| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
 Posted - 31 Mar 2012 : 17:32:31
|
I put myself into lurking-thinking mode for quite a while, because I wanted to figure out a way to possibly rekindle the spark of passion that some FR fans lost with the changes of 4E. It seemed to me that for the people who deeply loved the Realms but felt betrayed, it was more than just a dislike (or even hate) of the changes themselves. Whether it was the spellplague, or the time jump, or any of the other changes, it was more than just that.
So for those grognards, and I'd name myself and my friends among that number, what can we do to heal the rift? Is there anything? Softening the changes do not seem enough, and glossing over the period probably won't address their issues with WotC.
But I think I have an idea, and I'd like your input. I think at this point, it's pretty clear there won't be a reboot (at least not for 5E) and there won't be major retconning of the 4E changes. Taking Erik Scott de Bie's "One Realms..." thread for fixes seems appropriate to me, but I think there also needs to be something more. We need to bring back one element that I feel was even missing in the Neverwinter Campaign Guide, but was -very- present in 1E, 2E, and 3E. We need our "heroic examples" and good-aligned allies/touchstones back.
What do I mean by this? Well, in every iteration of the Realms -except- for 4E, we have a smattering of good-aligned and positive role model NPCs that our players can ally with, NPCs to remind them that the world is not filled with only the morally gray and evil, or wacky dragon-people and weird racial types. I'm -not- talking about having the "big names" statted and ever-present. I mean that we need back those wandering good NPCs that aren't world-shattering. We need morally good and true NPCs who try their best, who might sometimes be higher level than the players, and exist in the world to show two important things:
1) you are not alone in the fight for goodness and justice.
2) you're not necessarily "the pinnacle" at all times.
These NPCs are busy, remember. They have their own lives and their own goals and duties, just like Elminster and Drizzt. They are not there to overshadow the players, but they are there to serve as touchstones and to add flavor to the world.
In 4E, these NPCs are absent. Bringing them back, I think, would be a BIG step in the right direction, regardless of any setting changes that are made to soften or "fix" the spellplague or other 4E problems.
Now I know that a big complaint of those who had issues with the setting during the 2E-3E period was that there were "too many archmages in every small village" and the like. But think about it for a moment: wasn't this a KEY feature of the Forgotten Realms? It added flavor, and potential teachers, allies, friends for our players, and thereby didn't restrict NPCs to those who were untrustworthy, probably evil, or questionable in the extreme. Greenwood's home campaign -always- had higher level NPCs wandering randomly, because the players were always to be reminded that "there's always someone more powerful out there."
Beyond everything else that could be "fixed", if this one thing could be re-introduced to the setting, honestly I think I could find a way to accept the 4E changes as being a part of history. That said, I do think that we'd also need the softening/fixing that Erik Scott de Bie is suggesting as well.
Thoughts? Opinions?
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
Eladrinstar
Learned Scribe
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2012 : 18:39:27
|
| We need normal, good, everyday people. Some players are like "but I want my PC to be the hero," and I don't get the complaint. Of course the PCs are the hero of whatever campaign they are in, but why do they need to be the heroes of the entire setting? FR has always been a big setting, and the PCs have always been just a part of that. There is a reason that anytime some adventure hook is filled by the events of a novel, the sourcebooks often vaguely describe the aftermath as "a group of adventurers did X." That reason is so your PCs can come in and still do that adventure! And if you do want your PCs to be the heroes of the setting, then your DM can do that! But don't force FR to become like (and I do really like the setting I'm about to namedrop but hate this aspect of it) Eberron where NPCs of level 10+ are rare as diamonds. |
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2012 : 19:04:46
|
I think your right as far as illustrating "good" NPCs in the Realms. There need to be more moral compasses to draw strength and ideas from. But I hope they don't tie mechanical representations to them with the ruleset. The main problem I think people had wasn't that there were NPCs that were overshadowing, but high level NPCs that were overshadowing PCs.
What needs to happen is for these characters to be highly described but without levels and stats. Detail them with physical descriptions, hopes, dreams, plans (or plots), and their role in the Realms. NOT what levels they are, how many HPs they have, or what magical items they have. What this does is not limit the campaign to a specific ruleset and allow DMs free reign on this aspect of the setting. |
Edited by - Diffan on 31 Mar 2012 19:07:29 |
|
|
|
Thieran
Learned Scribe
Germany
293 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2012 : 19:08:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I think your right as far as illustrating "good" NPCs in the Realms. There need to be more moral compasses to draw strength and ideas from. But I hope they don't tie mechanical representations to them with the ruleset. The main problem I think people had wasn't that there were NPCs that were overshadowing, but high level NPCs that were overshadowing PCs.
What needs to happen is for these characters to be highly described but without levels and stats. Detail them with physical descriptions, hopes, dreams, plans (or plots), and their role in the Realms. NOT what levels they are, how many HPs they have, or what magical items they have. What this does is not limit the campaign to a specific ruleset and allow DMs free reign on this aspect of the setting.
Good point, Diffan! |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2012 : 21:10:28
|
| Welcome back Therise! |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7974 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2012 : 23:12:16
|
Well - all my opinion -
Darth Vader was a more profound influence on me than Superman in my formative years, and heroic archetypes were never a staple in my AD&D (1E) or later gaming. Good is dumb, yes? Of course it's true that the heroes usually defeated the villains, good prevailed against evil, that sort of stuff. But over time the heroes at my table got a lot dirtier, these days the PCs cover a palette of dark neutrals, classic PC paladins are virtually nonexistent, they live in a more dystopian version of the Realms where every hero in the story is the villain of another story. I much prefer my Batman dark and serious, not styled by Adam West, and even Batman gets a little tiresome when he's not out hunting and killing bad things in the darkness.
Maybe I'm out of line for saying this, but D&D as a product line just needs to grow up. The average "ages 10 and up" audience of 2012 is exposed to video games, internet, TV, and books/comics which routinely contain sophistications and atrocities quite unlike anything 1970s-80s Basic D&D would ever dare conceive or print. Wizbro should abandon their parental role and focus on their game designing role. I was mildly disappointed at how "tame" the Book of Vile Darkness content turned out (especially after all the excitement and controversy over the warning label), I'd read plenty of OGL items (even Ravenloft items!) which were far more malevolent and unspeakable ... and yet I never got confused about reality or started a postal shooting rampage or attempted suicide, I never knew anybody who couldn't "handle" the game for what it is. One of my largest issues with newer D&D products, at least the "core" products, is that they quite deliberately tone things down to patient and childish explanations about right and wrong - not interested, thanks, I can figure that stuff out on my own, I can even explain it to childish and confused young players who don't already understand the differences (if any such players or differences actually exist in today's world).
