Same rules or different Rules (PC vs NPC)

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One of the major points on both e "Whats wrong with 4e" and the "whats right with 4e" threads is the separation of rules for NPCs and PCs. So lets discuss.

Personally im all for the 4e method, monsters are super easy to create, no more hundreds of spells for a high level wizard NPC, dont have to worry about levels, and level adjustments and adding classes to NPCs anymore.

I think the simplicity of creating monsters that are probably not going to last past the encounter is great. But also on the flip side, if i want to create a master wizard guy i can have the option of creating a PC like creature. Or even just add 20 options and rules to the statblock.

Different rules.

But I am okay with their being a reasonably-well supported option that describes challenge levels of NPCs designed like player characters. But I never want the 3E stat block with spell lists and spell-like abilities again for myself as the DM.

 

[BryonD]

That's cool, I'm just wondering what you feel you would lose in the exchange. Any examples?

The richness of the design of every individual.

This is important to me in game play. But it is probably even more important to me in a meta sense.

To me it is all about creating an alternate universe and seeing events unfold within it. The creation and storytelling are overwhelmingly more important than "game". I absolutely enjoy the game as well, I don't mean to suggest otherwise. But the story-telling and creation and art are on a separate tier. And I say that as a guy with an active imagination who likes to tell stories and I also say that as an engineer and programmer who enjoys building and tinkering.


People complain about page long stat blocks. But to me IF the individual merits that then it can be outstanding. And you have to keep both the imagination and the tinker sides of this in mind when you consider that statement.

Say there is some Daemon Lord as a major foe. Now at the end of the day the party is pretty likely to end up in a fight with him and his AC, hit points and major attacks will be important. Let’s say he has two different weapons he wields and also has “ray of killing”. A perfectly sound mechanical system could say that all three are +X attacks for YdZ damage. And then a creative DM describes the details. That is completely adequate for game resolution and cool flavor descriptions cover everything else.
But what if one weapon is an axe with a threat range of 20 for X3 and the other is a sword with a threat range of 19 for X2? That is a small tweak. But even purely from a game point of view the threat presented by those weapons are now distinct.

Now say that the axe also throws lightning bolts and the sword is toxic to gnomes. Again things are getting ever so slightly more complex. But from an art point of view and from a tinker point of view they are getting more complex and more rich. And I love the feeling that I’ve created a truly unique individual. And I love the feeling that I’ve tinkered this piece of gaming code, if you will, that uniquely and fully describes that precise character. Creation and tinker and game are all important.

Maybe something will happen and they PCs take away the sword before the fight. Even as they guy who created the monster, I know that the other players WILL surprise me and my creation will change and react based on those surprises. And the effects of removing that sword are different than removing one of three +X YdZ attacks. Maybe not so much on the art axis because you can still describe whatever you want. But certainly on both the game axis and the tinker axis.

And maybe this guy knows more about the history of the gods than any mortal. And maybe this guy can grant a wish to anyone who brings him a purple diamond and gets him to listen long enough to know they have a gift. And maybe this guy can polymorph people into turtles. And maybe this guy can always tell the exact location of the person whom whoever he touches cares most about. That last thing could be irrelevant flavor text. Or it could be the most scary weapon he has. Or it could be the reason this evil creature just turned into the McGuffin of the quest.

And I want a system in which I can create THAT GUY and then give it to someone else and they don’t see Daemon Lord #8 with some flavor text they MECHANICALLY see THAT GUY. I’ve programmed him as a functional piece of this alternate universe. And even if my gaming group falls apart and he never appears in play, I will have enjoyed making my idea turn into distinct thing the same way other people may enjoy writing a poem or painting a still life.

And you can roll that back to vastly more simple things as well. Say I’ve just got a goblin king, his henchman, a shaman and a bunch of goblin mooks. It is fine for the mooks to all be one line. If someone else wants to detail every one of them then awesome. I’m glad that they are having fun. I don’t need *that* for myself. But I like that the king, henchman, and shaman can each be completely unique incarnations and that I can tinker with the mechanics to make my flavor be true and not just a different way of describing the same game effect.

If the players know it enables them to make informed decisions. I think that's pretty important. That's why, while I don't mind a few ways of getting to AC 18, I don't think there should be too many modifiers.

I try to climb a steep hill, a 15 foot tall chain link fence, and a 30 foot tall brick wall. I can make informed decisions about how difficult those would be. I haven’t a clue how to set quantified distinction between them. As a DM I may call them DC 8, 14, and 25. But the players and their characters know “a steep hill, a 15 foot tall chain link fence, and a 30 foot tall brick wall”. Now they can make the same informed decision I can if I see those in the real world.

