Anyone else long for old days simplicity?

[Pielorinho]

I use the generators pretty often, but I always have to do about 10-15 minutes worth of work editing the results before I'm happy with them.

I may want a cleric of a god of Trickery and Vermin, for example. Vermin is a homemade domain, so I know I won't get that. Trickery as a domain gives access to various skills. The cleric needs a high charisma to take advantage of those skills; he should also be a reasonably good fighter.

So I can generate something, but usually I'll stop as soon as I get some attribute stats that I'm happy with. I let the generator figure out AC, melee and ranged attacks, saves, skill points, hit points, etc., based on attributes.

Then I go through and rearrange skill points. Then I go through and rearrange feats. Then I go through and rearrange spells. Then I go through and figure out the saves on the spells. Then I open the NPC equipment generator and generate equipment until I get something close to what I want. Then I go through the generated equipment and tweak it until it's exactly what I want. Then I go back to the character and change the stats to reflect the addition of equipment. Then I make myself notes about magic items that I'm not immediately familiar with, such as the range and effects of a potion of firebreath, the DC on a wand of command, etc.

I honestly don't remember how long it took me to create an NPC in 2ed or even 1ed (it's been about 13 years since I've played 1E). But I know it takes me quite awhile to get an NPC that I'm happy with in 3E.

I generally think that NPCs should be at least somewhat optimized. Someone who devotes her life to worshipping the Scorpion Lord isn't going to take skill focus: macrame -- she won't have time.

Daniel

 

[Storm Raven]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NPC Generator

As a non-combabtant maybe but would you give normal XP to the party if they fought and defeated a 13th level wizard (CR13 average XP value vs EL 13 party would be 3900XP) who couldn't cast any spell above 3rd level? If he has magic items adding to his Int score that's another story but why bother going trough all that if he can swap another score into Int? I tailor my NPCs along similar lines that the PCs use - highest stat into prime ability and all that.

I just can't see the appeal of troting out a CR13 NPC who hasn't the abilities he should and represents very little challenge compared to what he should. Beyond just wierdness or for laughs that is.

Remember, a metamagiced spell has its effective level increased, but its actual level is not. That 13th level Wizard with a 13 Intelligence could fill his higher level slots with metamagiced spells if he wanted. That seems to me like it would be an interesting NPC, and one who could pose a real problem to deal with. A pile of maximized, empowered and otherwise enhanced 2nd and 3rd level spells is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Gez]

Ah, good old simplicity of 2e...
"The wizard throw a fireball at you, make your save"
"I succeed, I have special bonuses on my save vs. spells"
"You forgot that I said before he grabbed his wand. He used a wand of fireball. Make your save vs. wand"

Or in the same category "What's the difference between Save vs. Death and Save vs. Magical Death ?"

Or "You have three types of proficiencies: weapon proficiencies, non-weapon proficiencies, and thief skills. Thief skills are percentiles you must roll below, non-weapon proficiencies are "boolean" -- you either have it or not, and for weapon proficiency, you need to roll up. Also, sometimes, you'll make Ability checks, for example to break a door or to lift an heavy object, you'll make a Strength check. To break a door, you'll have to roll a d% and consult this table, your chance of success depends of your score. To lift something, you must roll under your Strength score, with a possible score. Finally, you sometimes also will have to roll and add your ability score, or ability modifier. While I'm talking about ability modifier, you have one different chart by ability, modified thing, and sometimes class -- for example, the bonus hit points to HD from Constitution are different wether you're a fighter or a rogue. Now, I'll talk about the multiclassing rules, they are the very embodiment of simplicity: humans can't be multiclassed, but they can forsake a class to gain levels in another, it is dual classing. When you dual class, you lose instantly all your capacities in your first class until your new level equal your old level. For example, a fighter dual-classing to wizard would suddenly don't know what a sword is, but after having heavily trained in wizardry, he'll regain all his fighting skills. Because he read lots of spellbooks. If you're not human, or if you're an human but wizard/cleric of Thoth, you can multiclass, that is gain several class at the same time. Note you have some restrictions about allowed combinations. Your multiclass can only be with main classes, not subclasses --i.e. you can be a fighter/rogue, but not a ranger/bard. Except if you're a half-elf ranger following Mielikki, who are allowed to be multiclassed ranger/druid. Humans following Mielikki can't multiclass, and only humans and half-elves can follow Mielikki. You'll see the rules for multiclassing in the PHB, and the exceptions and addenda scattered in these 37 conflicting sourcebooks. Now, we'll see how intuitive the AD&D system, is, let me explains you the THAC0/AC system. It must be low, that's why you need every items that gives you plusses on these. Because you substract. So, an item with +2 AC is in fact an item that gives -2 AC. But most items gives you a fixed AC, like an armor or a ring of protection. If you have other modifiers to AC, just compute 10-fixed item AC and you have the plus of the item. Subtract it. Simple, and straightforward. Let's head to the experience tables, you'll see, it's very, very easy, basically each class has its own experience table, that progress in non-regular ways, and ..."