Tabletop RPGs are competing directly against MMORPGs, not to mention stuff like Final Fantasy and countless other CRPGs available on every platform (when they're not running brutal 1st person war shooters). Even the youngest players are already quite sophisticated in understanding what heroes and villains are all about; and though they might kill hordes of "evil" things in a game, they're still pretty well grounded in moral principles ... the rare few who wobble violently off balance already have serious problems far beyond the scope of D&D to address, no need to fluff up every product with pages of soothing words nobody else really wants to read or buy. Gimme ten more pages of critical hit tables over ten more pages of "What is evil?" any day! |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 01 Apr 2012 00:30:05 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2012 : 00:04:09
|
I had a lot here, both before and after the following paragraph (which I left), but I figure I've said it all before, and in time, 5e will be released, and it is what it is, and then we will all see if their plans worked. Talking about it is kinda pointless, IMHO.
Have you ever seen Restaurant Nightmares? I love it when Chef Ramsey realizes the guys in charge are in denial, and he says. "Wake up! Your food SUCKS!" Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. 
Part of the original post -
There were LOTS of things they did wrong with 4e - I think killing off nearly all the heroic archtypes (and all the strong female characters) in the FRCG was just one minor thing, in light of the over-all changes. I do not think bringing them back would fix anything.
Obviously, the part that was on-topic.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 01 Apr 2012 00:05:14 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7974 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2012 : 00:20:37
|
| Heh, true, I veered a bit off-topic. But I rant so rarely, I wanna be cool too! |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2012 : 00:21:52
|
Re NPC more like this?
Alok Silverspear; Azala; Brandon 'Battlemaster'; Neiron & Neiroon 'the schemer'; Elegul Another, Catlindra Serpentar; Emrock Uerngulphim; Aluar Zendos; Bamaal Dunster; Flambos Axemaster; Mistmyr Iroan and Mestrel Hawkmantle
If so, then you have a resounding YES from me, more folks with dreams and schemes and no more 1/2 page+ stat blocks listing every last skill point and masterwork bohemian ear-spoon.... just tell me what they are like and what they want to do and leave their stats description at:
ALOK SILVERSPEAR CG EF F5 (if they have to add something else then just note the high stats: ST 16, Int 17)
Of course I know this will never happen and they will fill up at least half the book with crunch (that is not really required in my opinion as we do actually have imagination and can make up the crunch as we need to.)
Cheers
Damian |
So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7974 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2012 : 00:37:38
|
| I doubt abbreviated stats will ever see much use again; even random encounter lawn trash is usually detailed down to every masterwork shoelace and keen adamantium toenail clipper. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2012 : 00:52:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by entreri3478
Welcome back Therise!
Thanks! 
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2012 : 00:59:39
|
Part of the "thing" I'm going for here is that the old Realms, well... it felt like it was as realistic as it could be, given all the magic and monsters and such. There was a verisimilitude that, in part, was brought about by the wide range of levels and alignments for NPCs.
What I didn't like, at all, about 4E was the near-total absence of good-aligned and higher level NPCs. If there were characters with higher levels than the players, they were invariably enemies. That's very "theater" (or outright cheesy) world-building. In fact, the entire deal with 4E is (it seems to me, anyway) that the players are "stars" in some kind of show with dark nasty demonic evils and treacherous gray morality types that twirl their mustaches, rather than taking the original approach of wide variety and realism (such as it was).
Without those good-aligned and higher level teachers/mentors/etc, the world has lost half of its spice. If I'm going to invest in a 5E, then I want that back!
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3738 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2012 : 16:30:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
What needs to happen is for these characters to be highly described but without levels and stats. Detail them with physical descriptions, hopes, dreams, plans (or plots), and their role in the Realms. NOT what levels they are, how many HPs they have, or what magical items they have. What this does is not limit the campaign to a specific ruleset and allow DMs free reign on this aspect of the setting.
-While I agree, I don't think this will be happening. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2012 : 17:08:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I doubt abbreviated stats will ever see much use again; even random encounter lawn trash is usually detailed down to every masterwork shoelace and keen adamantium toenail clipper.
But detailing all the uber-NPCs is what got them in so much trouble. Calling Khelben or Elminster a '35th level magic-user (MU)' not only leaves the door wide-open for DMs, it also allows for the character to be tweaked as future products come out (how many threads were devoted to re-thinking the FR-iconics, every time we got a splat with more PrCs?), AND gives authors far more freedom when writing (because the characters rarely behave in accordance to their 'official' stats). How many threads (mostly at WotC) were devoted to questions like, "How does Szass Tam cast 17 fireballs in a row?" You write him up as a '35th level lich', and then the simple answer is, "YOU figure it out, genius".
The moment you detail one of the DMPCs (the uber-NPCs), you have relegated them to the status of 'threat' and 'monster'. Every single encounter doesn't have to be about conflict, and if you have no conflict, you don't need stats. If someone decides to attack Elminster in one of my games, I don't need rules - I just say he waves his hand and everyone freezes - I don't need to explain anything to my players. Then he admonishes them for being fools and teleports them someplace FAR away. All official stats do is give the players a tool to use against the DMs, and thats not how D&D is supposed to be played.
5e claims to want to put the power back into the DMs hands, and thats GREAT, and using very abbreviated stats is a damn good start to that end. I think the internet has given way too much entitlement to gamers, and they actually expect to know EVERYTHING about the threats they are facing, and I think this new generation is missing out on so much. Where is the challenge if I can look up exactly how to beat Ganondorf (Zelda)? My kids beat a $55 game in about a day and half. I remember it taking me over a month of constant play to beat A Link to the Past. I think knowing too much robs people of the entertainment value of a game (especially a P&P RPG).
