General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Oh heck yeah. It was one of the prices I paid for running the otherwise-really-cool Arcana Evolved. (The other was trying to figure out how to balance everyone vs. the Magister and Greenbond. High-level casters are a bigger problem in AE than they are in 3.5, even though one of the stated design goals was to make the balance better.)
Step 1 to weaning myself off manually calculating huge statblocks was keeping close to "Normal" 3.5 for my Wilderlands campaign. Close enough, specifically, that I could use HeroForge and MonsterForge to 'quickly' stat up anything I needed to.
Step 2 was basically abandoning 3.5 for SWSE and WFRP2.
Oh heck yeah. It was one of the prices I paid for running the otherwise-really-cool Arcana Evolved. (The other was trying to figure out how to balance everyone vs. the Magister and Greenbond. High-level casters are a bigger problem in AE than they are in 3.5, even though one of the stated design goals was to make the balance better.)
Step 1 to weaning myself off manually calculating huge statblocks was keeping close to "Normal" 3.5 for my Wilderlands campaign. Close enough, specifically, that I could use HeroForge and MonsterForge to 'quickly' stat up anything I needed to.
Step 2 was basically abandoning 3.5 for SWSE and WFRP2.
-O
My Step 2 for DMing was Iron Heroes. At first I was skeptical about these "villain classes". They seemed like cheating and wrong. One can get strange ideas about how the game needs to be played (or prepared) if one isn't careful.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Creating some power that's not related to what already exists is painful...
Well, what do you want it to do? It ought to be similar to something in the PHB or MM, there're a lot of powers there!
If you want ability damage or something, it might just not be a suitable effect for 4e, of course. I could see your issue then.
Actually, I forgot one other awesome thing NPC design has caused: The wonderful new statblocks. Three cheers!
No more trying to remember how Snatch works, or how much reach a Long Huge monster has. Everything you need to run a monster is right there in front of you. In 3.x, the Tactics sections were a requirement, thanks to spells and special abilities. Here they're a luxury, and you can figure out some good tactics just from looking at the blocks. Gods from Deities and Demigods were obscene to run, to pick out the most blatant example. 4e Tiamat is also obscene, but in a much more fun way for the DM.
Best of all, with no polymorph, monster designers don't have to go obsessively through a set of stats, picking out which abilities are (Ex), (Su) or spell-like. Monsters can do things, and that's all they need.
I have run across a couple of weirdness issues with npc's, but IMO these have more to do with the verisimilitude. The difference between npc's from 3e to 4e is marked. Unleashing DM's from the 3e design constraints to me are the single biggest win (#1 issue) in the new edition. My biggest concerns were in time, both time to play and time to prepare. The new design parameters for npc's with 4e allow for significant improvement in both of these categories, but especially in preparation. It is unbelievable how easy it is to develop new innovative, and cool, npc's or monsters.
I have two distinct examples of the challenges I've experienced. The first, was with an npc from the FRCG, a rogue npc named Zark. This guy is essentially a level 4 rogue, who is leading a low level lieutenant in a crime ring in the starting town of Loudwater. When the pc's finally uncovered Zark's nefarious crimes, and confronted him, it was clear a battle was to ensue. On the spot, in about 5 min, I whipped up his base stats to that of a "solo" encounter, so that it would be a "good fight". Zark suddenly, unexpectedly, went from a generic npc rogue with about 30 hp to a solo "boss" fight with over 150hp. What a horse! From a story perspective, it flowed great, and the pc's determined what came next with their ACTIONS. From a design perspective, I was able to adapt the encounter COMPLETELY on the fly, which was VERY DIFFICULT in 3e. From a combat perspective, the party was duly impressed with Zark's abilities, and used sound tactics in the encounter to defeat him. From a verisimilitude perspective, what is Zark, exactly? He's not a rogue like the one in our party, although he used some of the same abilities. He's not a fighter, like the one in our party, although he was able to withstand far more damage. If Zark was this tough, what's his boss going to be like???
