WotC Considering NPC Stat Format Change

This started with a comment about D&D formatting errors by James Introcaso (the comment, not the errors) on Twitter, and WotC's Chris Perkins joined in. Other quickly chimed in with further questions.

James: When you write an NPC's statistics in parentheses next to their name, it should look like this: NAME (ABBREVIATED ALIGNMENT SEX OR GENDER SUBRACE RACE STATISTICS). e.g. Fireface McDragon (LG female mountain dwarf knight)

Perkins: We’re thinking about dispensing with that format and writing out the information in sentence form using no alignment abbreviations. Example: Borf is a chaotic neutral, non-binary shield dwarf berserker with darkvision out to a range of 60 feet.

Crows Bring the Spring: Can I inquire why adding the blurb about dark vision is included in that line? Makes it feel rather lengthy.

Perkins: It doesn’t have to be there. It could also be replaced with something else, such as the languages Borf speaks, if that’s more important. Racial traits and other useful info could be presented as separate, full sentences.

Hannah Rose: What’s motivating this possible change? The ability to transition into modifications to a stat block without saying “with the following changes”?

Perkins: Our intention is to make books that are gorgeous, thoughtfully organized, fun to read, and easy for DMs/players of all experience levels to use.

Guillermo Garrido: Do you playtest these changes by different levels of players/DMs before widespread use of the new language?

Perkins: We playtest everything.

 

[ChaosGenerators]

I'd be happy if they tried it out in an unearthed arcana or one-shot such as an adventure for RPG Day (or whatever it's called).
Then get feedback on it.

 

[EthanSental]

Not a fan of the possible new format. Guess I’m used to what format has been using since I started playing in 1987. New DMs....like Chaos above, feedback via arcana would help show what the newer dms think.

 

[JeffB]

C&C has been doing this for 15 years. It works for that system, but 5e has way more going on it's statblocks.

I would rather see a return to essentials era 4e stablocks (including the self containment).

 

[jhilahd]

Is it weird that I was just thinking about how I missed the short stat blocks of 1e?

"4 Bull Thistles (AC 6; MV 9”; HD 4; hp 4 x 24; #AT 3; D 2-8/2-8/3-13; SD 25% magic resistance)"

(Source: EX1)

Big ditto.

 

[Merudo]

People need to keep in mind that WotC does not write primarily with DMs in mind.

WotC is writing for all the people who buy an adventure book, read it for pleasure, and then never run the adventure.

From what I seen from other DM buddies a good 80% of books are never run - they are simply read for entertainment.

As a result, books tend to be organized poorly and important information tend to be spread out through paragraphs of text.

 

[Ghal Maraz]

Meh. Adventures make for really bad reads.

If I want to enjoy the background of an RPG, adventures are the last place I head to.

Adventure modules should be meant as a way to give DMs an easier time. Nothing less, nothing more. Interpretation guidelines shouldn't have places in stat-blocks: there should be different places for the two different (but complementary) things.

 

[timbannock]

Definitely not a fan. My biggest issue with most adventures is that they are too wordy (I'm guilty of this myself): running this thing at the table should be fast and easy. WOTC -- like Paizo's Dungeon adventures and then their own adventure paths -- is trying to serve too many masters by making these things (in Chris' words) "gorgeous" and "fun to read." That's wonderful, and I get why they're making those goals equal to "thoughtfully organized" but no, none of this makes it "easy" for most DMs to run, I'd argue. Reading an book and running and adventure are two different things. But there's a HUGE audience that buys this stuff just to read it, or to pull it apart in a manner that does require the reading part to be good because they aren't really running the adventure as it is presented; it's more a sourcebook.

Here's hoping smaller publishers and adventures, as well as DMsGuild authors don't follow this structure.

 

[neobolts]

When DMing, the stat line is preferable. Narrative sentences just add additional read time when scanning for key info.

 

[Zaukrie]

I guess I'd like both......the stat block to make my life easier, and the words to make it more interesting.....That might not be practical in printed material, but it might be. Not sure. And, I really only want the words where it might matter, let's face it, random henchwoman protecting evil overlord probably doesn't always need words....

 

[neobolts]

I'm going to expand and point out that basic attacks in monster entries are TOO WORDY as it already is.

All I need is:
Claw. +4, 1d8+3(7)S. CON save DC 14 vs +1d4(2) poison.