3.5 Stat Blocks Kill my creativity

[jasper]

Henry hit the nail on head with “Rules for players” post. Basically while most of my npcs will follow the rules it does not mean all of the will.

The boo hoo gizmo was generally when a dm cries about killing a pc because it affects their “STORY” not the game. So I was jumping the gun there. If I create a hand wave npc and missed the dc resulting in a death and catch the mistake I will fix in game, either by a friendly passing cleric raise dead pc, or he was only mostly dead and was knocked out for a week.

I dm who follows most of rules most of times. But I am willing to go outside the rules because the play took that way or a big mistake happen (oops we all forgot the rules in that battle), or because I think the new critter will be interesting and the raw do not support the critter.
Ex. There is no core rule covering my making an elf’s ears grow to they flop over. This was cost of one player getting a god call and the god of trickery giving out a free raise dead.
Ex. There is no core rule covering a fighter using a magic item which his class and skills can’t use. But the action saved the party. Oops the whole group forgot the rules. Instead doing a do over and the party being wipe out or at least a higher body count. I made the pc an equal level magic user and we work out a good background reason which still broke the core rules.
Ex. There is no core rule covering a three hit die dragon whom is one foot furry and cleric who gains levels but no hit points. This is a port from first edition npc.

 

[skinnydwarf]

Five years and I have yet to fully stat out an NPC. You don't have to do it, and it fact not doing it is easier and rarely noticed by the players. There are lots of reasons to quit D&D, but stat blocks are not one of them because they are so not needed.

Exactly. Most of the time for NPCs that will be attacked, I just write their AC, Dmg, Attack Bonus and HPs. And any possessions they have, of course. NPCs that I don't plan on being attacked are usually commoners who are pretty weak anyway and I just figure they fall in a round or two, I don't even worry about their stats.

Last week my PCs attacked these monsters I had (foolishly) assumed they would just watch perform a sacrifice (since they were outnumbered more than 2-1, the main dude was a necromancer and they were all first level non-fighter types). Fortunately it was C&C I didn't need to worry about feats or any of that- I just thought "I haven't statted these monsters up. Let's call them orcs with double the HP." Simple as that. It has its kinks, but I'm having a lot of fun with C&C. It runs like a breeze.

 

[Arnwyn]

I may have misinterpreted your meaning. I was taking it to mean that you needed expensive equipment to create stat blocks.

You did misinterpret. I, personally, have no idea whether one actually needs expensive equipment to create stat blocks - everyone is different.

what is it that you did mean, and why did you bring up $500 computers?

What I was talking about, way back in my first post, was that I found it interesting that up to the point when I posted, there was not just a few, some, or even 'most', but an extremely clear trend that was showing that virtually everyone who actually detailed statblocks used an actual computer program. I thought that such an obvious and clear trend shown at that time was very telling about the complexity of 3e characters.

I, personally, made no judgment (on this thread, anyways) about whether a computer program is actually needed, or whether that complexity is a good or bad thing. I just made a comment on the evidence given so far at that time (which was at a level of similarity that I rarely see on ENWorld, which really surprised me).

 

[barsoomcore]

What I said above was like saying "As a DM, you either use music to set the tone of your game or you don't."

Well, it would have been like that if playing music and using the rules were remotely similar.

I mean, either music is playing or it isn't. That actually IS a black and white, polarized issue. Unlike the question of how you apply the rules, which isn't, and which I suspect does not readily admit to a "I use all/none of the rules" distinction (given that the reason we have a DM in the first place is to adjudicate when to apply what rule).

That said, sure, there's no point in complaining how other people play. If they're having fun, they're doing it right.

Oh, and arnwyn, just for the sake of useful feedback, I interpreted what you said exactly the way TAG did. I see now what you meant, but it really came off as "You need a computer of more than $500 to make stat blocks."

 

[Arnwyn]

Oh, and arnwyn, just for the sake of useful feedback, I interpreted what you said exactly the way TAG did. I see now what you meant, but it really came off as "You need a computer of more than $500 to make stat blocks."