“Covered in steel” is an informed decision. ACs are out of the question.

Yup, big difference.

Can you name a movie or novel in which the characters consistently and reliably expect definable and balanced rewards for their risks? I really don’t see what that has to do with an RPG *as I personally* enjoy it.

 

[DonTadow]

The richness of the design of every individual.

This is important to me in game play. But it is probably even more important to me in a meta sense.

To me it is all about creating an alternate universe and seeing events unfold within it. The creation and storytelling are overwhelmingly more important than "game". I absolutely enjoy the game as well, I don't mean to suggest otherwise. But the story-telling and creation and art are on a separate tier. And I say that as a guy with an active imagination who likes to tell stories and I also say that as an engineer and programmer who enjoys building and tinkering.


People complain about page long stat blocks. But to me IF the individual merits that then it can be outstanding. And you have to keep both the imagination and the tinker sides of this in mind when you consider that statement.

Say there is some Daemon Lord as a major foe. Now at the end of the day the party is pretty likely to end up in a fight with him and his AC, hit points and major attacks will be important. Let’s say he has two different weapons he wields and also has “ray of killing”. A perfectly sound mechanical system could say that all three are +X attacks for YdZ damage. And then a creative DM describes the details. That is completely adequate for game resolution and cool flavor descriptions cover everything else.
But what if one weapon is an axe with a threat range of 20 for X3 and the other is a sword with a threat range of 19 for X2? That is a small tweak. But even purely from a game point of view the threat presented by those weapons are now distinct.

Now say that the axe also throws lightning bolts and the sword is toxic to gnomes. Again things are getting ever so slightly more complex. But from an art point of view and from a tinker point of view they are getting more complex and more rich. And I love the feeling that I’ve created a truly unique individual. And I love the feeling that I’ve tinkered this piece of gaming code, if you will, that uniquely and fully describes that precise character. Creation and tinker and game are all important.

Maybe something will happen and they PCs take away the sword before the fight. Even as they guy who created the monster, I know that the other players WILL surprise me and my creation will change and react based on those surprises. And the effects of removing that sword are different than removing one of three +X YdZ attacks. Maybe not so much on the art axis because you can still describe whatever you want. But certainly on both the game axis and the tinker axis.

And maybe this guy knows more about the history of the gods than any mortal. And maybe this guy can grant a wish to anyone who brings him a purple diamond and gets him to listen long enough to know they have a gift. And maybe this guy can polymorph people into turtles. And maybe this guy can always tell the exact location of the person whom whoever he touches cares most about. That last thing could be irrelevant flavor text. Or it could be the most scary weapon he has. Or it could be the reason this evil creature just turned into the McGuffin of the quest.

And I want a system in which I can create THAT GUY and then give it to someone else and they don’t see Daemon Lord #8 with some flavor text they MECHANICALLY see THAT GUY. I’ve programmed him as a functional piece of this alternate universe. And even if my gaming group falls apart and he never appears in play, I will have enjoyed making my idea turn into distinct thing the same way other people may enjoy writing a poem or painting a still life.

And you can roll that back to vastly more simple things as well. Say I’ve just got a goblin king, his henchman, a shaman and a bunch of goblin mooks. It is fine for the mooks to all be one line. If someone else wants to detail every one of them then awesome. I’m glad that they are having fun. I don’t need *that* for myself. But I like that the king, henchman, and shaman can each be completely unique incarnations and that I can tinker with the mechanics to make my flavor be true and not just a different way of describing the same game effect.


I try to climb a steep hill, a 15 foot tall chain link fence, and a 30 foot tall brick wall. I can make informed decisions about how difficult those would be. I haven’t a clue how to set quantified distinction between them. As a DM I may call them DC 8, 14, and 25. But the players and their characters know “a steep hill, a 15 foot tall chain link fence, and a 30 foot tall brick wall”. Now they can make the same informed decision I can if I see those in the real world.

“Covered in steel” is an informed decision. ACs are out of the question.

Can you name a movie or novel in which the characters consistently and reliably expect definable and balanced rewards for their risks? I really don’t see what that has to do with an RPG *as I personally* enjoy it.

I'm all for major foes, but in your example, you use the one time you would do an NPC. What about the two storm troopers (we are not the droids you are looking for), do they need a full stat and item equipment sheet? How important are they. Are they worth the 10 minutes apiece to create?

