4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[S'mon]

"you don't need what you don't kill" world design

This is something that does potentially concern me - early 4e design notes make clear the designers were indeed looking to strip out stuff like monster stat blocks for creatures the PCs wouldn't be expected to fight.
So I just tested it by checking for Unicorns and Pegasi in the Rules Compendium. Unicorns are right there in Monster Manual 1, so that's ok. Pegasi don't appear as a monster, but they were statted out as a DMG2 style Companion for PCs in a Dragon magazine article.

I still think it's a problem when adventures don't give me stat blocks for important non-hostile NPCs. Maybe I don't need combat routines for them, but Level, Attributes, Skills, and a paragraph of proper roleplay notes (as in the Loudwater section of FRCG, but missing in most of the published adventures, where most friendly NPCs are little more than names) would sure help a lot.

 

[S'mon]

Including those two in a selection of "Simulationist" games makes me laugh (not that familiar with HERO, though I know it by reputation).

GURPS is pretty much the poster child for Simulation oriented play, I thought? With traditional D&D the process-simulation is there to provide a robust structure for Gamist challenge*, not to model a fantasy world as such - as Gygax indicates in his intro to the 1e AD&D DMG.

*This is what board and minis wargames do, and was very much the default style of first generation RPGs.

 

[Bluenose]

GURPS is pretty much the poster child for Simulation oriented play, I thought? With traditional D&D the process-simulation is there to provide a robust structure for Gamist challenge*, not to model a fantasy world as such - as Gygax indicates in his intro to the 1e AD&D DMG.

Yes, sorry. I accept GURPS as a highly simulationist system, and HERO for that matter. Including D&D in the same list... Let's just say I'm not sure that it's remotely comparable to either.

*This is what board and minis wargames do, and was very much the default style of first generation RPGs.

Well, that's a different can of worms, and I'm not sure how true it is. Tabletop wargames, boardgames, and the first generation of RPGs encompass a very wide range of approaches.

 

[Bedrockgames]

A game cannot make you RP. It can encourage you, it can help you learn how, but it can't point a gun to your head and beat up your mom. If you have difficulties RPing, that's a table issue. And "realistic" is something very few aspects of any edition of D&D can ascribe to.

I find that certain mechanics can interfere with my abillity to do in character RP the way I m accustomed to. I also find that while D&D is a far cry from a realistic RPG, 4th edition chalenged my suspension of disbeleif more than any other.

 

[Cleon]

In S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, if we could have convinced those police robots to "go on a pilgrimage to Mecha", I'd have been overjoyed.

Yowch! I tried to laugh and groan at the same time.

A pun like "a pilgrimage to Mecha" should be enough to bring joy to a gaming table, whether it convinces the DM or not.

 

[Balesir]

Including those two in a selection of "Simulationist" games makes me laugh (not that familiar with HERO, though I know it by reputation).

I think that, possibly through force of habit (as I might have done), [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was using "Simulationist" in the Forge-y sense, rather than in the rather more restricted sense of "simulating the real world" in which it is generally used around here. In that sense, D&D definitely has some Sim underpinnings in its pre-4th editions. I think that actually formed the basis for a lot of the shock and awe (as in "that's awful") that 4e seemed to inspire. Those already well acquainted with decidedly non-Sim games generally seem to have had far less antipathetic reactions to 4e.

 

[Sunseeker]

This is something that does potentially concern me - early 4e design notes make clear the designers were indeed looking to strip out stuff like monster stat blocks for creatures the PCs wouldn't be expected to fight.
So I just tested it by checking for Unicorns and Pegasi in the Rules Compendium. Unicorns are right there in Monster Manual 1, so that's ok. Pegasi don't appear as a monster, but they were statted out as a DMG2 style Companion for PCs in a Dragon magazine article.

I still think it's a problem when adventures don't give me stat blocks for important non-hostile NPCs. Maybe I don't need combat routines for them, but Level, Attributes, Skills, and a paragraph of proper roleplay notes (as in the Loudwater section of FRCG, but missing in most of the published adventures, where most friendly NPCs are little more than names) would sure help a lot.

Regardless of edition, I think it's reasonable that some things are going to be left out either because testing says they don't see much demand, or creating them would just be too unwieldy. But having stat-blocks is a two-way street and has significant ups and downs.

First: having stat blocks can be good for the DM because if your players decide to engage the creature, you've got the info handy, yay!

But: some NPCs are just window dressing. You're in a magical forest, oh look there's a pegicorn! It's purpose is just to add to how magical the forest is, if the players came one step closer it would hurry off into the skies/woods.

At the same time: it can be a lot of information to handle. Sure, it's nice to be able to grab a stat-block if it's necessary, but sometimes that lvl1 Farmer NPC is just so pathetic it's really not worth the effort in rolling over him when you're just going to roll over him.

And of course: players have no idea if a creature has a stat-block or not, and IMO they shouldn't. I create a lot of home-brewed NPCs in my 4e games, so even if my players did see X monster off in the woods, there's no guarantee it really is that monster instead of my own that's similar, which means no guarantee of a stat-block or not.

Worst of all: premade stat-blocks for everything can be severely limiting. Why is a Wraith a CR7? Why is a banshee a CR14? Why a Drider a CR9(or 8, or 6 depending on your books/system), without a tool to alter or very clear math on improving or downgrading monsters, it can be difficult to find good challenges for players without being stuck with a limited selection of foes.
--Addendum: this was one thing I liked about some of the monster classifications in 4e, because it gave you a generic stat-block to work with based on the style of combat you wanted the foe to fight.
--As a side note: What I consider to be the worst aspect about "stat blocks for everything" is just that WOTCs realization of how a monster fights, how tough it is, what powers it has, may not jive with my realization, and as above, without a tool or obvious math for altering this, it can be severely limiting or just downright harmful to your enjoyment of a game.

I find that certain mechanics can interfere with my abillity to do in character RP the way I m accustomed to. I also find that while D&D is a far cry from a realistic RPG, 4th edition chalenged my suspension of disbeleif more than any other.

Fair enough, though I will argue that there are lots of ways to RP and I think it's reasonable that a game might encourage people to branch out.

 

[Balesir]

One problem with statblocks for everything is the old "if it has stats, we can kill it!" phenomenon.

I would have loved to have seen a "social statblock", personally, with things like rituals, utility powers with non-combat uses and the like listed, as well as Insight, Passive Perception and so on. Ideally with more of an actual "game system" for non-combat encounters. But that's just me, apparently.

 

[Imaro]

One problem with statblocks for everything is the old "if it has stats, we can kill it!" phenomenon.

I would have loved to have seen a "social statblock", personally, with things like rituals, utility powers with non-combat uses and the like listed, as well as Insight, Passive Perception and so on. Ideally with more of an actual "game system" for non-combat encounters. But that's just me, apparently.

I don't think that was just you, in fact I remember quite a few people who complained that these things (rituals, utility powers, etc.) were missing from statblocks and they were basically told by a vocal contingent of 4e fans that this stuff should just be made up by the DM and that unless it related directly to combat wasn't needed in a statblock. I'm with you and I think quite a few others were at first but after awhile I think those who did want it either moved on or just let it go.

 

[S'mon]

I would have loved to have seen a "social statblock", personally, with things like rituals, utility powers with non-combat uses and the like listed, as well as Insight, Passive Perception and so on. Ideally with more of an actual "game system" for non-combat encounters. But that's just me, apparently.

Yup, a social statblock for 4e NPCs would be great. A very happy medium between 4e's name-only and 3e/Pathfinder's page-long statblocks for every Tom Dick & Harriet.