As FR fans, we want more detail, but NOT more crunchy detail. I don't need Khelben's spell-list - there are plenty of fan-sites that can make those up until the end of time. As far as I'm concerned, he has whatever spell I need him to have to move the game along... as it should be. He's a tool (in every sense of the word), not a damn encounter! Even MORPGs have NPCs you can't attack (although I found you can kill their horse, and piss everyone off.. don't try that in WoW...)
In other words, stop trying to turn D&D into advanced Heroscape - let D&D be D&D again. As for FR, produce fluff-only (or 95% fluff) sourcebooks, and its pure win. Then people who don't use the 5e rules can still use the setting books. FR was changed (in 4e) so that all D&D players could use it, but it should have gone the other direction - make it a setting that everyone can use, because of its rich detail, regardless of rules. If some people aren't happy with that, who cares? Its their loss.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 02 Apr 2012 04:12:26 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7974 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2012 : 18:57:24
|
Encourage the DM to be self-reliant, to imagine and improvise? To turn to non-canon sources on the internet or, gasp, visit that weird scholarly place known as the public library? Conflict of interest my friend, D&D has been refining the DM-in-a-box (DINAB) methodology from 2E onwards ... I sincerely hope this paradigm changes in 5E, but I'd be foolish to expect it. Gone are the days of Gygax's original D&D Afterward [sic].
No more unofficial DM apprenticeship as it was done in early times, now the players pick up D&D only when WoW or MW3 is turned off, and they *expect* books and strategy guides and websites to explicitly provide every answer needed to win the game, find all the secret rewards, detail the perfect character. No more players actually thinking for themselves, now they have blind faith that other players will win the game for them, that the DM will throw entertainment at them without actually killing anybody off. Death isn't supposed to happen, at least not accidental pointless stupid death, it must be an epic death worthy of being sung by the bards and written in the sagas, yes? I mean, seriously, I see posts all the time where people suggest using a monster that's somehow "sick or weak or hurt" so lower-level PCs can handle it ... but why should a party get the glory of killing the giant without actually earning their levels and kobold-punting badges first? If your party isn't strong enough to fight the giant then find other ways to solve the problem, or just run away! The game isn't all about racing to level 20+, but most players introduced through later D&D editions just seem to have lost focus on everything else. I suppose I shouldn't expect any different when fewer than 2% of the players enjoy the risks and rewards of Hardcore or PvP playstyles, I suppose I can't blame Wizbro for looking towards the mainstream 98% when deciding how to design their revenue waterwheels, avert death and smooth out any obstacles which impede accumulation of power and progress.
Yet, who knows? 5E could be a fine example of the dragon eating its own tail, new D&D is constantly influenced by things evolved across other things created by the influences of old D&D. I'm just hoping that older incarnations of the game (by which I mean the gameplay as much as the game books) are a real part of that influence, that Wizbro is able to deliver 5E in a way which doesn't just publish "Official DM Strategy Guides/FAQs" that basically continue to treat (and encourage the players to treat) D&D as an offline MMORPG. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 01 Apr 2012 20:04:45 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2012 : 22:41:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Part of the "thing" I'm going for here is that the old Realms, well... it felt like it was as realistic as it could be, given all the magic and monsters and such. There was a verisimilitude that, in part, was brought about by the wide range of levels and alignments for NPCs.
What I didn't like, at all, about 4E was the near-total absence of good-aligned and higher level NPCs. If there were characters with higher levels than the players, they were invariably enemies. That's very "theater" (or outright cheesy) world-building. In fact, the entire deal with 4E is (it seems to me, anyway) that the players are "stars" in some kind of show with dark nasty demonic evils and treacherous gray morality types that twirl their mustaches, rather than taking the original approach of wide variety and realism (such as it was).
Without those good-aligned and higher level teachers/mentors/etc, the world has lost half of its spice. If I'm going to invest in a 5E, then I want that back!
While I don't disagree with you, I wonder if labelling them with numerical levels is really required? We know that Elminster is a mighty wizard, sage extraordinaire, and chosen of Mystra but is it really needed to have Wiz 20/ Acm 10/ Epic 5/ Rog 4/-yadda yadda? I guess this sort of mechanical analysis breaks verisimilitude for me because in "reality", people don't have levels, stats, or classes. They have professions or traits or knacks or what-have you. Instead, couldn't it be decribed a little more generic? Like Markustay touched upon, I'd rather have a more ambiguous description of an NPC than one with clearly defined stats of a specific set of rules.
I also feel this is important in helping Players and DMs stay with continunity of the Realms for their home games as well. For example, if Lord Lothar (random name) is described as the uncontested ruler of Flaridon (random city), a peace-keeping crusader of justice and valor. One who's ideals are beneficial to the public and who is pure of heart, then in my 4E game he might be a Knight (Fighter sub-class) from the Heroes of the Fallen Lands supplement. But in your 2E game, he's a Fighter|Cleric dual-class, and in Markustay's v3.5 Game he's a Crusader from the Tome of Battle then we're all "right" because his description is loose enought to encompass all the rules described above.
I just think that they shouldn't pigeonhole any particular NPC into a specific ruleset because it forces the Realms to only be a sub-set of Dungeons and Dragons. And I think WotC should understand that people "outside" of Dungeons and Dragons enjoy their products too, thus making supplements that are other-rules inclusive bring them in money just as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Encourage the DM to be self-reliant, to imagine and improvise? To turn to non-canon sources on the internet or, gasp, visit that weird scholarly place known as the public library? Conflict of interest my friend, D&D has been refining the DM-in-a-box (DINAB) methodology from 2E onwards ... I sincerely hope this paradigm changes in 5E, but I'd be foolish to expect it. Gone are the days of Gygax's original D&D Afterward [sic].
I can't say that I'm not happy to see those days gone really. Perhaps it's because I have the luxury of gaming with my close friends that I've been blind to the changes in paradigm of what the DMs role is and how he's to facilitate his games? But from reading the DMG of 3e, v3.5, and 4th edition I think most (over 90%) of the ideas, tips, and encouraging statements written in them are good. They've made me a better DM. For example, in the 4E DMG it says that saying "No" shouldn't be done light-handedly. I think this might be a paradigm shift that you mentioned, because in older days of D&D (from pre-3E for myself) when I asked for DM clarification or wanted to use a new book, class, spell, whatever most times it was "No". After asking why, the response was generally "Because it's broken. Because I said so. Because I don't want to bother reading those rules." While he's perfectly within his right to say that, I think those specific reasons are utter garbage. If a DM says "No" to something, I feel they should at least have a vaild argument that explains why.