Glad I could explain myself better.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

You did misinterpret. I, personally, have no idea whether one actually needs expensive equipment to create stat blocks - everyone is different.

What I was talking about, way back in my first post, was that I found it interesting that up to the point when I posted, there was not just a few, some, or even 'most', but an extremely clear trend that was showing that virtually everyone who actually detailed statblocks used an actual computer program. I thought that such an obvious and clear trend shown at that time was very telling about the complexity of 3e characters.

I, personally, made no judgment (on this thread, anyways) about whether a computer program is actually needed, or whether that complexity is a good or bad thing. I just made a comment on the evidence given so far at that time (which was at a level of similarity that I rarely see on ENWorld, which really surprised me).

Thank you, that was much clearer.

Then again, I was using computers to assist statting out games back in 1980... I have one page of a timeline and another of encounters that were created on a TRS80 Model 1 (with expansion interface) on a Paper Tiger printer... And yes, back in the day that was a $500 dollar computer!

The Auld Grump

 

[gizmo33]

I'm gathering that you feel it's a "cheating the other players" issue if a DM does not follow the rules and make up completely statted NPCs for the game, and this paradox of "damned if you do and damned if you don't" because of the length and complexity of D&D stat blocks is what is causing the issue. Please correct me if I'm wrong about your feelings on the issue.

I wonder if my own statements are accurately capturing how I feel on this issue. I would only say "cheating the other players" with an explanation:

I don't have any philosophical problem with custom stats for creatures. For example Jasper's examples are all fine examples for situations that I don't have a problem judging. My problem is when the DM has communicated to the PCs (however subtly, and I'm sure this is controversial) that the NPC is some sort of "typical" specimen for the context in which they are dealing, and then is not. In the old school days* this would be like walking into a room with three orcs and then finding out that the three orcs had 30 hp each - without any descriptive text to suggest the difference. One thing about DnD (for me) in those days that was cool was that there was some sort of consistency in the world - the NPCs didn't necessarily have some sort of priveledged (or disadvantaged) position compared to the PCs. Exceptional situations were exceptional because of DM choice, not because the rules were too complicated.

The monopoly example I meant only to address someone's earlier statement that because DnD is a game, that means XYZ. Just because something is a game doesn't mean that people don't have expectations. That's about as far as that goes.

The players have a right to consistency from the DM IMO, not whim. If my NPC hits PC the first three rounds in combat until the PC has 2 hp left and then misses for the rest of the battle, the player will catch on quickly. Of course this doesn't have to do directly with statting NPCs, but the comments made on the side of "DM does what he wants" started going down this road. So some of my comments in previous posts are probably OT for this thread, but were trying to address issues that seemed common to the more "free-wheeling" style.

One of his group asked him, "why don't you just decide WHAT HAPPENS, instead of rolling the dice?"

I have no problem with this example. I put it in the same category as Jasper's examples. DnD doesn't make for a playable mass combat game - and on my version of the "DM social contract" is a line saying "thou shalt make up rules to arbitrate a situation when the current rules are not suitable" If you want to take this to extremes, I have a campaign history in my world - I never played out the battles that occured between every historical figure.

There may be a misconception here. I'm not talking about changing numbers on the fly - I'm talking about deciding the numbers either as or shortly before the battle is joined. They don't change (except to usually go DOWN from attrition. )

Ok, I hear you. But that IMO has things in common with changing them on the fly. Were DnD to have a tradition of making up stats before a battle, then orcs would have 1 HD for first level characters and 10 HD when they were facing higher level characters. I think that's just human nature, combined with the fact that an exhausted DM IME cannot keep his biases from affecting decisions, and that over the (not so) long run, players notice and IMO something is lost. The irony is that this is my exact same argument with people that don't like the 3E skill system, and would rather just "make up" the success/failure of someone trying to climb a tree based on the intangibles of that character's background. The other part to my feelings on this issue was the "30 hp orc" example above.

In general, I don't think it would be hard for you to come up with a list of situations where you make stuff up just before the battle - similar to what Jasper did - and I would agree with everything on that list. The issue is when the rules of the game start almost *requiring* that you do things this way because of their complexity.

