Abreviated NPC Stat blocks: threat or menace?

[SteveC]

Here's a question raised out of some Spycraft discussions I've been having recently. NPCs in spycraft aren't designed like regular D20 characters: they don't have class levels, feats, skill points and so on. Instead, they have a rating in about half a dozen characteristics which is then mapped against their CR (called a threat level in Spycraft) in order to determine values that the GM needs to use with them in play.

As an example, if you need to know a will save? Cross index the character's "resistance" rating on a 1-10 scale with it's threat level and voila: you get the bonus. What's the guard's sense motive skill? Cross reference their "competence" bonus with the threat level to get that, and so on. The GM can also give them one or more special traits that make the character unique. This allows you to model things from animals to cyborgs or other "critters."

This process makes creating NPCs very easy, and it also lets you scale them to any level group on the fly.

The GM in my Spycraft game, who just co-GM'd a D&D campaign with me said "what a concept! Just think what could be done with this kind of a system and D&D. Prepping a complex encounter would take just a few minutes to complete!"

As I thought about that, I initially agreed with him, but as I thought about it some more, I thought this might be a huge step backwards. In earlier editions of D&D monsters followed their own rules and had their own special stat systems. One thing that 3E did was change it so that everyone has to live by the same rules, which has been an excellent change. It allows you to make any sort of monster as a real character, for one thing.

My question to you, then, is: would a system where monsters and NPCs were all defined in these generic terms be a step forward, backwards or in no particular direction at all?

 

[Jdvn1]

I'd say it'd be a step backwards. As it is, different monsters and NPCs of the same CR have wildly varying stats, since they're designed for wildly varying types of encounters and have varying abilities.

 

[Abisashi]

I think this might be a useful replacement for all of the grunt-type humanoid enemies, but beyond that I am not sure. I've actually been toying with an idea like this, at least for simple enemies. For instance, if I want some displacer beasts, I wouldn't mind doing some cross-indexing and just adding the "extra attacks" and "displacement" modifiers.

What I think would be better, but still fit with your idea, is to have generic creatures for each CR which you modify by adding abilities and compensating penalties. This lets creatures be generated quickly but keeps closer to current D&D. Really weird creatures would still need their own entries.

Essentially, what would be helpful is backward-design: You choose the CR and from there create the creature.

 

[Abisashi]

Thinking about this more, the basic creature of each CR could instead be one creature of each type (fey, outsider, etc), each with a list of bonuses and penalties that could be added. The basic creatures could be constructed with the creature construction guidelines in the back of the monster manual, and then each needs a list of standard abilities. I think you would want to list the abilities by type and CR instead of in a big list because A) it would keep the harried DM from being overwhelmed and B) abilities are worth different amounts, or need to be scaled on power, based on the CR and type of the creature they are on.

Am I making sense? I am now tempted to mock-up some examples.

 

[Turanil]

My question to you, then, is: would a system where monsters and NPCs were all defined in these generic terms be a step forward, backwards or in no particular direction at all?

As you describe it, I think it's a step backward. IMO it's opening the door toward total DM's fiat and improvisation. I have been doing this sometimes, as a D&D DM: improvising evrything about the monster, and having the monster die when the characters have reasonably suffered. I much prefer when PCs and NPCs abide by the same rules.

 

[philreed]

IMO it's opening the door toward total DM's fiat and improvisation. I have been doing this sometimes, as a D&D DM: improvising evrything about the monster, and having the monster die when the characters have reasonably suffered.

From a sense of fun point, for me, I prefer this method to keeping strict track of every little detail. Improvising, if the DM is experienced and good at his job, can be virtually transparent to the players.

 

[Turjan]

My question to you, then, is: would a system where monsters and NPCs were all defined in these generic terms be a step forward, backwards or in no particular direction at all?

That's a huge step forward in my book. Most generic encounters can be described by a few values, without the need to build the NPC or monster from scratch. This saves a lot of time, also in standard D&D. Just look at The Henry/S'mon Super Quick NPC Generation System for all NPC levels that has been presented on this board . A similar model of NPC generation is also one of the prominent features of Iron Heroes (in the GM's guide).

 

[Henry]

My question to you, then, is: would a system where monsters and NPCs were all defined in these generic terms be a step forward, backwards or in no particular direction at all?

FORWARDS, Forwards, Good God, Forwards.

In fact, I've been using a similar system for a couple of years now for "disposable" NPCs. As a DM, I don't need to know every single stat for every single NPC, and as long as the stat is within range for a character of that level, then an approximation is very workable.

I've seen some gamers who are bound, set, and determined to have every NPC statted out to the max, and it doesn't feel right to them otherwise; I've had disagreements on this point before with many posters here. But it's a core design philosophy that you're either going to like or not, and not much changes the person's mind if they are one way or another.

If you're a player who desires full stats for every NPC, and it works, then great; but I've so often seen consistent complaints about D&D being too complicated to DM, and DM's who say they tire of the amount of prep time they have to put in. That alone is enough to sell me on the need for an "abbreviated" system for D&D.

I don't like Spycraft 2's solution perfectly, but it's got the right idea: D&D needs a system for DMs which allow them to put in as much or as little detail into the NPCs as possible, and (here's the catch) STILL be compatible with the rules that the PCs are using.

 

[Henry]

As you describe it, I think it's a step backward. IMO it's opening the door toward total DM's fiat and improvisation. I have been doing this sometimes, as a D&D DM: improvising evrything about the monster, and having the monster die when the characters have reasonably suffered. I much prefer when PCs and NPCs abide by the same rules.

Turanil, I know you've had a lot of back-and-forth in finding the best game system for your needs over this very point. You tried C&C, 3E, and even AD&D, I think. You and Akrasia were in similar situations, if I recall correctly. What is your current feeling on this issue? It seems your statement above is at odds with the last time I read your position.

 

[Klaus]

Of course, a mechanic such as this has been around for, what, 30 years? Just check out Tunnels & Trolls, where Monsters and NPCs have a single statistic: Monster Rating (MR). It doubles as attack, damage, defense and hit points, all rolled into one.