But I do agree with you that the Afterward aspect of the game is in dire need to come back. Mainly because of the consistant Errata we received with 4E (and late v3.5). I understand they want to make a balanced game but it gets to the point where a player might always be second guessing themselves and feel the consistant need to reference rules that just bogs down games.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
No more unofficial DM apprenticeship as it was done in early times, now the players pick up D&D only when WoW or MW3 is turned off, and they *expect* books and strategy guides and websites to explicitly provide every answer needed to win the game, find all the secret rewards, detail the perfect character. No more players actually thinking for themselves, now they have blind faith that other players will win the game for them, that the DM will throw entertainment at them without actually killing anybody off. Death isn't supposed to happen, at least not accidental pointless stupid death, it must be an epic death worthy of being sung by the bards and written in the sagas, yes? I mean, seriously, I see posts all the time where people suggest using a monster that's somehow "sick or weak or hurt" so lower-level PCs can handle it ... but why should a party get the glory of killing the giant without actually earning their levels and kobold-punting badges first? If your party isn't strong enough to fight the giant then find other ways to solve the problem, or just run away! The game isn't all about racing to level 20+, but most players introduced through later D&D editions just seem to have lost focus on everything else. I suppose I shouldn't expect any different when fewer than 2% of the players enjoy the risks and rewards of Hardcore or PvP playstyles, I suppose I can't blame Wizbro for looking towards the mainstream 98% when deciding how to design their revenue waterwheels, avert death and smooth out any obstacles which impede accumulation of power and progress.
Since I recently replied to a thread requesting ideas for 1st-level encounters (3rd edition) with a recommendation to throw an Owlbear at them (a Challenge Rating 4) but possibly "softening" it up a bit with only 3/4 of it's normal hit points and a -1 to it's attacks and said it was "sick", I feel this quote was directly related to that. So let me elaborate:
- Without knowing the party make-up (class, # of members, misc. info) it's hard to mitigate the encounter to be fun, exciting, challenging, yet not a complete TPK (that means total party kill) based just on the numbers.
- It appeard that the DM wanted something difficult, but nothing that would end the adventure right then and there. Instead of always going up against goblins, kobolds, rat swarms, and the usual chaff that tend to make up low-level encounters, I had hope to suggest something unique or more fun. Something visually scary and not as mundane as silly kobolds.
- It's pretty darn annyoing to take 45 min (or more) creating an interesting character with a strong backstory and a great hook for the adventure and then killing them off in the first 20 minutes of play. Does this mean that death doesn't happen? No. Does this mean that you take it easy on your Players? No (not unless you feel they would react pretty negatively and quit coming after a 1st-level TPK). But it does mean understanding how the Challenge Rating rules work and how to create encounters that are tough and possibly fatal without always resorting to instead-death. It does take a bit of finesse to understand the adventuring party and their common tactics, hence why the "lesser" Owlbear.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Yet, who knows? 5E could be a fine example of the dragon eating its own tail, new D&D is constantly influenced by things evolved across other things created by the influences of old D&D. I'm just hoping that older incarnations of the game (by which I mean the gameplay as much as the game books) are a real part of that influence, that Wizbro is able to deliver 5E in a way which doesn't just publish "Official DM Strategy Guides/FAQs" that basically continue to treat (and encourage the players to treat) D&D as an offline MMORPG.
By no means is anyone forced to use Strategy guides (is there such a thing?), Character Optimization forums, or newly presented monthy Errata. Perhaps it's encouraged at Cons, Encounters, and Lair Assaults that are common at Malls and other open-forum places where D&D is played together with Strangers but that's only because your possibly not playing with your friends and games should be more straight-edge and not a "One DM-Fiat to Rule Them All" approach that's completley different than the next Mall or open-forum. If that were the case, then I feel there would be far less of these gatherings going on (and less gaming is generally considered a bad thing). And while I find the constant Errata excessive and annying (espically when they change it on the Character Builder), I understand why it's there. What they need to do is make the rules right the first time and stand by those decisions. Yes, it might make for more un-balanced games and yes combinations could "break" the game but that will happen regardless. They need to understand the consistant Errata isn't worth the effect it garners in most casual gamers.
P.S.- Sorry to Therise if this derailed abit from the original topic. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3738 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2012 : 23:35:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
But detailing all the uber-NPCs is what got them in so much trouble...
...
As FR fans, we want more detail, but NOT more crunchy detail.
-Keep in mind, though, it was the general, collective 'will of the people' that prompted WotC to start detailing select NPCs. Even still, how often do we see people asking about stats for so-and-so unstatted NPCs, or updated stats for statted NPCs? People want stats, for good or for bad.
-Generally speaking, I want stats. I want to know that Ioulaum is a 41st Level Undead Elderbrain Wizard. I don't need to know things like what spells he has memorized at any given time, or what items he carries around on his person, or even what his ability scores are. A simple "Character name, race, level" is good enough for me. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7974 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 00:48:33
|
quote:
Diffan
P.S.- Sorry to Therise if this derailed abit from the original topic.
Bear in mind that my criticisms were aimed somewhat vaguely at today's gaming culture in general, you can't at all fault game makers from following the expectations of their markets. We used to half-invent the rules while we went along just figuring out how to play D&D, making up new magics on the fly or some simple rules for a PC's new laser pistol were common features of that era. These days I see people almost paralyzed about making decisions that aren't explicitly covered in the rulebooks; should I use this rule or that rule, is this item too powerful, what level should this spell be, etc. Yes, forums like Candlekeep serve the purpose of letting us run some sanity checks and smoketests on our ideas, fine tweaking balances with some feedback and insights from other (perhaps wiser) players and fans, I've done it myself. It just seems like the natural enjoyment, wonder, and excitement of D&D has (in the absence of OFFICIAL CORPORATE CANON RULES) been replaced with an ingrained sense of apprehension and uncertainty. Many DMs and players are no longer confident they're playing the game "right" unless they emulate already published heroes, and Wizbro has (in past D&D editions) created a dependency by pushing books serving as the only authority with "all the right answers".