NO ! I ABSOLUTELY DON'T MISS THE SIMPLICITY OF THE OLD DAYS ! I DON'T MISS IT ! I LOVE THE COMPLEXITY OF NOW ! I UNDERSTAND BETTER COMPLEXITY THAN SIMPLICITY ! WHEN IT'S SIMPLE, IT HURTS MY HEAD ! THE SIMPLICITY OF AD&D2 MAKE MY HEAD EXPLODES AND IT STAINS THE WALLS ! WITH THE ARCANE MECHANISMS OF D&D3, THE WALLS ARE CLEANS AND THE INTEGRITY OF MY HEAD IS PRESERVED ! LONG LIVE COMPLEX AND UNINTUITIVE SYSTEMS ! THEY ARE THE WAY TO GO !

All that IMHO, of course.

 

[Zerovoid]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NPC Generator

Remember, a metamagiced spell has its effective level increased, but its actual level is not. That 13th level Wizard with a 13 Intelligence could fill his higher level slots with metamagiced spells if he wanted. That seems to me like it would be an interesting NPC, and one who could pose a real problem to deal with. A pile of maximized, empowered and otherwise enhanced 2nd and 3rd level spells is nothing to sneeze at.

Thats really clever, and a use for metamagic spells that I never thought of before. Still, a 13th level wizard should probably have at least an 18 in their primary stat, and spell focus in their specialization. I'd probably go easy on the PC's and not give the wizard improved spell focus. This means, for example, that this guy can cast finger of death with DC23. This is alot more potent than metamagic guy's 2x damage, double empowered fireball with a DC of 14, because he has low stats and the wrong feats. He is obviously not an equal challenge to the 18 int guy.

 

[WSmith]

Henry, how I would answer the question posed to Clark, I used to do something very similar. I would have them roll against their ability score with a d20. If they rolled under they succeded. Over they failed. If a fighter had exceptional STR and roll an 18, he would then roll the d% to see if they were under for success. This was a consistant method I used over and over in place of "non-weapon prof." It always seems to work great. Plus it made use of those otherwise static stats.

Saying that, Gez brought up several reason why I would NOT go back in time. There are a great deal of things I love about 3e. And again, I don't think the game is too complex for a group of seasoned role players, who have read over the rules and played a couple sessions.

BUT, when I say I miss the simplicity, nostalgia aside (sorry, cognitivly I know this has something to do with my opinion )I think what I miss not worrying about rules rules rules, but just the fast and furious improv that my above rule let resolve many many situatiuons.

Now, to offer a solution, if anyone wants to use the old box sets for a one shot, I am down with that. But if I were to do it, I would make the folowing changes:

Make the AC up from 10 as in 3e
Use the three saves Fort, Ref, Will
Stats use 3e and their modidifers
opposed roles
BAB, (if have to admit, though THAC0 is a cooler sounding acronym )
Initiative

Heck you could even run the one shot without skills. Just keep a list handy, or even better use what ability mod you think is best to roll vs. the DC. For example if the thief... ah sorry, rogue wants to climb the idol and get the gem, you won't use the antiquated % chance to climb, just note what modifers (Climb =STR) make up a DC, keep in mind with no one having skills the DC might need adjusting, and have him roll and add the STR mod. Heck, you could even go one step further and give rogues +X to the certain checks to simulate their adeptness. Take it further, and add just a few skills that are key to adventureing like spot, hide, listen, move silently, etc. This allows opposed rolls, and a consistant mechanic.

