How important is stat accuracy to you?

[jaerdaph]

Over the years I've used many monsters as written in memorable and exciting encounters only to learn later of errata to the stats. Didn't change the fact we had a lot of fun with the original version.

 

[BLACKDIRGE]

When I'm DMing, I don't care if I'm a bit off here or there. Most of my NPCs have skads of skill points left unspent.

As a consumer, correctness is very important to me. If I allow, say, five degrees of error during a game, every degree off is less wiggle room I have in play. It's also more math I have to do myself. As others have said, I do value cool ideas more -- but only so far as they are executed halfway well.

To be totally honest, statistical accuracy is one of the big reasons I rarely even look at third party books. The earliest 3.0 third party books, which seemed to be mostly critter books, screwed this up so badly that it stopped being worth my time to even consider anything not WotC.

They had some pretty neat ideas, but it seemed like statistical considerations were half-baked. All the odd stat modifiers, mathematical errors, and arbitrary BAB and save totals just toasted me. Really, if I can thumb through the 3.0 PHB and notice, without it being pointed out, that all the BAB and saves follow a mathematic progression, shouldn't someone trying to pass themselves off as a pro at least dig deep enough to figure that out? Anyway, that's a huge rant, but bad math bugs me, too.

I agree with you here, especially the point about being professional. If you consider yourself a professional game designer in the D20 system, I think you should be comfortable enough with D20 stat blocks to not make some of the glaring errors mentioned above. I think consumers need to hold publishers to a high standard, and publishers need to rise to meet that standard.

I am fully aware that not even the best editing team is going to catch everything, but a lot of stat block errors demonstrate to me not only a lack of editing but the author's unfamiliarity with the system in general.

BD

 

[ShadowDenizen]

Not at all. My players are fortunate if they can get their OWN freakin stats correct. They certainly aren't going to be demanding statblocks of critters and NPC's to doublecheck the work of the game authors or my own to make sure that they weren't cheated by one of them having a skill point or feat more or less.

Q.F.T.
I agree with The Man in the FUnny Hat

...

Hee!!

 

[JustinA]

To be totally honest, statistical accuracy is one of the big reasons I rarely even look at third party books. The earliest 3.0 third party books, which seemed to be mostly critter books, screwed this up so badly that it stopped being worth my time to even consider anything not WotC.

They had some pretty neat ideas, but it seemed like statistical considerations were half-baked. All the odd stat modifiers, mathematical errors, and arbitrary BAB and save totals just toasted me. Really, if I can thumb through the 3.0 PHB and notice, without it being pointed out, that all the BAB and saves follow a mathematic progression, shouldn't someone trying to pass themselves off as a pro at least dig deep enough to figure that out? Anyway, that's a huge rant, but bad math bugs me, too.

It sounds like you're talking about the original Creature Collection. It's important to remember that the CC was designed not only before the MM came out, it was designed before the PHB came out. They were working from a preliminary and incomplete version of the SRD.

And it's easy to say now, "Well, of course monsters are going to use the same attack bonus scales that the PCs do." But prior to 3rd Edition that wasn't true. So there wasn't any reason to suspect that 3rd Edition monsters wouldn't have largely arbitrary stats geared by gut instinct to challenge particular PCs.

Now, those excuses set aside: Yeah, I never got more than cursory use out of the CC. And there's plenty of sloppy stat blocks out there. And I think it's unacceptable for a professional company to tolerate stat block or mechanical errors (although errors do happen).

But products like the Monsternomicon and Green Ronin's fiend books and the Penumbra Bestiary all performed as well as WotC does in this regard. (Disclaimer: I worked on the Penumbra Bestiary.)

The thing with 3rd Party material is that it introduced competitiveness to the D&D supplement market: Which means that you're going to have a lot more high quality material, and that high quality material is generally going to be superior to what you'd have otherwise. But it also means that you need to take the effort to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Lumping all the the third-party publishers into a single category in your mind is like getting an undercooked steak and declaring that you will never eat steak again.

 

[Mercule]

I am fully aware that not even the best editing team is going to catch everything, but a lot of stat block errors demonstrate to me not only a lack of editing but the author's unfamiliarity with the system in general.

QFT. I'm not demanding perfection. What I'm demanding is the appearance of giving a poop.

 

[BLACKDIRGE]

QFT. I'm not demanding perfection. What I'm demanding is the appearance of giving a poop.

Absolutely. A lot of third party products appear to be rushed, and although many of them have solid ideas and concepts, they would be better realized if a little more effort was spent on the back end.

BD

 

[RichGreen]

Hi,

I don't really notice stat block errors unless they're really obvious so it doesn't really bother me much. What I don't like is descriptive or explanatory text that doesn't make any sense!

Cheers


Richard

 

[Eytan Bernstein]

Unapproachable East: 3.0
I'm a little unsure about the FR books. The other two I know for sure.

Unapproachable East is 3.5.

 

[Eytan Bernstein]

I am fully aware that not even the best editing team is going to catch everything, but a lot of stat block errors demonstrate to me not only a lack of editing but the author's unfamiliarity with the system in general.

BD

I don't think it's the author's familiarity with the system (or lack thereof) that causes errors in WotC products. All of the WotC designers I know, freelance or staff, are extremely well-versed in the rules. Where the problem exists is in the publishing process itself. When stat blocks bounce back and forth, a lot of small changes get made, but sometimes not everyone is aware of them. Frequently, the format of monster design changes, requiring a complete revamping of the monster. When this happens, some small, but significant errors can be overlooked. This doesn't signal a lack of rules knowledge on the part of the designers (or the editors). If you look, the errors appear regardless of who the designers and editors are. Rather, it suggests a flaw in the stat block design and editing process. The problem is that no one has proposed a better method.

I've spoken to some of the people at WotC (and I believe Chris Perkins also recently commented on this in the Future Products forum at the WotC website). They acknowledge that the problem exists and are looking for ways to streamline the stat block process. The answer will not come from hiring a lot more editors (though they are doing this to a certain extent). Lots more editors means higher costs which leads to an increase in the price of books. Improvement comes from experimentation with more efficient processes of design and editing. They are constantly going through these, but it can take a long time for the changes to filter down into general use.

 

[BLACKDIRGE]

I don't think it's the author's familiarity with the system (or lack thereof) that causes errors in WotC products. All of the WotC designers I know, freelance or staff, are extremely well-versed in the rules. Where the problem exists is in the publishing process itself. When stat blocks bounce back and forth, a lot of small changes get made, but sometimes not everyone is aware of them. Frequently, the format of monster design changes, requiring a complete revamping of the monster. When this happens, some small, but significant errors can be overlooked. This doesn't signal a lack of rules knowledge on the part of the designers (or the editors). If you look, the errors appear regardless of who the designers and editors are. Rather, it suggests a flaw in the stat block design and editing process. The problem is that no one has proposed a better method.

I've spoken to some of the people at WotC (and I believe Chris Perkins also recently commented on this in the Future Products forum at the WotC website). They acknowledge that the problem exists and are looking for ways to streamline the stat block process. The answer will not come from hiring a lot more editors (though they are doing this to a certain extent). Lots more editors means higher costs which leads to an increase in the price of books. Improvement comes from experimentation with more efficient processes of design and editing. They are constantly going through these, but it can take a long time for the changes to filter down into general use.

I agree, WoTC errors are not due to a lack of knowledge about the system, at least I hope they aren't for our sake. My comment was primarily aimed at third party products.

BD