The second issue I had was in describing 4e to a group of friends. They've never played the new game, but were quite proficient with 1e, 2e, and 3e. I was describing how in the last module, the party fought and defeated an "Elminster" type npc in the starting town. What??? Didn't you say they were 3rd level? Well, yeah. This npc was, you-know, the one sage in the town that everyone turns to for information. He was the classical wizard profile, who had a bunch of information (arcana and history skills), and had a couple of wizard powers. So, in 4e, 3rd level characters can defeat Elminster? Well, no, but they can defeat an npc, who turned out to be a traitor in our story, and so I just made him a 3rd level elite controller... with wizard powers. They literally couldn't get their heads around it, and I had some trouble explaining it.
These are two examples to help illustrate the challenge I've encountered. As PC's I think it's difficult to DEAL with a world in which anyone you encounter could have 20hp or 2000hp. How do these changes to the infrastructure of the game, change the voice of the story? I think that most rpg's can deal with these differences within the context of the story, but at this point in development, we don't have the language, experience, and tools we need to answer these questions and explain these differences. In many ways, I'm sure people dealing with hit points, or critical charts for the first time had the same challenges.
My Step 2 for DMing was Iron Heroes. At first I was skeptical about these "villain classes". They seemed like cheating and wrong. One can get strange ideas about how the game needs to be played (or prepared) if one isn't careful.
Step 3 for me was also in Iron Heroes, when I started ballparking attack bonuses, Ac's and saves for mooks. The players didn't even notice. Towards the end of that campaign statblocks for unnamed npc's were often two or three lines, noting class, level and equipment.
You know just thinking Stalker0 I hope your saving all these OPs since when you have gotten through them all, this would serve as quite a good reading for anyone considering either getting into 3e or 4e, or thinking about going from 3e to 4e, etc.
The above simply makes no sense to me. At all. The only difficulty in making a monster is and has always been picking and balancing the special abilities. That hasn't changed a whit.
Note that 4e doesn't have a cool "special ability generation" mechanism. There is a very simple reason: coming up with such a mechanism is functionally impossible due to being too complicated.
I'd disagree with that rather strongly. First, coming from 3e, I found that monster creation was strongly limited by the racial "classes" (ie that all undead got 1/2 BAB, always d12 HD, only good will saves, etc). It made creating one rather difficult, and with little guidance as to what its AC should be, it was difficult to get the base stats right.
Second, 4e does seem to give somewhat better guidance as to what sorts of general special abilities a creature should have by creating the various conditions. Because the end results aren't nearly as wild, there's a lot more safety in building monsters. ie, I've built a vargoullie (sp?). Should it's scream give the dazed condition or the Paralysized condition? I don't know, but there's basically only an action difference between them. The kiss operates pretty obviously from that.
__________________ All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains
Just because something was not perfect it doesn't mean that you can make it worse and no one is allowed to complain.
I simply prefer to play a normal human who becomes heroic through his deeds and maybe just slightly better stats than playing a mutant who is radically different from everyone else. For that I would play an X-Men RPG
I'm going to be sorry I did this...
A 1st level fighter in 1e/2e with an 18/X strength, doesn't have "slightly better" stats than everyone else. He is actually physically stronger than any other member of his race can possibly be. No one else (other than subclasses of course) can be as strong as my 1st level fighter.
But this makes me "slightly better"? Being stronger and tougher than any normal member of my race can ever hope to be is just a smidgeon better?
This must be a new meaning of "slightly" that I was previously unaware of.
Never mind that my character is wealthier beyond belief by second, maybe 3rd level. That I can walk into a tavern and obliterate all the patrons without breaking a sweat by 4th level. But, y'know, D&D characters are just "slightly" better than the average joe.
Sorry, you want "average joe" play Warhammer. D&D characters have always been Heroes.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Shhh, that's a secret nobody every let derren in on.
D&D's never been about the average joe. The trope is a guy who thinks of himself as an average joe, who learns he is exceptional (from Frodo and Sam to Harry Potter). You can do zero to hero in any edition, including 4e, it just takes some tweaking.