So, to summarize, I liked the simplicity it gave me to improvise with the lack of game mechanics, BUT the mechanics that were in place, like the 5 saves, and AC is better going down, etc. I would not want to use again.

And now I take a sip of my iced tea.

 

[kenjib]

Another complexity: Take a 12th level wizard who has raised his int score three times from 15 starting to 18 total and has a headband of intellect +1. Figure out his skill points. You can do it fine but it's just another mess of complexity and more simple math that you have to bother with. You also have to decide when he acquired the headband.

 

[Desdichado]

BUT, when I say I miss the simplicity, nostalgia aside (sorry, cognitivly I know this has something to do with my opinion )I think what I miss not worrying about rules rules rules, but just the fast and furious improv that my above rule let resolve many many situatiuons.

My group still uses those kind of "seat-of-your-pants" improvisations. There's no point in stopping the game to look up the rule for breaking something, or the hardness of the sample objects given in the DMG, etc. You want to break something, you use the same rule as to attack it. Improv the "AC" and the "HP." Really, just because we have rules for these kinds of things does not make 3e more complex. 1e had them too, especially as source books proliferated. You probably just ignored them. That, at least, is as easy to do now as its ever been.

 

[Storm Raven]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NPC Generator

Thats really clever, and a use for metamagic spells that I never thought of before. Still, a 13th level wizard should probably have at least an 18 in their primary stat, and spell focus in their specialization. I'd probably go easy on the PC's and not give the wizard improved spell focus. This means, for example, that this guy can cast finger of death with DC23. This is alot more potent than metamagic guy's 2x damage, double empowered fireball with a DC of 14, because he has low stats and the wrong feats. He is obviously not an equal challenge to the 18 int guy.

Well, I suppose that's the difference between an NPC who is a method to instakill PCs and one who is actually interesting. The guy who relies on metamagic feats is a cool change of pace from endless streams of Wizards who cast Finger of Death ad nauseum. As a DM I would have much more fun working around the limitations of the 13 Intelligence Wizard as opposed to yet another boring tricked out super polished Wizard.

 

[WSmith]

My group still uses those kind of "seat-of-your-pants" improvisations. There's no point in stopping the game to look up the rule for breaking something, or the hardness of the sample objects given in the DMG, etc. You want to break something, you use the same rule as to attack it. Improv the "AC" and the "HP." Really, just because we have rules for these kinds of things does not make 3e more complex. 1e had them too, especially as source books proliferated. You probably just ignored them. That, at least, is as easy to do now as its ever been.

I agree keep the game rolling!

You know, you did just strike a chord. Most of the stuff we probably ignored and kept the game going. I didn't give that any thought, but that is a good point.

Sure, you can improvise with 3e, but my personal hang up (something I alone must learn to deal with ) since 3e is very "balanced" unlike other editions, I find it harder to improv cause I worry about upsetting the balance. With the "unbalanced" 1e as some would say, (or at least un heavily playtested by hundreads of players) it wouldn't matter if you overlooked something cause everything was kooky and quirky. But, heck that was brought up ad nausium here before. I am just going to play and have fun, and let the improv take over!

 

[KDLadage]

Hitting a couple of points fromearlier at once...

KDLadage: Your points have merit, but you seem to have missed the thrust of mine. The character generated has some fine roleplaying characteristics. But its useless as something that I just want to throw at the party - as I stated, its effectively a 5th level wizard with good saves and hp. I wanted 13th.

Sure. I understand. And yes, in many wyas, 3e, becuase is grants so many options, will have complexities. Is 3e more complex (as far as character generation is concerned) than 1e? Sure it is. In 1e, a 10th level fighter was a 10th level fighter was a 10th level fighter.

My point is that I have found ways to circumnavigate and cicumvent the complexities that are fine by me... and so, in the end, no: I do not want to return tot he old days.

I see your point. I just find it one that I can live with.

And, as Numion pointed out, this thread is (or at least, originally was) looking at the generators as a time saving device. If I have to generate a dozen characters and then pour over them looking for strange ability, skill and feat combos, it's not doing that.

I can see this, but then again, it is a problem I can live with. Sometimes people have strange combinations of skills and abilities. I have some, as a matter of fact.

