances deals with one of the things which does bother me about the old demon ability to teleport about at will - they are very hard to kill as a result if they decide to flee. That's a crummy answer, I know. However, if it made the game more fun for the players, of course, then it is all good. DM judgement and player expectations.
Always this separation of player and DM stuff. I have yet to see this work to any satisfaction, and yet people keep trying it. The wall they keep beating their heads against is covered with blood and brains, but no closer to breaking.
What do I mean when I say "work" above?
I mean the idea they had in 3rd edition that they should get ALL the involved people to buy stuff. According to them, they think they should be able to coax a massive amount of money out of the players too, in contrast to only the DMs earlier.
I guess they sat in a meeting and thought something like:
"How are we going to get more money???"
"Hey, I have an idea! Only the DMs buy our books. What if we could get the PLAYERS to buy almost all our collection too??!!oneone!!"
The results have never been that impressive. In 2nd edition, they tried it (Oooo, a big wall to beat my head against! THWACK!) and produced the product line of Fighter's screen, Cleric's screen and so on. I never heard about anyone actually using those. In 3.0, they gave us splatbooks aimed at players, which seriously contained no checking for balance, and which made the players whine about how their favourite character options were official too (THWACK! Take that, stupid wall!) In 3.5, they made thicker and heavier splatbooks with half a million prestige classes (Hey, if we make bigger books, maybe they will help in breaking the wall! THWACK!), because obviously the only thing a player wants is more feats and prestige classes. Now they're doing the same thing in 4th (THWACKTHWACKTHWACK!!! It must be giving way... at least a little, please???) and "streamlining" the Dragon/Dungeon divide.
The basic problems here: First, if you're interested enough in the game to invest seriously in it, you become a DM. The other people are players and not DMs BECAUSE they don't want to invest seriously in the game. It creates a lot of pressure from players who want their awesome combo to work, which means you as a DM has to have even more of an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. It also makes the incentive to produce interesting DM stuff smaller (Yeah, we could make this awesome new DM book, but only 20% of our market will be interested, so we can't).
Seriously, enough is enough now. The wall isn't breaking. Give it up, it's okay, you fought the good fight. Focus on a struggle you can win.
|
|
When you bandy about statements like "abuse of DM power", though, this implies to me an "us vs. them" mentality and not a "we" one.
And that is how I see all this handwaving nonsense; "if you need monster X to be able to do thus and so, simply make him be able to do thus and so. Takes all of five minutes!"...
How a character gets from point A to point B ultimately does not matter, unless you mean it to. He could have flown in on a nightmare or a magic carpet or used a teleporting portal. Since it is off-screen we don't need it all laid out.
so, I guess it also means that it doesn't matter how the PC get around either, right? I mean that's not combat, right?
This strikes me more as players and people feeling that they are entitled to see behind the curtain all the time. This comes back to the relationship between DM and players being implied as an adversarial one when it shouldn't be.
Not IMHO...
I think it is reasonable that a player have some expectation when playing D&D. Not just that they will have fun, but that the rules are consistent from group to group at a base level (i.e. an orc being an orc)...
You can certainly disagree with this approach, but it is not an invalid one. Most people tweak the fluff
I agree up to a point...
If a creature has an "at will" ability [teleport], then it should be listed. Crunch is crunch, whether it's in or out of combat...
Was it too much? Possibly, but only time will tell.
And I'm saying, that for me, it was...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
Are you out to screw over your players? I would presume not.
No, of course I'm not out to screw my players. And I have no real intention of an NPC jamming a crossbow bolt in any of their character's eyes...
Just trying to illustrate my point that fair is fair (even within the game)...
What if his means of transport is a magical chariot that takes him from plane to plane? Or he rides a mystical horse? Or whatever other myriad means of transportation?
Well, the example specifically used teleport, which is an ability, not any kind of device or vehicle...
Is it too much to ask to just leave this kind of thing out so it can be decided on by the people playing the game?
Well, it starts adding up! First this creature, now that creature...
Pretty soon, you're sitting on a whole notebook of errata (that you wrote no less)! Why? When most of it was needless on your part, most should have been written by the designers in the first place (I know you don't agree, but still)...
I just like having everything a given NPC (both monstrous and mundane) can do at my fingertips with no guesswork...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
And that is how I see all this handwaving nonsense; "if you need monster X to be able to do thus and so, simply make him be able to do thus and so. Takes all of five minutes!"...
I think it is reasonable that a player have some expectation when playing D&D. Not just that they will have fun, but that the rules are consistent from group to group at a base level (i.e. an orc being an orc)...
The rules are consistent at a base level. It is the fluff that is changed as per the game.
so, I guess it also means that it doesn't matter how the PC get around either, right? I mean that's not combat, right?
The players are the focus. Of course it matters, if you want it to. It can also be relegated to off-screen stuff, too. If the traveling from point A to point B is immaterial to progressing the story, it can be glossed over. Or it can be as integral as you want it to be.
If a creature has an "at will" ability [teleport], then it should be listed. Crunch is crunch, whether it's in or out of combat...
This is an ability (an at-will teleport) with a direct impact on combat. This is, of course, something that would have to given mechanics to represent it. This is not something that is happening off-screen. If Grazz't suddenly showed up in front of you it could be because he just teleported in or it could be because he just stepped out from behind a tree (his magical chariot is parked up the hill). Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter as the focus is on the fact that he is there and not on how he got there.