Diffan - although the advice you gave about a weakened owlbear wasn't specifically what I had in mind, it's an excellent example for what I was trying to say. Old-school play dictated that if the monster was too tough you ran away, maybe you came back later with more firepower, henchmen, and higher levels. There was an implicit understanding that life (even fantasy life) wasn't always fair, the DM wasn't necessarily antagonistic but he would rarely seek advice, stretch rules, or weaken adversaries for the specific purpose of making sure the PCs always had good odds of winning their fights. Yes, PCs died often (too often), if they depended on the impartial DM (or his books) being a source of better judgement. Smarter PCs, with better odds of survival, usually play smarter D&D, often they conceive tricks the DM (and the books) never expected.
Perhaps I'm being overcritical, since although I am acutely aware of what D&D has lost, I'm not truly able to appreciate what D&D has gained. The real question is what percentage of Wizbro's market is composed of grognards like me, and what percentage of pages in their new products should be allocated towards appealing to our classical sensibilities? If we are too minor, from a business viewpoint, then it's only smart business to ignore us in favour of the new majority. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 02 Apr 2012 01:11:50 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 01:28:27
|
Okay, wow.
Tangent city, so many different things to reply...
First, I want to re-emphasize that the NPCs I want back are -not- necessarily the big novel stars. I'm referring to new, everyday citizens of the Realms. And I don't want weird loopholes or magical longevity... I think we need brand new NPCs. If you want a Harpell, create new descendents of Malchor. But on the whole, just create new NPCs to fill various city (or town) roles... potential tutors, trainers, even small local touchstones.
Make them good, fairly trustworthy, neighborly. Give me reasons to visit the good folk of a region, not just a set of factions that hate each other and jockey for "biggest bad" position. Have villains and baddies, but balance it better.
DMPCs and absolutely needing detailed stats, those are other problems really. But yes, if you are running a level 7-9 adventure, DO makes some of the good NPCs higher level. It's necessary for story purposes. Any good DM can modify to fit their unique needs, but YES at least list levels.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 02 Apr 2012 01:30:58 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 06:00:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
While I don't disagree with you, I wonder if labelling them with numerical levels is really required? We know that Elminster is a mighty wizard, sage extraordinaire, and chosen of Mystra but is it really needed to have Wiz 20/ Acm 10/ Epic 5/ Rog 4/-yadda yadda?
I've been really mulling this over for a few hours, because I wanted to come back and address this point Diffan made.
I think the answer is "yes" for a couple of reasons. Way back in the misty dawn of 1E D&D (heck, even pre-1E), players started deciding that they wanted more openness of stats and records. Originally, the intent by Gygax et al was that only the DM would ever actually see things like stat blocks (remember DM screens?). And it made sense to think this way early on, because the DM's job was sometimes to fudge behind the DM screen in ways that were appropriate for game play (either for or against players).
But players, crafty and sneaky and desirous of having metaknowledge (like all people really and truly want to have), started buying modules and seeing the "secret DM-eyes-only" stat blocks and other information. Sure, they were ruining themselves, but let's be honest... who among us, in the press to obtain swag for our characters, hasn't once used a bit of metaknowledge to gain a little advantage. It didn't hurt gaming companies financially, either, that players started buying modules meant for DM-eyes-only. So modules started to change, many adventures in Dungeon magazine were "meant" for DMs, but everyone kind of winked and knew that players were subscribers as well.
Along come 2E and 3E and we get increasing control of the game in players' hands and less in the DM's. The idea was to be fair, especially when it came to gaming conventions, and the rules became more specific and codified as a result. Instead of the "module" being the major source of information, it becomes the splatbook or regional sourcebook. DMs and players alike buy them, and all is an open book, really. The process of D&D wasn't controlled by the DM anymore.
Anyway, that whole long story in mind, both players and DMs today still generally want to know - at the very least - relative power levels of their characters compared with everything in the game. That includes friendly NPCs, monsters common and rare, even the flumphs and flail snails that you'll never, ever see. It's probably the #1 expectation of players and DMs to buy sourcebooks and want to see this kind of information. It gives people a basis for understanding power of groups and individuals, which is particularly important in the ongoing story of the Realms.
Now, excellent old-style DMs and those with exceptional skill, they may want (and often prefer) something more vague that they can modify and tweak at will. But the vast majority of players and DMs, they want all the secrets laid open, whether they deny it or not. So I think ultimately, the game (and players/DMs) have evolved and pushed the game into having these kinds of expectations.
It's not to everyone's tastes, obviously. But if most customers expect it, they're going to put in stat blocks.
Do you need them? Do I need them? No, not really. But at the end of the day, even I like to know (for flavor and story) what the relative power level for a given NPC is, compared to my players (or my own characters).
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 02 Apr 2012 06:41:51 |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 08:37:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Anyway, that whole long story in mind, players today still generally want to know - at the very least - relative power levels of their characters compared with everything in the game.
I will disagree with you on this one, as a player I have no wish to know how powerful a 'Realms Named' NPC is or what a monster can do. I want to be challenged and use my skill to figure things out and be amazed and wowed and to for it to be a fantastic experience and remind me of my first experience of D&D was some 30 odd years ago when 2 skeletons came wandering around the corner in the dungeon and I didn't have a clue what to do or what they did.
Lets bring back the magic and sense of wonder to the game.
I am perhaps fortunate on this as I run Castles and Crusades and haven't ran a 3e adventure for 10 years now, so when I do get to play (very infrequently) it is always 3.5 so the wonder of the NPC's and monsters is there for me.
Cheers
Damian |
So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 14:14:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Anyway, that whole long story in mind, players today still generally want to know - at the very least - relative power levels of their characters compared with everything in the game.
I will disagree with you on this one, as a player I have no wish to know how powerful a 'Realms Named' NPC is or what a monster can do. I want to be challenged and use my skill to figure things out and be amazed and wowed and want it to be a fantastic experience and remind me of my first experience of D&D was some 30 odd years ago when 2 skeletons came wandering around the corner in the dungeon and I didn't have a clue what to do or what they did.
Lets bring back the magic and sense of wonder to the game.
I am perhaps fortunate on this as I run Castles and Crusades and haven't ran a 3e adventure for 10 years now, so when I do get to play (very infrequently) it is always 3.5 so the wonder of the NPC's and monsters is there for me.