...And the fact that we DON'T play D&D the same way is what makes the game fun for me

Absolutely.

*They really need a smiley-face icon of an old dude in a rocking chair for when I start waxing eloquent about the old days.

 

[Henry]

I wonder if my own statements are accurately capturing how I feel on this issue. I would only say "cheating the other players" with an explanation:

I don't have any philosophical problem with custom stats for creatures. For example Jasper's examples are all fine examples for situations that I don't have a problem judging. My problem is when the DM has communicated to the PCs (however subtly, and I'm sure this is controversial) that the NPC is some sort of "typical" specimen for the context in which they are dealing, and then is not. In the old school days* this would be like walking into a room with three orcs and then finding out that the three orcs had 30 hp each - without any descriptive text to suggest the difference. One thing about DnD (for me) in those days that was cool was that there was some sort of consistency in the world - the NPCs didn't necessarily have some sort of priveledged (or disadvantaged) position compared to the PCs. Exceptional situations were exceptional because of DM choice, not because the rules were too complicated.

The monopoly example I meant only to address someone's earlier statement that because DnD is a game, that means XYZ. Just because something is a game doesn't mean that people don't have expectations. That's about as far as that goes.

The players have a right to consistency from the DM IMO, not whim. If my NPC hits PC the first three rounds in combat until the PC has 2 hp left and then misses for the rest of the battle, the player will catch on quickly. Of course this doesn't have to do directly with statting NPCs, but the comments made on the side of "DM does what he wants" started going down this road. So some of my comments in previous posts are probably OT for this thread, but were trying to address issues that seemed common to the more "free-wheeling" style.



I have no problem with this example. I put it in the same category as Jasper's examples. DnD doesn't make for a playable mass combat game - and on my version of the "DM social contract" is a line saying "thou shalt make up rules to arbitrate a situation when the current rules are not suitable" If you want to take this to extremes, I have a campaign history in my world - I never played out the battles that occured between every historical figure.

Were DnD to have a tradition of making up stats before a battle, then orcs would have 1 HD for first level characters and 10 HD when they were facing higher level characters. I think that's just human nature, combined with the fact that an exhausted DM IME cannot keep his biases from affecting decisions, and that over the (not so) long run, players notice and IMO something is lost.

The funny thing is, while D&D didn't formerly have this tradition, it actually does now, through advancing creatures with class levels. That 10 hit dice orc, once a DM house-ruled anomaly, is now a 10th level Warrior NPC class orc, with more hit points, attack ability, and feats and skills. If I had a bunch of orcs facing off against the PCs, regular orcs might have 1 to 3 hit dice (subcommanders and the like), but the Orcs of the Misty Mountains would be by default 6th level warriors, with a few shamans of equal level and a 10th level Chief. Even among on-the-fly DMs, I've just never seen examples where in a squad of 15 orcs, orc #12 differed so much from Orc #5 that the PCs called foul. If it took 12 hit points to kill one, but 16 to kill another,, D&D provides me with twenty reasons why: one more hit die, higher CON, toughness feat, one got in a scrap with another shortly before combat and that little extra windedness meant his doom fifteen minutes later, etc.

The issue is when the rules of the game start almost *requiring* that you do things this way because of their complexity.

That I can sympathize with. However, my opinion is that 3E offers me the best of both worlds: I can make on-the-fly stats and few can question it, because the rules actively support unique creatures now, and most fudging is completely explainable (no more people saying, "Hey, Orcs only have 8 hit points! He should be dead!" and me saying, "I said so 'cause I'm the DM!"). Alternately, If I want to stat up an NPC to the fullest of my ability, I can devote tons of time to crafting SUPER-ORC, the Forsaker/Barbarian/Rogue Juggernaut, or the Pit Fiend Necromancer/Dervish, without the players knowing that every single thing about him is crafted from whole cloth. In other words, I have the option to stat mook and mastermind like mad, but there's enough wiggle-room in the customizing of mooks that it's not required.