And I'm saying, that for me, it was...
That's fair.
No, of course I'm not out to screw my players. And I have no real intention of an NPC jamming a crossbow bolt in any of their character's eyes...
Just trying to illustrate my point that fair is fair (even within the game)...
Fairness comes from the DM, not the mechanics or the books.
Well, the example specifically used teleport, which is an ability, not any kind of device or vehicle...
My point is that it doesn't matter because it is happening off screen. If the ability is something that can be used in combat then it needs stats. Otherwise it is the stuff of imagination.
Well, it starts adding up! First this creature, now that creature...
Pretty soon, you're sitting on a whole notebook of errata (that you wrote no less)! Why? When most of it was needless on your part, most should have been written by the designers in the first place (I know you don't agree, but still)...
It is not errata. It is putting your own spin on things. One of the problems of previous editions was too much information. This part has been put into the DM's hands which is what a majority of DMs were doing already.
I just like having everything a given NPC (both monstrous and mundane) can do at my fingertips with no guesswork...
That's fine, but keep in mind that attitudes have changed. Less extraneous information is better. When I want to use a creature like the goblin I can use the little bit of fluff from the Monster Manual, expand on it, create my own, or use somebody else's and still use the combat statistics provided. To many this is a feature, to some not so much. That's okay, though.
My point was that if the stat block does not say he can do it, than he cannot do it in and of himself. Meaning that if you want him to, you need to look over the rules and make it happen through them, not just "make it so"
And as I clearly said in that post, "make it so" does not wash with me. I further said, that I want to know every little tidbit about the monster, you know, what it can and cannot do, period...
I don't want to HAVE to handwave something because I want it to happen...
Then don't handwave it. Use your creativity and imagination to make it fit within the rules framework. This is no different than what most people have done in every edition of D&D.
Another way of phrasing "make it so" is "don't sweat the small stuff". It's not always necessary to work out the finer details of everything that happens "off stage". If your plot needs to have a demon lord imprisoned in a large crystal under an archmage's tower, will your PCs really care about how the archmage managed to imprison it? Sure your party's spell casters might be curious, but mention something about an ancient ritual that was performed during a conjunction of several stars and that should generally be enough.
Okay, my example may have been cliched, but my point is that in cases like this, there is no need to work out exactly which rules elements apply because that level of detail has no appreciative impact on the game the players will experience... (unless of course, the demon lord gets free and the players have to somehow imprison it again...)
|
|
It is the fluff that is changed as per the game.
But it's not just fluff people have been talking about handwaving...
I would consider "all the orcs in my campaign are pink with white polka-dots and like to pick flowers" to be fluff (albeit strange fluff, but fluff non-the-less)...
Likewise, I would also consider all dragons looking like giant bees and that their breath weapon is a cone of spewed honey (treat as red dragon) to be fluff as well...
I don't however, consider being able to teleport outside the confines of combat to be fluff (whether they be demon lords or orcish shamans)...
-That One DIgitalelf Fellow-
|
|
It is worth pointing out that one of the explicit design theories was to avoid the idea of "symmetry" between PCs and non-PC elements. Part of the "problem" in preparing a session for 3e was that it took massive amounts of work to prepare, because you were effectively creating monsters using rules that linked back to the character creation rules. That doesn't really happen for 4e, and it makes prep time much less of a chore.
It isn't much more of a stretch from there to take away the "symmetry" idea in plotting - just because a PC has to do something, an NPC doesn't. The idea of hand-waving PC actions I explicitly reject. The rules exist to give the PCs a framework in which to operate - to make it "fair" for their players. So no, PCs can't teleport whenever they feel like it unless the rules allow them to. But then, the DM also can't arbitrarily kill a PC for a laugh either because the rules don't allow for that either. You stick to the rules, especially in tactical/combat situations, to ensure that the players' expectations are met in circumstances where their characters could get killed.
You don't need to be fair to NPCs - they don't get pissed off, they don't have expectations. If it suits the plot for Grazzt to jump out of nowhere and say "Hi" and then jump away again, he can do it. If it suits the plot. And the idea of the plot should be to enhance the PCs fun, intrigue them, or whatever. If it draws the PCs in, fine, and I don't feel the need to beat myself up because the rules don't explicitly allow it. Given that the rules get additions all the time, the rules are not "complete" in that sense anyway. If I want Grazzt to jump around, I'll houserule it. End of story - done.
Now, I appreciate plenty of people are uncomforatable with that approach. There are ways round it too - a lot of stuff can be justified in game terms if you really want to (the crossbow bolt through the eye thing was justified in terms of a coup de grace action against a stunned foe in the end on the other thread - personally, I couldn't see the point of the torturous rulings for NPC on NPC violence, but others felt differently). But ultimately, it is about your style of play. There is nothing inherently wrong with "handwaving", any more than there is with strict adherence to the rules. They both serve their purpose, and it is really about the degree of tolerance one has for stuff which is not obviously possible in the rules. Some people obsess about it, others don't care, and both are right.
|
|
On the flip side from a game basis, having Grazzt only able to teleport short distances deals with one of the things which does bother me about the old demon ability to teleport about at will - they are very hard to kill as a result if they decide to flee.
In older editions "Dimensional Anchor" took care of this.