Cheers
Damian
Actually, I think you're agreeing with me completely - let me explain why. You're like me, you're an "old-style" gamer. You may have grown up with 1E and deeply enjoy that style of DMing and play. But even if you didn't enter D&D at that time, you prefer the "players don't know" style of that era. You're not the typical "player of today," you're one of the old guard. (IMO, that's a good thing).
The old style had a DM who held the keys to the universe. If something needed to be tweaked on the fly, they did so. Often without telling the players, because the unfolding story was paramount. Players rising to the challenges of the unknown, trying things out and never knowing their actual chances of success, that's old-style. But this also takes an exceptional DM with skills in storytelling (not just rules know-how), and unfortunately there hasn't been a lot from WotC (or TSR) for DM training.
In the new, current style, which is most prevalent in 3E, the DM is not the ultimate master of the game. He or she is more like an arbiter to make sure the rules are applied as written. It's "open book" such that players tend to know their chances of success with various monsters. And generally, encounter-style play is what's "big" at the moment.
DMs in either the new or old style, they needed to know relative power levels. Players who prefer old style play don't want to know, they want the universe to be DM controlled. Players who like the new style, and this is the prevalent style preferred by most customers today, they want to know "all the deets" (or details).
I'm not saying one style is better than another. It's a matter of personal preference. But I will say, companies that want to sell lots of product to players - they will tend to advocate the "open book" newer style, because it's not "forbidden" for players to know (and own) splatbooks and sourcebooks with tons of stat blocks.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 02 Apr 2012 14:30:01 |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 14:27:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
It's "open book" such that players tend to know their chances of success with various monsters. And generally, encounter-style play is what's "big" at the moment.
Aye spot on there and as you have already guessed its not something I am a fan of. I do think its important that players have an understanding of the rules of the game e.g how to play their character choice, how combat works, how saves work etc. But I am at a loss to understand why a player needs to know how many HD the half fiendish/half celestial legendary dire flumph with the lycanthropic template and 6 levels of rogue has and what its attacks are and what prestige class it qualifies for given its skill and feat selection etc. Surely this is where the rules should be for DM's only rather than in the splat books aimed at players?
Cheers
Damian
ps to keep this on topic! If D&D Next went back to basics for the Forgotten Realms and gave us usable NPC's and a few background villains and kept the setting stable and didn't allow writers to blow it up every second year then I would welcome the opportunity to buy some decent books from them. So please no more RSE, no more of the my chosen is better than your chosen, no more my bad guy group is more powerful than your bad guy group. Just give us a great setting to which we can build and add to with enough detail that a DM can run it straight off but enough wriggle room to fit their and their players actions into the setting without feeling constrained by a rule-set that escalates out of control with every new release and seems to diminish what has gone before. |
So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005 |
Edited by - crazedventurers on 02 Apr 2012 14:34:45 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 14:48:06
|
Simply saying someone is a "15th level Mage" isn't enough of a power-compass to gauge by?
I don't see why we need more then that. As a DM, I have a pretty good idea what a 15th level mage should be able to do - I don't need or want a stat block. All that does is let players "see behind the curtain".
And you made an excellent point about Dungeon magazine Therise - with their new DDi format, everyone is forced to pay for Dungeon with the other material, so of course they are going to read it, making it no longer as useful to the DM (who it is designed for). I think having a separate Dungeon now that it is bundled with Dragon is an assinine notion, IMHO.
Since more players subscribe then DMs (simply because their are more players), we can assume that players now have more knowledge then the DMs about encounters they may have, which has pretty-much change the DMs job from an offensive position to a defensive one. Our monsters and NPCs have gone from predators to prey. Its sad. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 02 Apr 2012 14:52:31 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 15:05:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Simply saying someone is a "15th level Mage" isn't enough of a power-compass to gauge by?
Well, it's more than fine for me, but again I'm in the old school.
quote:
I don't see why we need more then that. As a DM, I have a pretty good idea what a 15th level mage should be able to do - I don't need or want a stat block. All that does is let players "see behind the curtain".
You may be underestimating the laziness of consumers.
Or perhaps it's that many current DMs of today just don't have a ton of time (like us old grognards will put into things, even when we should we working on actual work instead of gaming) and just want quick stat blocks to save time.
quote:
And you made an excellent point about Dungeon magazine Therise - with their new DDi format, everyone is forced to pay for Dungeon with the other material, so of course they are going to read it, making it no longer as useful to the DM (who it is designed for). I think having a separate Dungeon now that it is bundled with Dragon is an assinine notion, IMHO.
Since more players subscribe then DMs (simply because their are more players), we can assume that players now have more knowledge then the DMs about encounters they may have, which has pretty-much change the DMs job from an offensive position to a defensive one. Our monsters and NPCs have gone from predators to prey. Its sad.
Well... there is that. But taking a much longer view here, I know that I always treated Dungeon magazine as a consumer, not a practical user. I would mine it for ideas, but it was mostly something I subscribed to out of interest rather than for actual use. I have every paper-published issue, and honestly I think I ran two adventures out of it in all that time.
And that's NOT a statement reflecting on Dungeon's quality. It had ups and downs, but I loved that magazine and always thought the adventures were excellent. But I never used them, and the other DMs in my group (who DMed more than me, actually) didn't use them that way either. I think Dungeon (and Dragon) have always pretty much been consumed by most subscribers rather than "used" in the way they were "intended" from launch.
I don't think that this is any big kind of secret, really. But I think it's an unspoken truth about the way Dungeon and Dragon were marketed to players. Because, face it, if ONLY the DMs of the world were subscribers, they would have failed early on. And that's a LONG history of "players really having free access to DM-only materials", but it serves the company to wink-wink and pretend it's not happening, because when sales are high then all is well with the overall product line.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 04:58:17
|
I find myself mostly in agreement with most of what has already been posted; especially with Therise, Diffan, and Ayrik. However, I want to add a few things not touched upon.
First, I agree that the Realms needs NPC's that the PC's can reasonably ally with. Second, I agree that it's better to leave NPC's without a stat block and leave things up to the DM's.
Example: Lord Halthorn rules the Barony of XYZ. He's a man with a warriors heart, always itching for battle. Most consider him a brute, and as such he isn't in high favor at the court. However, all know him to be a man of honor who always strives to keep his word. He's not a man of deception, he speaks plainly and honestly; displays great loyalty and expects loyalty from others in return. When not muttering about being called to appear in Court; he's known to ride through his Barony solving disputes as best he is able and keeping a close eye on his vassals. When not called to duty, he enjoys heavy drinking with a select group of knights and other friends as they swap old battle stories.