Thing with DND is, for every 1 foe that needs the full statblock, there are 20 or 30 who don't. I like the table idea. I'd be happy with a table of basic npc stats i can reference.

But i agree, that i want the BBEG or important npcs to have a few more releavant stats just in case.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm all for major foes, but in your example, you use the one time you would do an NPC. What about the two storm troopers (we are not the droids you are looking for), do they need a full stat and item equipment sheet? How important are they. Are they worth the 10 minutes apiece to create?

It's fine to create simple stat blocks when you don't need anything more. But it's a lot easier to take away unnecessary information then to create new information yourself. Are you suggesting that orcs should not have mental ability scores or non-combat stats in the monster manual because they often function as fodder? Even if one person's game revolves around ahcking orcs left and right, another's might involve an all-orc party of PCs, and he needs his stats.

Thing with DND is, for every 1 foe that needs the full statblock, there are 20 or 30 who don't. I like the table idea. I'd be happy with a table of basic npc stats i can reference.

That may be true in some games, but I don't think it's a valid generalization. In some games, everyone you meet is a character.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The richness of the design of every individual.

This is important to me in game play. But it is probably even more important to me in a meta sense.

To me it is all about creating an alternate universe and seeing events unfold within it. The creation and storytelling are overwhelmingly more important than "game". I absolutely enjoy the game as well, I don't mean to suggest otherwise. But the story-telling and creation and art are on a separate tier. And I say that as a guy with an active imagination who likes to tell stories and I also say that as an engineer and programmer who enjoys building and tinkering.
...

I couldn't XP, but thank you.

The goal of design is not to create a battle.

 

[herrozerro]

I couldn't XP, but thank you.

The goal of design is not to create a battle.

But the goal of D&D (at least in my opinion) is to resolve conflict. Weather that is combat, social or whatever kind of conflict you need.

 

[DonTadow]

It's fine to create simple stat blocks when you don't need anything more. But it's a lot easier to take away unnecessary information then to create new information yourself. Are you suggesting that orcs should not have mental ability scores or non-combat stats in the monster manual because they often function as fodder? Even if one person's game revolves around ahcking orcs left and right, another's might involve an all-orc party of PCs, and he needs his stats.

That may be true in some games, but I don't think it's a valid generalization. In some games, everyone you meet is a character.

Exactly. Your all orc example represents a derative of the basic dnd game, and the dnd game should , core, be based for a player of humanoid characters where monsters are monsters. 9 times out of 10, monsters are monsters. They should contain only enough stats to get through a social or combat encounter.

Anything else is an advanced book (savage world).

My thing is, is, your goal is to make dnd more palletable, dm goals and objectives should be clear and easy and steer towards main stream.

 

[Ahnehnois]

They should contain only enough stats to get through a social or combat encounter.

So should PCs, with only a few exceptions. Thus the same platform for all. What other information would you need?

My thing is, is, your goal is to make dnd more palletable, dm goals and objectives should be clear and easy and steer towards main stream.

For a definition of mainstream, perhaps you should check the "what races and classes are core" thread and note the number of respondents who posted orc as a race. I don't define "mainstream" as "tactical combat focused around the killing of monsters". My goal is to make D&D more palatable by allowing all types of games (including those that don't particularly focus on tactical combat and may want to use monsters for other purposes). I think it should be *easy* to use an orc (or a monster in general) for any use that a "mainstream" game could plausibly need.

But the goal of D&D (at least in my opinion) is to resolve conflict. Weather that is combat, social or whatever kind of conflict you need.

That's true, the goal of the rules is to resolve conflict.

As it relates to the original thread topic, conflicts are easier to resolve when everyone uses the same rules.

 

[herrozerro]

That's true, the goal of the rules is to resolve conflict.

As it relates to the original thread topic, conflicts are easier to resolve when everyone uses the same rules.

I think that statement is only half true. someone said earlier that PCs and NPCs should interact with the same game engine, I can get behind that. NPCs should follow the same rules, attacks, damage, HP, jumping, moving... etc.

But does "playing by the same rules" necessarily need to mean the same stat generation methods?

To create an NPC do they need to be generated in the same manner as a PC? or is itenough that they play by the same rules as in they interact with the world the same way?

 

[Piscivorous]

Gone through what?

The loss of 3.5 production, articles, adventures, etc. I understand that they moved their efforts to their new product line. What I'm getting at is I expect the same for 4E when 5E comes out.

I would really like 5E to have sections [or its own books] for converting 5E material into earlier material.

Now THAT would get me to buy 5E material.