Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 5184773" data-attributes="member: 3820">Long years of Champions and pre-3e have forged me into one of those GMs who's clearly in the &quot;keep it simple, keep it lean, make it something you can reskin with as few keystrokes as possible&quot; camp -- at least for villains that are supposed to be disposable. And that's the thing about D&amp;D for me, anyhow: it's the kind of game where the players frequently don't want villains to recur. They want to kill them.If an enemy takes little enough time to create, then you theoretically run the risk of not investing as much effort into his personality when you create him. On the other hand, if an enemy takes a good long while to stat out (or even to get a handle on all the things he can do, if it involves a lot of looking up different spells and such), then you theoretically run the risk of wanting to get the time invested out of him -- which can lead to seeing &quot;killing the bad guy&quot; as an undesirable outcome, at least until you feel satisfied with your investment. I think we've all known, at some point or another, a GM who's been a little too attached to a given villain and who didn't want the players to take him out &quot;prematurely.&quot; A good GM isn't going to fall into either trap, but I don't think it's unfair to say that they're both potential pitfalls. Wouldn't surprise me if that's part of the philosophy of the &quot;only stat stuff that it's questionable to fudge&quot; approach.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Barastrondo, post: 5184773, member: 3820"] Long years of Champions and pre-3e have forged me into one of those GMs who's clearly in the "keep it simple, keep it lean, make it something you can reskin with as few keystrokes as possible" camp -- at least for villains that are supposed to be disposable. And that's the thing about D&D for me, anyhow: it's the kind of game where the players frequently don't want villains to recur. They want to kill them. If an enemy takes little enough time to create, then you theoretically run the risk of not investing as much effort into his personality when you create him. On the other hand, if an enemy takes a good long while to stat out (or even to get a handle on all the things he can do, if it involves a lot of looking up different spells and such), then you theoretically run the risk of wanting to get the time invested out of him -- which can lead to seeing "killing the bad guy" as an undesirable outcome, at least until you feel satisfied with your investment. I think we've all known, at some point or another, a GM who's been a little too attached to a given villain and who didn't want the players to take him out "prematurely." A good GM isn't going to fall into either trap, but I don't think it's unfair to say that they're both potential pitfalls. Wouldn't surprise me if that's part of the philosophy of the "only stat stuff that it's questionable to fudge" approach. [/QUOTE]

Verification