Now, do I need to know that Lord Halthorn is a level 5 Fighter? No. Do my players need to know that he has the X feat or power? No. The above is all that I need to know about Lord Halthorn, and I can either slap some template on him, file the name off another NPC and paste his name on it, or create him from scratch to fill whatever role is necessary. Maybe my Lord Halthorn is a Knight and not a Fighter. Hell, with the information above I could even say that he is a former Crusader of Helm or something.
I argue this for two reasons. First, when levels and classes are placed on an NPC they are pigeonholed and stereotyped. They "must" have X ability because it goes with Y class! Second, it taints the players. As Therise pointed out players read the stuff too. What if I wanted to put Lord Halthorn in an adversarial position? The players, even if subconsciously, will metagame the knowledge - especially if he's stated up too powerful for them to beat. Some may even become confrontational. "Hey, you can't throw Lord Halthorn at us! We're only level 2 and he's level 18! It says so right there on page 26!" Third, sometimes you need to make certain NPC's MORE powerful and not LESS powerful and you get the exact opposite effect of the second problem. Players stupidly attack the NPC you've made more challenging for them because they think he's some low level smuck that they can just ignore... only to find out that Lord Halthorn can kick their asses.
Finally, giving me a paragraph like the above is awesome because it gets my imagination going. I have a general idea of who this guy is; my mind is already picturing what he might look like. As I pointed out, I could even toss a bit of backstory on him about being a former Crusader of Helm.
----------------
This brings me back around full circle to something that hasn't been brought up. The problem has less to do with "good aligned" (which I'm reading as: normal, sane, individuals with flaws that players can reasonably trust and align themselves with), and more to do with "evil aligned" NPC's in the Realms.
It seems like that once an alignment - just like a stat block - is slapped on something; immediately they become pigeonholed and stereotyped. This is especially true for NPC's that are meant to be villainous.
They have no redeeming qualities. They are frequently one dimensional. Their goals are also often bordering on the insane or stupid. Wanting to conquer and rule the world is not a goal; it's a sign of insanity.
I would love to see villains in the Realms that had redeeming qualities. My take is that when it comes to characters good and evil is a matter of perspective and goals.
Example: To Lord Halthorn the Bloody Skull Tribe of Goblins are savage monsters. They attack his farmlands, worship evil and cruel gods - possibly even demons - and perhaps worst of all - they are cowards in battle. They never like to stand and fight. Now these disgusting creatures are attempting to lay siege to one of his vassal's Keep. He has to muster his forces to hopefully put an end to their wicked existence once and for all.
To the Goblins Lord Halthorn is a cruel and genocidal Warlord. He frequently rides with his knights to butcher them while they're sleeping, forcing them further and further out of their sacred homeland. They're forced to raid and pillage just to survive. Their cruel and spiteful gods reflect the existence that humanity has forced them into living. Humans are very powerful when compared to goblins; they're out numbered, frequently hungry, and afraid. To make matters worse one of Lord Halthorn's vassal's have stolen a holy relic that they've sworn to protect with their lives. If they don't get it back, they are certain to be cursed and doomed.
Who is right, who is wrong? The answer is both. If you're a human Lord Halthorn is a heroic figure, perhaps someone you might even idolize. If you're a goblin he's a cruel genocidal warlord.
This isn't just a problem for FR - it's a problem for D&D in general. There is this constant desire to wash away moral ambiguity from the setting and game, to make people feel more "heroic" and "good" about - let's face it - frequently committing acts of murder and genocide.
Lord Halthorn can be both a man you can trust implicitly with your life, a great warrior, an honorable man, AND a man who is more than happy to commit genocidal acts. These things are not contradictory.
And of course, it's easy to pick on monsters and use them as an example, because it is most clear and obvious there. "Why are the goblins attacking?" "Um... because they're goblins and evil monsters!"
The same is true for numerous evil organizations and NPC's in the Realms. One of the most immediate examples that has always been burned into my memory is part of the description of the faithful of Iyachtu Xvim from Faith's & Avatars. Quote from page 83: "Xvimlar exult in destruction and in oppressing others and enjoy casually dealing pain. Kicking folk they pass, slamming doors on people, and hurling stones down busy streets at random are not uncommon acts for Xvimlar."
...what the hell? That's always my response when I read that passage. It was these two sentences alone that made me so happy that Xvim died and Bane returned. It's not like Bane is better; of course, it's just that I can't take the faithful of Xvim seriously any longer.
This has, as a general rule, been the depth of evil and depravity in the Realms and D&D in general. It has certainly gotten better over the years as the game and setting has matured. But it's things like this that ruined the Zents as creditable enemies and required the emergance of the Shades.
It's not like good aligned NPC's are any better. Some of them can be just as bad - icons of incorruptible pure-purity-pureness.
This links into the discussion, because to me it isn't so much about a lack of "good" NPC's as it is a lack of interesting NPC's with depth. It's less of an argument about black and white; and more an argument for more grey.
There is nothing wrong with having a Banite Warlord attempting to conquer a neighboring kingdom. All he needs is realistic motivation. Perhaps he has a legitimate claim to the throne.
Who says that this Banite Warlord has to kick puppies and drive spikes through the eyes of infant children for fun? Why can't he be trustworthy, and generally speaking a man of honor?
Let's say the Kingdom itself has fallen into civil war. The king has recently assumed the crown in the past five years; after which things started to get bad. They faced a famine two years ago that the kingdom wasn't prepared for, the finances of the kingdom have been mismanaged, and the king himself is prone to being indecisive in every decision he makes. In short, he's a horrible king. Despite that fact, he genuinely wants to do well by his people. He has a kind and benevolent heart, and loves poetry and music more than battle. He would like nothing more than peace and prosperity for his people, but he lacks the ability to achieve either of those goals. The people he puts his trust in are either as incompetent as him or worse - are hopelessly corrupt, but absolutely necessary and vital to keep around. As a result of his poor rulership, civil war has broken out which the Banite Warlord is now taking advantage of to stake his claim to the throne.