Look at it like this. Have you ever played Traveller? The characters in that game can die before they are done with character generation. Sometimes you get some odd results: Generalls with less retirement pay than a Second Lieutenant, for example. But I have always found these quirks to be a draw -- this is the way it is, now explain it... this is half the fun of Role Playing for me.

It is obviously not so for you, however. I am sorry for that fact, but as with all things, YMMV.


And from another poster to these threads...

As a non-combabtant maybe but would you give normal XP to the party if they fought and defeated a 13th level wizard (CR13 average XP value vs EL 13 party would be 3900XP) who couldn't cast any spell above 3rd level?

No I would not. Or I might. Maybe. Depends on the situation.

Consider this. When (A)D&D was in the 1e days, there were few things you could do to customize your character. A Magic User of 13th level you knew the capabilities of. Now you do not.

So... if I build an Elven Wizard, level 15 (CR 15), and give him all non-combative spells, no metamagic feats, stack his ability with his sword up to the sky (Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, etc...) -- do you give full XP for defeating this guy?

So... if I build a Human Rogue, take all of the skill levels as Knowledge (this), Knowledge (that), Knowledge (the other thing), Profession (this), Profession (that), Profession (the other thing) and so on... do I give full XP for that encounter?

So... if I build a Dwarven Killing Machine, stacked to the gills with enough hit points, attack bonuses and damage bonuses -- and he is defeated in round 1 via a Polymorph other spell and an unlucky save, do I give full XP for that?

My point here is that CR and so on are supposed to be tools -- not defining characteristics that restrict the ability of the Game Master to make intelligent, educated choices in dealing with her/his campaign.

Use thes as tools; not bindings. Let them set you free, not hold you hostage.

GURPS, Champions and other point-based games use a Character-point balancing concept. This does not mean that all 100 point characters are equally powerful in all venues.

Einstein, for example, is about a 200 point character in GURPS (I do not have GURPS Who's Who with me, so I cannot be precise). This does not mean that the average 100 point Fighting Machine will not mow down Einstein in a second flat, or that the 25 point bully could not beat the poor physicist to a pulp.

This is the price one pays for a Character generation system that allows someone to build any kind of character under the sun.

d20/3e is not quite GURPS for the flexability. But it is flexable. And the more options you have, the more effort you will need to put forth to keep things balanced.

If he has magic items adding to his Int score that's another story but why bother going trough all that if he can swap another score into Int? I tailor my NPCs along similar lines that the PCs use - highest stat into prime ability and all that.

I understand. But, with choices come extra effort to use them. I don't mind having to put forth that effort -- be that to tailor the NPC's stats to fit the encounter, or the tailor the encounter to fit the NPCs stats.

I just can't see the appeal of troting out a CR13 NPC who hasn't the abilities he should and represents very little challenge compared to what he should. Beyond just wierdness or for laughs that is.

OK... so I have a level 13 Wizard with an intelligence of 13... and you cannot find any uses for him other than comic relief... Sorry to hear that.

Again, my point in bringing up Jamis Buck's work was not to state that his work is perfect, but that it is useful. My point in defending the Int 13 Level 13 Wizard, is that I could certainly find a few dozen, very serious uses for this guy. But that is me.

If his work does not help you, then try PCGen... or wait for Master Tools... or what have you.

But to the original question: I like choices. I like lots of choices. I prefer GURPS over all RPGs and if I could get more people in an RPOG group to play GURPS, I would.

I like d20/3e. It is a fine game, and I have had a blast with the campaigns I am running (2) and playing in (2). The game is a vast improvement (IMVHO) over 1e and 2e -- and no, I do not want to go back.

Is it more complex? In ways, yes. Character Generation has more options -- more options immediately spells greater coimplexity. Is it worth it? Yes.

Play of the game is definately not more complex, as the game system itself is quite smooth. Consitant. Very clear and clean.

Someone stated once that they could cover anything with a simple d6 roll in the old days. I can to. I just choose to use a d20 most of the time, so that my players don't know that I am making up a rule on the spot. After the game, I will comb the books and see if an exiting rule covers that situation. You know what? Most of the time it does, and it handles it the same way (or close) to how I did -- because the rules are consitant, most ofthe stuff I make up is pretty damn close to the real rule anyway. In 1e, it isn't like that. there was no guiding vision or underlying principle. Still, it was fun.

So is 3e.

And I would not go back if you paid me to.