I think 4e could do zero level characters better than I managed to do it in 3e. I did it in 3e, but it was very clunky and I was glad to quickly move past it once the game started. With 4e, I could see doing this with a standard array, perhaps giving a couple stat boosts once 1st level starts, starting the characters with a single power or going by the old adventure that introduced the concept (trivia: what was the adventure?) let them explore options in some manner and grant them one encounter power after they make a choice (so the guy who puts in the effort to decipher pages from the magical tome gains a spell, while the guy testing his arm with a sword picks up an exploit). So they'd have basic attacks and 1 encounter power and slowly work up from there until you've achieved 1st level.
On point, though, you're absolutely right and the 18xx example is a very good one.
You're either thinking of Treasure Hunt (great module!) or Under Illefarn. Both 1E.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadfan
This is one of those "Woah, step away from the internet" moments for me, when I realize that I'm talking with people's who's grasp on reality is... lets just say, very different from my own.
A 1st level fighter in 1e/2e with an 18/X strength, doesn't have "slightly better" stats than everyone else. He is actually physically stronger than any other member of his race can possibly be. No one else (other than subclasses of course) can be as strong as my 1st level fighter.
But this makes me "slightly better"? Being stronger and tougher than any normal member of my race can ever hope to be is just a smidgeon better?
This must be a new meaning of "slightly" that I was previously unaware of.
Never mind that my character is wealthier beyond belief by second, maybe 3rd level. That I can walk into a tavern and obliterate all the patrons without breaking a sweat by 4th level. But, y'know, D&D characters are just "slightly" better than the average joe.
Sorry, you want "average joe" play Warhammer. D&D characters have always been Heroes.
Or perhaps all the others should have some levels too? This is why i love 3E NPC classes and SKRs Theory about Peasants.
Or perhaps all the others should have some levels too? This is why i love 3E NPC classes and SKRs Theory about Peasants.
No, because that is unfair to the PCs . . . somehow.
Yeah, there should be some heroic NPCs who aren't names; hell, there should be regular ol' folk who have abilities beyond mortal ken.
The thing which really irritates me is that apparently 4e magically created the ability for NPCs to be greater than PCs. . . perhaps I just didn't play D&D right before 4e, but oracles, warrior-kings, and that crazy sorcerer have never been 'normal' NPCs to me. I loved 3e because there were so many cool abilities which came pre-defined in monster descriptions . . . ahh, the wonders of not having to worry exactly how to outline X or Y ability for that one guy you were planning to use it with.
DMing has always been a job for letting your imagination run wild and make your image work somewhere where it could be interpreted by the rules, not defined in such. There seems to be a new breed (and I mean those who came up with 3e and then went into 4e) who believe fully that there is only that which the rules define, and the way that the rules apply them must be the way it goes.
Villain classes were a great way for some of these types of players to develop their ways a little better . . . and for that I love them. 3.X PHB2 with the special traits for NPCs were another great thing because they gave a definable way to do something which was somewhat balanced.
But it isn't about balance really... balance is our buzzword because it makes sense. It's about fairness more about balance. Fairness is a great thing, but there are just sometimes where the NPCs will be on a level you're not dealing with. You come to me with a great PC concept and we'll work with it. You want to be a Warforged in Modern? I can probably come up with some ideas for where you come from. You want to be a man who was raised from a painting by the deranged psychic the PCs are currently dealing with? Sounds awesome. Sometimes I just can't do it because it will be too setting-breaking (if we're all playing humans you're probably not coming in as a Thri-Kreen or a Moreau) . . . but we can work around it in a lot of cases to make something mechanically and thematically which can work.
I've denied maybe 10, 15 PCs in my time . . . and they all fell under one of three categories:
1.) Way off base - Sorry, a Tokugawan Shogunate samurai may not fit . . . but a highly honorable warrior who is not afraid of death and who wishes to fight for his lord can. Unwilling to bend? Well sorry, the game works on both of us bending.
2.) Just Too Difficult to Work With - A recent denial came from this. The player (my SO) wanted to play a spherical child's toy with no method of communication save for very limited language skills. The character may work... for a couple of sessions. Again, there may be ways to work with it (my avatar is of a teddy bear PC who I fell in love with and snagged as an NPC in one of my games . . . but he had arms, legs, and the ability to speak and interact) but if there's no bending...
