DUNGEON's NEW STAT BLOCK FORMAT

[AdmundfortGeographer]

The problem is that with Dungeon, space is an issue. I can guarantee that there is no way they could repeat stats in the magazine, regardless of how "abridged" one of the stat blocks is. This would be great for a stand-alone module those, especially the mega-modules with appendices.

I agree.

I know Dungeon's staff is stretched thin but in place of an NPC appendix in the module getting this as a download off their website would be fantastic. At least the NPCs that PCs will be involved in heavy interaction outside of combat.

 

[Henry]

Rules are rules and they should be followed unless there's a good reason not to... However, that said, I think it's a waste of space to provide information (like listing Toughness as a feat, or Iron Will) that's only there to "show your work." While I don't object to people checking stats, there's no good game-play reason why an adventure NPC needs that kind of information or even the ability to be checked for accuracy. Ultimately, if an NPC has a +3 instead of a +2 in a skill, or what have you, while it affects game play, it won't disrupt game play.

AHA! Another Henry/S'monite!

(Or does this make us Monteites?)

 

[James Jacobs]

Heh... yeah, if we were stretched any thinner our inside ropes would come out.

Anyway, we've got no plans to abridge stat blocks in the magazine, with the exception of encounters that probably won't end up in fights. In this case, you'll probably see something like this:

1. The Flatfish Tavern
The owner of this filthy tavern is a lean dwarf named Tosker Tarn (LN male dwarf expert 3/rogue 1).

The PCs aren't supposed to fight Tosker, and even if they do, fighting him won't advance the plot. Therefore, he gets the abridged stat block. But any NPC that might end up being an enemy or an ally that could accompany the PCs gets a full-on stat block.

 

[Monte At Home]

There's always been a real underlying push at WotC/TSR since long before 3E regarding standardization: that something like a stat block has to be universal, and every time you present a new NPC, you've got to use the standard stat block. It's the idea that complete is better than easy to use. This has never been something that I agree with. This is what I meant by "right tool for the right job." For example, why have just one stat block format? You could have a combat stat block (this guy is only here to fight--a guard, a badass who's not going to ever talk, etc.), an interaction stat block (the guy the PCs are likely to talk to), and the full stat block (this guy is going to be a major NPC or it's not at all clear if the PCs will end up talking to him, fighting him, or whatever). You could go a step further and have the "adaptable stat block" that you'd use for the blacksmith in town, for example, that only has his class, level, and craft skill bonuses, because those are the only rolls you're likely to ever make with him (maybe Sense Motive too--that's a skill check handy to have at the ready for anyone in business). The minstrel in the tavern would have a similar stat block, but it would include his Perform, Diplomacy, and Bluff scores instead.

It's not like we're talking about different rules for different situations, just different presentations. The different presentations could even become visual cues for the DM so he can see at a glance what kind of encounter is coming.

(And sure, the players can always every once in a while throw the DM a curve ball and fight the guy they're supposed to talk to or vice versa, but that's the nature of the beast. It's going to happen in some respect no matter what you do. That's why there's a DM.)

 

[Monte At Home]

And it's funny that Monte singled out Filge's stat block as containing extraneous information, because Filge is specifically designed to survive the encounter and potentially join the PCs in the next adventure.

It's true, I only skimmed the adventure (although I plan on reading it fully because it looks quite good). I only chose him because I saw he had Toughness listed in his stat block. Toughness, along with Iron Will, Weapon Focus, and a few others are things that as a DM running the NPC I'll never, ever need to have listed out for me even if he accompanies the PCs on a whole adventure.

 

[Arnwyn]

The PCs aren't supposed to fight Tosker, and even if they do, fighting him won't advance the plot. Therefore, he gets the abridged stat block. But any NPC that might end up being an enemy or an ally that could accompany the PCs gets a full-on stat block.

This is the wisest decision you can make - and makes my money thrown at Dungeon magazine that much more well spent.

 

[S'mon]

A'koss, I'm sorry I sadden you greatly...

 

[S'mon]

This kind of adventure playtest critique is a good idea, we see many adventure threads here that often cover those sorts of problems, but certainly doesn't invalidate the broader stat block checking work being done out there (monster manuals, supplements, etc. in addition to adventures).

I read these boards & the reviews pretty avidly, yet I still find myself innocently buying and running stuff like Lost City of Gaxmoor and Necropolis containing stablocks that I don't realise are appalling (hey, the numbers add up, right?) until the PCs start dying*. You could say I'm dumb not to spot them myself, but I grew up with 1e where there was far more slack in the system - you _could_ put Asmodeus up vs 10th level PCs and expect them to survive it, somehow.

I'm thinking of buying Hall of Many Panes, another Gygaxian production - hopefully a reviewer or somebody will do that critique this time.