So, as a player you have a choice. You can aid the kind and benevolent king who couldn't lead a man down a straight and narrow hallway. Or you could aid the Warlord; a man who will bring stability to the kingdom, peace and prosperity to its people, but will almost certainly in time - after the Kingdom has grown strong enough - turn his attention to his neighbors and begin a campaign of conquest.
The Banite may be harsh - even merciless - when it comes to dealing with insubordination and traitors, but few could argue that he wouldn't be a good king. Especially compared to who currently holds the crown.
This is what I'd like to see more of in the Realms. Don't throw at me black and white. Throw complexity at me. Give the good guys flaws, and give the bad guys some redeeming qualities. Make the choices difficult and hard, with pro's and con's for all sides.
I like it when players agonize over the decisions they have to make, and constantly worry if they're making the right choices - if they're doing the right thing. That's what a true hero does; they worry about the choices they're making, whether or not things will turn out as good as they hope. No one becomes a hero when there is a giant neon sign that says: "Right decision here! Choose this one if you're good aligned!" Heroes are always forged under pressure, strife, and difficulty. That's what makes them exceptional individuals. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 05:26:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I don't see why we need more then that. As a DM, I have a pretty good idea what a 15th level mage should be able to do - I don't need or want a stat block. All that does is let players "see behind the curtain".
You may be underestimating the laziness of consumers.
Or perhaps it's that many current DMs of today just don't have a ton of time (like us old grognards will put into things, even when we should we working on actual work instead of gaming) and just want quick stat blocks to save time.
As a fan of both 3E and 4E, perhaps I can elaborate a bit. As a player, I don't read all the crunch of Dungeon articles. Sure, I read them because I often DM and I might find that helpful, but even my players who have DDI accounts rarely go into the Dungeon areas because they don't have the time. But lets say they did and read an 1-shot adventure I plan to run, I very much doubt they're going to remember what every monsters had or what powers they were assigned or even what role/level they were. Sure, they may have a basic understand because I tend to run encounters near their level (-2 to +2 in difficulty) but I've never had a player call me out or changing a stat-block or power ability from the text, even if they knew it had changed, they would probably just shrug and move on.
But I'll definitly agree that I'm more a fan of a lenghty description but little crunch for NPCs, such as Lady Moonfire from the 4E's Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide. There, they address her motivations and description and personality but nothing so much about her combat prowess. And the best part is, she could really be anything: a Witch, Warlock, Rogue, hybrid Sorcerer|Ardent who can wild shape into a wolf....and your well within the scope of the character and setting to change that and still remain within Canon  . Curuvar, the Brazen (another 4E FR NPC) is actually called out as a Wizard but with the Arcanist, Mage, Bladesinger, and Witch being all sub-classes....well take your pick. I like that.
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
Example: Lord Halthorn rules the Barony of XYZ. He's a man with a warriors heart, always itching for battle. Most consider him a brute, and as such he isn't in high favor at the court. However, all know him to be a man of honor who always strives to keep his word. He's not a man of deception, he speaks plainly and honestly; displays great loyalty and expects loyalty from others in return. When not muttering about being called to appear in Court; he's known to ride through his Barony solving disputes as best he is able and keeping a close eye on his vassals. When not called to duty, he enjoys heavy drinking with a select group of knights and other friends as they swap old battle stories.
Now, do I need to know that Lord Halthorn is a level 5 Fighter? No. Do my players need to know that he has the X feat or power? No. The above is all that I need to know about Lord Halthorn, and I can either slap some template on him, file the name off another NPC and paste his name on it, or create him from scratch to fill whatever role is necessary. Maybe my Lord Halthorn is a Knight and not a Fighter. Hell, with the information above I could even say that he is a former Crusader of Helm or something.
I argue this for two reasons. First, when levels and classes are placed on an NPC they are pigeonholed and stereotyped. They "must" have X ability because it goes with Y class! Second, it taints the players. As Therise pointed out players read the stuff too. What if I wanted to put Lord Halthorn in an adversarial position? The players, even if subconsciously, will metagame the knowledge - especially if he's stated up too powerful for them to beat. Some may even become confrontational. "Hey, you can't throw Lord Halthorn at us! We're only level 2 and he's level 18! It says so right there on page 26!" Third, sometimes you need to make certain NPC's MORE powerful and not LESS powerful and you get the exact opposite effect of the second problem. Players stupidly attack the NPC you've made more challenging for them because they think he's some low level smuck that they can just ignore... only to find out that Lord Halthorn can kick their asses.
Finally, giving me a paragraph like the above is awesome because it gets my imagination going. I have a general idea of who this guy is; my mind is already picturing what he might look like. As I pointed out, I could even toss a bit of backstory on him about being a former Crusader of Helm.
QFT. I did the exact same thing when my friend DM'ed the Shadowdale: Scouring of the Land adventure. We were wrapping up the decimation of the Zhentaim forces that had unsuccessfully invaded Shadowdale and during the last battle, the PCs go up against none other than Scyllua Darkhope herself and in my mind I went *Ok, levels of blackguard, ranger and possibly paladin so spells, good saves, and the ability to heal herself. Rides a Nightmare and uses fairly enchanted bastardsword with Keen. Oh, and wears awesome armor* just when he said her name. Now, I don't know how much the knowledge I had of her went into how I combated her, but knowing that she was approx a CR 13 (give or take), I could assume that I had about a 30% chance of missing on my melee attacks.
So yea, definitly see where you coming from there. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7974 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 06:48:31
|
quote:
Diffan
... but even my players who have DDI accounts rarely go into the Dungeon areas because they don't have the time. But lets say they did and read an 1-shot adventure I plan to run, I very much doubt they're going to remember what every monsters had or what powers they were assigned or even what role/level they were.
You obviously don't know my players. They have seemingly endless hours to pour into the game, more time than I ever have at any rate. And, when it comes to their D&D passions (along with passions about Monty Python, etc) they have instant, accurate, and enduring eidetic recall - after reading a module they can basically redraw the maps from memory and instantly converge on every exploitable vulnerability or treasure that was written ... months or sometimes years afterwards.
I am forced to take liberties with every module before beginning play. I also mix-and-match elements from multiple modules (plus I insert all sorts of invented homebrew) for variety and complexity. Still, it sometimes becomes evident when they're at least as familiar with an adventure as I am. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
An idea for 5E healing
