Monsters with spell lists is not a good sign

[Ahnehnois]

As I play (and GM) the game, the PCs are protagonists.

Mine too.

The NPCs are elements of situations that the PCs engage.

Okay.

Apart from anything else, in the typical scenario the GM's resources are distributed across a wider range of fictional personae.

True.

The PCs are created to be protagonists. They generate a list of player resources for protagonism. NPCs and monsters, being created for a different purpose, can be created differently. And the GM needs a different set of resources.

You lost me. I'm not seeing where the mechanics and the role of a character in the story relate. The mechanics are a description of that character in physical and psychological terms. The role in story is a description of that character in metagame terms.

Your intelligence score is a representation of how intelligent your character is, not how important he is. All thinking creatures must thus have an intelligence score. The same reasoning applies for any mechanics that describe essential characteristics of a creature. Any mechanics that don't do that are, conversely, unnecessary for both PCs and monsters.

If you go into the game with an attitude of indifference to whether the players' characters, or random orc (or even random supervillain) #3 is going to be the protagonist in your game, you are playing a radically different game from my own.

I don't have indifference, but open-mindedness. If a PC can't die, there is no point in playing the game, or at least in running combats. I approach the game with the thought that anything could happen, but the odds are clearly stacked in the PCs favor, because I have, out of all the characters that exist in the game world, assigned the PCs to be some of the best ones. However, they're still part of that world.

What do the players do in a game where it is up for grabs whether their PCs, or the NPCs and monsters, will be the focus of play?

They compete very hard to make a difference in the world. And again, they're the focus of my game, because I made them good, but they're not the focus of the world.

I do not actually create fully detailed PC statistics for every living thing in the game world. I do, however, assume that those statistics exist in theory, and that I could use the system to make them if needed them. Everyone plays by the same rules. You don't seem to be making the same assumption, which still puzzles me.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not seeing where the mechanics and the role of a character in the story relate.

Then, as I said, I think we are playing the game very differently.

Here are some examples of mechanics that relate to role in the story:

*possession of Fate/Hero Points, in systems that have them;

*4e minions having 1 hp;

*4e PCs having lower hp than monsters, but healing surges and the powers to unlock them;

*paladins, rangers and monk PCs in AD&D having to give away their wealth;

*PCs in AD&D earning XP primarily from treasure.

Many other more elaborate examples could be given once you get to games with Belief and Relationship mechanics like Burning Wheel, The Riddle of Steel, HeroWars/Quest etc.

The mechanics are a description of that character in physical and psychological terms. The role in story is a description of that character in metagame terms.

This isn't true in AD&D. A character's saving throw number is not a description of him/her in physical or psychological terms. It's a mechanical notation that serves a metagame purpose (as Gygax explains in his DMG).

3E changed saving throws to be process simulation. A major change, in my view.

It's not clear exactly what a PC's "to hit" number represents about him/her in AD&D or 4e, either: is it better skill? Or a greater propensity to win when using combat? Or a bit of both?

The rulebooks don't tell us. But they do tell us that hit points are a bit of both - even in 3E, I think, despite its otherwise process-simulation tendencies.

Your intelligence score is a representation of how intelligent your character is, not how important he is.

I'm not sure that's true. In 4e, it is highly arguable that it is a mechanical indication of how likely your PC is to succeed if s/he adopts an INT-oriented strategy.

And in AD&D I think it may have frequently been played this way, even if that wasn't what the rules said.

All thinking creatures must thus have an intelligence score. The same reasoning applies for any mechanics that describe essential characteristics of a creature. Any mechanics that don't do that are, conversely, unnecessary for both PCs and monsters.

What are hit points for, then?

Or, say, the "Unlucky" property in HERO?

 

[Stalker0]

I disliked monster statblocks in 4e until I read the Monster's Vault. That is a beautiful book imo. Its a great compromise between a streamlined mechanical statblock and the flavortext to spice up the monster. I would love to keep that in 5e.