*In particulat, in Gaxmoor watch out for Harecules the Cambion (listed as CR 20 in a level 1-10 scenario, but really he's more a strong CR 21 when you factor in how his magic enhances his combat ability), in Necropolis watch out for the CR 14 Hippodilemon ambush, it was after they killed 2 PCs we quit the scenario, but I think there was plenty of other OTT stuff too, like the ethereal CR 25 quasi-deity serpent.

 

[S'mon]

AHA! Another Henry/S'monite!

(Or does this make us Monteites?)

Maybe we're really LostWorldsMikers?

Let's all say it together now:

"Rules Are For Players."

 

[Ketjak]

It's a user interface

There's always been a real underlying push at WotC/TSR since long before 3E regarding standardization: that something like a stat block has to be universal, and every time you present a new NPC, you've got to use the standard stat block. It's the idea that complete is better than easy to use. This has never been something that I agree with. This is what I meant by "right tool for the right job." For example, why have just one stat block format? You could have a combat stat block (this guy is only here to fight--a guard, a badass who's not going to ever talk, etc.), an interaction stat block (the guy the PCs are likely to talk to), and the full stat block (this guy is going to be a major NPC or it's not at all clear if the PCs will end up talking to him, fighting him, or whatever). You could go a step further and have the "adaptable stat block" that you'd use for the blacksmith in town, for example, that only has his class, level, and craft skill bonuses, because those are the only rolls you're likely to ever make with him (maybe Sense Motive too--that's a skill check handy to have at the ready for anyone in business). The minstrel in the tavern would have a similar stat block, but it would include his Perform, Diplomacy, and Bluff scores instead.

It's not like we're talking about different rules for different situations, just different presentations. The different presentations could even become visual cues for the DM so he can see at a glance what kind of encounter is coming.

(And sure, the players can always every once in a while throw the DM a curve ball and fight the guy they're supposed to talk to or vice versa, but that's the nature of the beast. It's going to happen in some respect no matter what you do. That's why there's a DM.)

Monte, I love and respect your work. I cannot do what you do, at least not without about a dozen years of dedicated effort and a good mentor like Coleman along the way. However, except for a few very talented people changing stat block presentation makes them harder to use, not easier. I'm going to go into user interface design for several paragraphs - I'm not impugning your knowledge of UI design and I may state things of which you are already aware. My apologies if I sound pedantic, it's not my intent.

Essentially this is a discussion about user interfaces. In this case, how does a user access information about an NPC or monster (or trap or room...) using a stat block (a display). One of the primary lessons UI designers (should) learn is that the user should not have to relearn the UI with each new screen. If a region of the screen is used for messaging, that area of the screen should always be used for messaging - with (very rare) exceptions, admitted. Imagine your operating system popping up messages in each display corner and the center based on what the OS designer thought was a logical way to display messages depending on the context... top left for memory usage warnings, top right for execution failures, bottom right for dialogs, bottom left for confirmation messages, and center for write failures. A few people will love that. Most will hate it.

(As an aside, I'd hazard a guess that you don't reconfigure your word processor's menu and toolbar system when you write an adventure compared to writing a sourcebook. You might add a (assuming MS Word) tool bar (like the Comments toolbar) but you probably don't change the order of the buttons, or the placement of the menus.)

If a user seeks information and it is in the same location each time, the user spends less time searching for that bit and has no need to understand or recall anything else except the location of the information. There is one layer of cognition between wanting information and accessing it.

If the location is different based on context, the user must first process what the context is ("ah, this is a combat challenge/social challenge/resource generator"), then must recall the location accurately, then must access the information. It's another layer of cognitive function between the user and the information being sought. Worse, if a mistake is made (by thinking the feat list from the social challenge is in the location of the combat challenge), the user has to mentally backtrack or sort through the different options.

If the location is inconsistently different ("random") users experience frustration and stop trying to access the information.

You can also see this frustration in product reviews in which the reviewer complains the chapters are "out of order" from previous similar products (the original 3E WotC splat books come to mind). You can see it best in reviews of computer software, mostly games, where designers generally change interfaces (display locations, console button functionality, right mouse click functionality) without explanation or warning when it happens. The player (reviewer) gets confused and from personal experience I know it can mess up game sessions. Try it on a child and watch the tears flow (I've done it unintentionally).

There are two great places to study user interface design:

http://homepage.mac.com/bradster/iarchitect/ (the Hall of Shame is amusing as well as educational, and they have a new Hall of Fame since I last visited)

Blockbuster (Seriously - they've put big money behind figuring out how most people "access" the "information" on their shelves, and have taken great pains to find a good solution.)

You can also Google for "interface hall of shame" - there are many hits returned nowadays that I didn't know about until a few minutes ago.

- Ket