4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Imaro]

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.

I think in theory I agre with most of the above...

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.

I don't see how having the actual stats for the "pegicorn" stops a DM from deciding that the PC's running into one is just window dressing? It's like saying because we have stats for dragons in the book, a dragon can never just fly over the PC's and off into the distance without swooping down and attacking. I think when the stats are present however it facilitates more playstyles... and not necessarily just ones centered around combat... What if the PC's come up with a plan to capture and use the pegicorn as a mount? It's stats could be relevant to whether the plan succeeds or fails... they could also be relevant if it does succeed and they now try to use it as a mount.

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.

I somewhat agree... but then I have to ask... do you feel the same way about minions in 4e, because essentially this is what a 1st level minion is in 4e, so do you think those NPC's/monsters are a waste?

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.

I'm not sure how this is a pro or con in and of itself for statblocks... again if something is just window dressing you've already decided it will not interact with the PC's or it's interaction with the PC is pre-determined... regardless of whether there is or isn't a statblock for it. Also you're assuming everyone plays like you, I remember there being articles and examples of people playing 4e in a mode where the PC's could actually view the statblock of a monster while fighting it... if you've already decided it has no statblock, well then you've already decided it will either not fight or the outcome of a fight with it will be pre-determined.

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.

But having statblocks does not preclude one from making their own statblocks for original or alternate creatures...

 

[Dice4Hire]

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.

Tom Dick would make a good NPC name, I think.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I agree completely - I personally don't find D&D to be a simulationist game, mostly because of hit points and saving throws. But many posters on this forum, especially those who don't like 4e, appear to play and experience D&D (especialy 3E) as if it were a process-simulation game. And I was replying to one such person.

And for clarity: I tend to agree with [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]'s "simulationist chassis for gamist play" picture of classic D&D, but a lot of the simulationism there isn't in the details of the mechanics, but the general approach to scenario design, action resolution etc, quite a bit of which is via free roleplaying or simple (d6, d20, d%) die rolls.

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.

This brings to light a tension in the 4e rules.

In combat, you resolve hiding as Stealth vs Passive Perception (which is in the statblock). But out of combat, are you meant to use oppposed checks, or the static level-appropriate DCs? I tend to go the latter way. (HeroQuest revised has a similar confusion - does the pass/fail cycle apply to all checks, or do checks against NPCs get resolved by comparing ability numbers?)

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think that, possibly through force of habit (as I might have done), @pemerton 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.

Possibly perversely I find 4e a better sim of the real world than previous editions. People moving as they fight, people driving others around as part of their standard techniques, hit points as stamina or stun? All (once you get round the overnight recovery) fit the real world to me much better than 1 minute combat rounds, hit points being weird wounds with no penalty, and almost entirely static combats. And AEDU is a better match for the OODA loop than anything else D&D has ever had except the Bo9S Crusader. People move properly, they think almost properly, and they recover almost properly.

Indeed. I think that the people who dislike 4e strongly tend to be those who think Sim is the only worthwhile way.

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.

My problem is that I do not trust either WotC or Paizo to do a decent social statblock. Evil Hat? Yes. Margaret Weis Productions? Since Smallville, hell yes. Lumpley Games? Definitely. Robin Laws? Probably. Paizo? I don't trust them not to produce Prone Shooter or Supernal Feast. And I don't trust WotC much further. Also the statblocks of the companies I mentioned are all designed for simplicity - I don't want to have to scramble through books to find what I need.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I somewhat agree... but then I have to ask... do you feel the same way about minions in 4e, because essentially this is what a 1st level minion is in 4e, so do you think those NPC's/monsters are a waste?

There's a difference between Farmer Bob's statblock and Farmers Bob, Dick, Harriet, Bill, Jo, Pete, Mary, and another dozen. If we've gone for the dozen I need some way of handling them.

 

[Imaro]

There's a difference between Farmer Bob's statblock and Farmers Bob, Dick, Harriet, Bill, Jo, Pete, Mary, and another dozen. If we've gone for the dozen I need some way of handling them.

Uhm... yeah, that's pretty much what I was inferring... However you look at it, still boils down to having a statblock for Farmer Bob in 4e... didn't it? Shidaku is saying you don't need a statblock for FarmerBob... I am asking him how he correlates thte idea that such a stat block is unnecessary with the minion statblocks in 4e.

 

[FireLance]

Tom Dick would make a good NPC name, I think.

Why not Harry Di-

Oh, never mind.

 

[Hussar]

I honestly would have no problems with a foreshortened social statblock for NPC's. OTOH, we're talking about something so trivial I'm not sure how much it's really needed. We got away without them for three editions previously (lots of supplements didn't tell you more than Human:Normal), so, not having them in 4e isn't something I've particularly missed.

OTOH, I really get the sense that people expect a hell of a lot more hand holding in 4e than they do in other editions. Looking at a lot of the criticisms of 4e, I'm baffled that people cannot make fairly simple, obvious changes to fit what they want. HP recovery too fast? Ok, slow it down. Is that really so difficult? No social statblocks on NPC's? Add 'em yourself. That's what we did for the past thirty years, why suddenly change now? On and on and on. It's almost like any criticism of 4e is couched in an absolute concrete reading of 4e without any ability to think for yourself.

Yet, every edition previously was given a pass on a lot of stuff - just adjust it this way is a perfectly acceptable answer to a lot of the issues in any edition. Yet in 4e, whenever that answer was given, it was brushed off by critics pointing to chapter and verse in books and refusing to budge from a single, almost mono-maniacal view of the mechanics.

It's utterly baffling to me to be honest. We've gone, as a community, from a group of tinkers who constantly massage and tweak our games to pissing and moaning over single feats like Prone Shooter, or single powers like Come and Get It.

People cherry pick single lines out of the books "Skip to the fun!"=complete rejection of playstyle, while ignoring the three pages of material that came before it detailing what that fun actually might be.

 

[S'mon]

OTOH, I really get the sense that people expect a hell of a lot more hand holding in 4e than they do in other editions. Looking at a lot of the criticisms of 4e, I'm baffled that people cannot make fairly simple, obvious changes to fit what they want. HP recovery too fast? Ok, slow it down. Is that really so difficult? No social statblocks on NPC's? Add 'em yourself. That's what we did for the past thirty years, why suddenly change now? On and on and on. It's almost like any criticism of 4e is couched in an absolute concrete reading of 4e without any ability to think for yourself.

I was talking about the convenience of having social stat blocks in published adventures, campaign settings etc. Obviously if I think I need stats for an NPC I do do it myself. I don't sit slack jawed staring at the page - "No stats... cannot GM..."

 

[Ahnehnois]

Yet, every edition previously was given a pass on a lot of stuff

Really? How much message board space has been devoted to a few niche 3e spells that only become problematic if wildly abused (polymorphs and calling spells, for example)? How about the people who keep bashing the core fighter even after supplements were released to add new options or new classes? How many criticisms of 3e relate to playstyle issues that aren't in the rules at all? How much of this keeps going years after the last 3e release? How many bad game design decisions have been made (throughout the industry), because of these irrational criticisms? If you ever frequented the WotC boards, I can't imagine where you ever got the idea that other versions of D&D got a pass on anything.

4e (and everything else out there) gets off easy by comparison.

Now as to why the older D&D editions don't have the same issue, I think it's simply because they're pre-internet.