3.) Creepiness. I don't want to deal with things that belong in a very very scary Black Dog game. Some taboos just don't work for the group, and if you broach those as the founding principle for the character . . . no dice. The worst example was a streetwalking mage . . . who was way below the age of consent. That was a player issue (an invited player who was... yeah), but there come up.
Outside of that there's usually some way to deal with it. Maybe it's just the start I got in gaming with DMs who were willing to help you make stuff, or the materials I work with, but I think that the ability to be creative is highly important . . . and setting-generic.
Slainte,
-Loonook.
__________________ This Post and all others (c) Loonook, 2001-2009.
These are two examples to help illustrate the challenge I've encountered. As PC's I think it's difficult to DEAL with a world in which anyone you encounter could have 20hp or 2000hp. How do these changes to the infrastructure of the game, change the voice of the story? I think that most rpg's can deal with these differences within the context of the story, but at this point in development, we don't have the language, experience, and tools we need to answer these questions and explain these differences.
Not for me thanks. It makes the world more out to be DM vs player than any edition before ever could be, for the simple fact that the players are downright forbidden to do thing the DM has the ability to do during combat.
Why call it a non-player character rather than just a character if it does not follow the rules of a player character?
The terms even lose their meaning with this approach.
I feel the systems to be balanced should be equal for both sides rather than using two different systems. Its like trying to fix a metric device with only standard components. You can get close to make it work, but it will not function as intended or have the quality had it been done using the proper or at least same parts.
Not for me thanks. It makes the world more out to be DM vs player than any edition before ever could be, for the simple fact that the players are downright forbidden to do thing the DM has the ability to do during combat.
When talking about members of the same race, I agree.
Keep in mind, though, that there are (and should be) intrinsic monster abilities that PCs just don't or can't have, by virtue of what they are(n't). For example, a Medusa's gaze can turn you to stone. No player character race can do that, nor should they be able to; and Medusae should not be player characters. I've done the same thing with psyonics in my current game: PC races can't, as a general rule, be psyonic...but some monsters (e.g. Mind Flayers, some Demons, etc.) can.
Where you lose internal consistency is when members of the same race are arbitrarily banned from having abilities that other members of the same race can have, with the only difference being that some are PCs and some are not.
Where you lose internal consistency is when members of the same race are arbitrarily banned from having abilities that other members of the same race can have, with the only difference being that some are PCs and some are not.
I think even that isn't required all the time, especially once we are talking about magic.
Why can't a PC human not get the hit points of an Elite? Well, possibly because the Elite entered a special pact with his god that can't be easily recreated. It would require several years of training and devotion. Or it is just merely a question of a focused training.
So, while very theoretically it might be a possibility for a human to become something like an Elite Soldier of Kord, it would require a way of life, training and devotion a PC will never show during play.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Yeah I don't think really when your talking about feeling involved in the world, having someone of the same race be able to take identical abilities is really necessary. Just because say a Human Guard has a special attack unique to him with a sword, just means mechanically it is special. It doesn't mean that in-game he isn't doing anything different from what your PC Fighter does.
The PC/NPC divide is mostly a game artifact. 3e showed us rather clearly that classed NPC's do not perform anywhere near the same as equivalent CR monsters. Yes, if it has an NPC class, it's supposed to be one CR down, but, a 3rd level human fighter is supposed to be the same challenge as any other CR 3 creature.
And it just wasn't. Using PC rules for opponents resulted in very weak opponents. And it got much worse at higher levels.
Couple that to the fact that statting up higher level NPC opponents was very difficult. So difficult in fact that even the professionals couldn't get it right. It speaks volumes to a game system when someone who writes for the system for a living cannot even balance skills and attack bonuses correctly.
So something had to give. Again, it comes back to what are you willing to give up in order to make the game run at the table? Yes, absolutely, there is a disconnect between PC and NPC members of the same race. I agree completely. But, does that disconnect bother you to the point that the advantages of the system are not enough? The fact that you can stat up a 15th level 4e NPC in a fraction of the time it would take to do it in 3e, and far more accurately is balanced by the fact that the NPC is not as "believable" in 4e.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
