Wandering Monsters: Orcs and Gnolls

Wandering Monsters: Orcs and Gnolls
James Wyatt

In a recent Rule-of-Three article, Rodney Thompson talked a little bit about our approach to monster design. That column was well-timed, because we’re starting a big push on monsters right now. The D&D Story Team is leading the charge on this effort for the moment, and this column is a place for us to share what we’re thinking so that we can solicit your input.


Talk about this article here.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

I have no clue, you'd have to ask Maxperson. I'm simply referring to the actual dictionary definition which doesn't say anything about 'stupid'...



That sounds about right, as usual, very good, just doing your usual, I presume (though I hate to assume/preume, people get fired that way)?

Really, really not constructive, please save it,

Now; where were we? 



Look, he clearly implied that other people refer to it as 'stupid'. Other people are his sources. They are wrong by any definition of the word.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Yes it is referred to as stupid or foolish, which it is not.


That's not what you said your point was.  You said he equated the two.  Now you're arguing that there isn't a correlation between the words.  Call me when you learn to write with the clarity that you expect of Maxperson.  Until then, just chillaxe a little.  I mean, look at your history on this thread, lokiare.  Do you really think it's the behavior of someone whose ideas are going to be taken seriously by anybody?  Please.  You appear to be someone who wants his ideas to be considered, but you go off on these rhetorical rampages. 

Stop Hulking out.  Stop being hyperliteral about everything.  People here aren't even agreeing with Maxperson.  They are simply shocked at how utterly tone-deaf you are being.

I don't even think Maxperson agrees with Maxperson.  I think he's just seeing how far he can get you to ramble.  And there's a point where it stops being funny, even in a schadenfeude way, and becomes just very very sad.  I think we hit that point a long time ago.  Please. Just stop.
Please. Just stop.


Seconded.
What's the matter, you dissentious rogues, That rubbing the poor itch of your opinion Make yourselves scabs?
Please. Just stop.


Seconded.




Thirded (new word?), it's getting embarrassing and weird at this point.
Alright, I disagree with Max, and I want you to stop now, Lokiare.


Seriously.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Bravery is often referred to as being stupid or foolish. 



Here you call bravery stupid or foolish...


You may have missed the adverb "often", which means Maxperson was not saying bravery is stupid or foolish.  He was describing correlation not identity.



Yes it is referred to as stupid or foolish, which it is not. I can't help it if they are referencing bad sources...



The definition of foolish does not match up.  Yes, bravery can also be foolish at times, but nowhere in the definitions of bravery or foolish does it mean that when bravery moves into stupidity or foolishness that it stops being bravery.  Stupid and foolish are just qualifiers that get added to bravery at certain times.
Please, stop it.

Sometimes being dareveril is by valiant ones, but other times is too dangerous and stupy. A true warrior must know the difference.

 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius