D&D 3E/3.5 4E reminded me how much I like 3E

[Spatula]

On NPC generation.

Look, if it was so easy, why do the professionals screw it up just about every time? People who do it for a living complain about how hard it is to stat up NPC's. Saying that NPC statting is overly complex is hardly a damning criticism and has been noted by an awful lot of people.

How did "a computer program is an absolute requirement in order to make NPCs" (i.e. the statement that people were actually responding to) morph into "it's an overly complex process to make NPCs"?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I've never understood why recognizing system flaws equates with hating an edition.

I remember when I was complaining about prep time with 3e, and all sorts of folks -- many of the same folks now saying 4e is so much better because 3e prep time was hard -- told me that it was all in my head. Or, if I should claim that problem X was not a feature of edition Y, I was clearly looking through rose-coloured glasses. That's nostalgia, baby, not an accurate appraisal.

It's a little annoying.

It's also what's going on with 4e right now. Right now 4e is bright bright shiny shiny new. A bunch of folks love it, which isn't a problem, but that love can blind them to system flaws that (I predict) they will jump onto the bandwagon of complaining about when it is cool to do so. Probably right about the time that 5e is announced.

The system flaws people are describing about 4e right now are, by and large, real.....as were the system flaws of 3e when it wasn't cool to discuss them.

The funny thing is that, somewhere between these two games, there is probably a really, really sweet spot that, if 4e was OGL, would be on the market by now. Indeed, if 4e was OGL, it would probably be in that sweet spot because the designers would have to make it so in order to prevent the competition from doing it.

I would not be surprised if 5e occupies that spot.


RC

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

On NPC generation.

Look, if it was so easy, why do the professionals screw it up just about every time? People who do it for a living complain about how hard it is to stat up NPC's. Saying that NPC statting is overly complex is hardly a damning criticism and has been noted by an awful lot of people.

This is exactly the problem.

It is reasonable to expect the NPCs in a published work to be "John Cooper" flawless. They have the time to get it right.

But that is not at all the same thing as saying that the NPCs must be 100% by the book or your game is going to fall apart.

Throw me down in the column of not needing software to make NPCs. Dealing with high-level casters is a major PITA that I dread, but the problem there is 3e's over-the-top buff structure, and I don't know any NPC generator program what would help with that.

So, 4e tells me that I can break the rules, and that it's ok for my monsters to use different rules than the players' PCs, and that if there's something that's not relevant to the statblock, throw it out. Everyone lauds this brilliant revolution in game design!

So I am not exactly certain how it was that I managed to do this in 3e.

My NPCs don't even have skills until such time as they need skills. Wanna cast defensively? POOF! My spellcaster has maxxed his Concentration ranks. Need to tumble around combat? POOF! My rogue has Tumble. Need to bring your turned undead back under your control? POOF! The evil priest has 5 ranks of Religion and gets +2 to his Turn check.

I'll run out of "needs" long before I run out of "ranks." (Usually, because the NPC is dead.)

But if I'm not casting defensively, not tumbling, not turning any undead, I really don't tear my hair out worrying where even their first skill point is allocated, let alone every last niggling rank.

About those spellscasters? Same thing. I've played enough spellcasters over the years to know what the usual spell array looks like. I don't need to write down magic missile ahead of time to know that my evil wizard will have it prepared; and if my evil wizard casts magic missile three times in one combat, then that's what he must have prepared for the day. I don't need to write down shield of faith and resist elements and prayer to know that my evil priest will cast them, given the opportunity.

And no, my spellcasters aren't pulling weird "strangely applicable" stuff out of their ass just because I feel like it.

80-90% of the time every spellcaster has the same "go to" spells.

One last comment about published adventures, which often come with lists of prepared spells. Here the same rules apply. If I want to use a spell written down, I use it. If I want to use the same spell again, I'll cross off a different spell. If I want to use a spell not on the list, I'll cross off a different spell.

It's easy, and I needed no formal training, no explicit rules, and certainly no explicit permission from WotC to run my game in this fashion.

If 3e is too much hard work for you, by and large it's because you are making it too hard on yourself. It is far too easy to obsess over the details.

DMing requires different skills than simply playing. It also requires more time spent out of game. It's extra work, extra responsibility, and not everyone finds it to be enjoyable. Which is all Wulf was saying.

Of course.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

So, 4e tells me that I can break the rules, and that it's ok for my monsters to use different rules than the players' PCs, and that if there's something that's not relevant to the statblock, throw it out. Everyone lauds this brilliant revolution in game design!

So I am not exactly certain how it was that I managed to do this in 3e.

Do you think there's any practical difference between "the game design promoting and supporting X" and "doing X on your own"? I dunno, it just sounds to me like you're mocking people for praising the official rules for taking a direction you were using yourself. That's kinda confusing. I may be missing your point.

(Personally, until I spent some time on these boards, I assumed *everybody* did it the way you were describing, just filling in the relevant parts of the stat block and not the whole thing. So I'm not disagreeing with your approach.)

I don't really "get" folks who feel that the rules must 100% be followed to the exact letter in every circumstance, it seems extreme to me. But I also don't have any problem with people wanting rules that are meant to be fully followed and can be used that way without them becoming a chore. There are a ton of toolkit games out there so I never saw the appeal of D&D being one of those; others opinions will certainly vary.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I dunno, it just sounds to me like you're mocking people for praising the official rules for taking a direction you were using yourself. That's kinda confusing. I may be missing your point.

Oh no, you got my point exactly.

4e has a lot to recommend it, but "4e finally gives me explicit permission to do something I could have done all along!" is worthy of mockery.

And yea, the heavens opened up, and light shown down, and 4e arrived on a golden cloud to deliver the masses. "You do not have to sweat the small stuff. You may fudge, o my people..."

 

[The Little Raven]

4e has a lot to recommend it, but "4e finally gives me explicit permission to do something I could have done all along!" is worthy of mockery.

Just as "3e's encounter creation guidelines are fine if you just ignore them" is worthy of mockery. I don't buy a set of rules in order to just ignore them and do all the legwork myself.

 

[Steely Dan]

It is far too easy to obsess over the details.

Totally, that was a large part of my problem when designing NPCs/monsters, I thought I had to have every little thing accounted for, or I was "cheating".

I was always thinking one of my players might say ‘Hey, how can he have this many skill points if he' a 13 HD giant with an Int of 11?!' 'And he's one feat over!'

 

[vagabundo]

Oh no, you got my point exactly.

4e has a lot to recommend it, but "4e finally gives me explicit permission to do something I could have done all along!" is worthy of mockery.

And yea, the heavens opened up, and light shown down, and 4e arrived on a golden cloud to deliver the masses. "You do not have to sweat the small stuff. You may fudge, o my people..."

The law of large numbers applies here.* Many people got sucked into this hole and it is not an imaginary problem. Of course if you noticed it and did a little thinking, you could fudge things. but, for many, to play the game as written required correctly stat-ed NPCs or spending all that advanced Zombies' skill points.

Having "fudging" built into the system is a feature of 4e and a welcome one. It gives guidelines on balancing the fudging and that was the hard part of fudging in 3e.

Recognising the flaws of 3e does not diminish the greatness that is 3e.

*I happen to like the Law of Large numbers, it probably doesnt apply...

 

[Greg K]

]I was always thinking one of my players might say ‘Hey, how can he have this many skill points if he' a 13 HD giant with an Int of 11?!' 'And he's one feat over

Do you show your monster/npc stats to the players? Just curious as none of the DMs that I know (myself included) feel under any obligation to ever show the "math/work" to the players. For all the characters know, it can be an advanced giant, have a higher intelligence, or just have a small template or a feat added.

 

[Fifth Element]

Oh no, you got my point exactly.

4e has a lot to recommend it, but "4e finally gives me explicit permission to do something I could have done all along!" is worthy of mockery.

And yea, the heavens opened up, and light shown down, and 4e arrived on a golden cloud to deliver the masses. "You do not have to sweat the small stuff. You may fudge, o my people..."

But if officially all monsters are supposed to have full stat blocks, that means in published adventures monsters will have full stat blocks, even if some of those stats just take up space that could be better used otherwise.

And as stated, there are some who play the game by-the-book. By making "fudging" official, it can open these people up to a gameplay experience that you yourself clearly find superior.