Pang of nostalgia for "light" stat blocks

[Bullgrit]

From the "designer notes" in the updated White Plume Mountain adventure:

James admits to a pang of nostalgia for the days when Burket's statistics (area 12) could be summarized as, "AC: 4; 4th-level fighter; HP: 18; +1 to hit, +3 damage."

Well, Burket can still be summarized that way: AC 16; Fighter 4; HP: 23; +6 attack, +2 damage.*

Why would anyone have a "pang of nostalgia" for such a short (insufficient?) stat block?

[* Note that AD&D1 and D&D3 fighters have the same d10 hit dice. But for some reason, Burket averaged only 4.5 hit points per hit die, rather than the average of 5.5, which D&D3 usually assumes. And the D&D3 Burket gets max hit points for first level, which was not an official rule in AD&D1. The original "+1 to hit, +3 damage" presumedly came from Strength which I averaged to +2, +2 (15 Strength) in D&D3. Also, in AD&D1, attacks rolls were compared to a chart/table; now adays the table has been replaced with Base Attack Bonus -- that explains the extra +4 in his attack bonus. The text of the adventure mentioned him firing flaming arrows (not magical), and then defending his door with "sword and shield", but there was no "stat" for the items in the original adventure.]

Bullgrit

 

[Henry]

Why would anyone have a "pang of nostalgia" for such a short (insufficient?) stat block?

Because by WotC's rules of publication, he MUST be statted in full for the adventure.

I still stat a lot of my minor NPC's that way.

 

[Bullgrit]

Because by TSR's rules of publication, he MUST be statted in full for the adventure.

Huh? Do you mean by WotC's rules (now)? Because, apparently, TSR had no such rule.

So his pang is as an official adventure writer?

Bullgrit

 

[Henry]

I would assume so. (And yes, I meant WotC, not TSR thanks for catching that.)

 

[swrushing]

Why would anyone have a "pang of nostalgia" for such a short (insufficient?) stat block?

Well, recnelty when looking thru a product, it had stats for D20 traveller and classic traveller characters.. the typical "stat block" was 18 lines for T20 and 3 lines for CT.

I thought for a moment.

The game i remember most fondly, had most enjoyable time with, and get this, the characters who i remember the most about, can most tell you personalities, and are the most "detailed" in my memory, were those classic traveller characters with no more than three lines in a stat block.

that is true for the Ct game from literally decades gone by even when comparing it to the DND 3.0 game played with the same people just five years ago.

So, yeah, some nostalgia hit but mostly, the question... if the most memorable, most enjoyable and in my mind more known" or "detailed" characters (the ones i could tell you the most about) were three lines long in terms of "stats" as opposed to "two pages of stats" for some of the DND guys... what were those "two pages of stats" really adding to the game, to the character, etc?

 

[Bullgrit]

Well, recnelty when looking thru a product, it had stats for D20 traveller and classic traveller characters.. the typical "stat block" was 18 lines for T20 and 3 lines for CT.

[Note: I know absolutely nothing about Traveller, then or now.] Something I'm wondering:

Did those 3 lines tell you absolutely every rule stat about the CT character?

Did the 18 lines for the T20 character?

I mean, comparing the old and new WPM Burket -- 1 line of stats vs. 24 lines of stats. The old stats were not complete even for the AD&D1 rules (no mention of alignment, movement rate, ability scores, armor, damage die, etc.) The new stats tell absolutely every game mechanic stat for the D&D3 rules.

Insufficient vs. overloaded. One looks simpler, the other looks complicated. But is this because of the game system, or because of the writing style guides?

Bullgrit

 

[Odhanan]

Why would anyone have a "pang of nostalgia" for such a short (insufficient?) stat block?

Because sometimes as a DM, I find it really hard to get excited about an adventure when I have a two-page stat block. A one line stat block for secondary roles allows me to concentrate more on the "flesh" of the adventure than the number crunching.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Seconded. With both Tunnels & Trolls and C&C, I've been really enjoying a return to the short stat block.

Also, rather than having a bunch of different stats to fall back on as the differentiation for the NPC, I have to rely on the RP side of things. It certainly keeps me on my toes.

Because sometimes as a DM, I find it really hard to get excited about an adventure when I have a two-page stat block. A one line stat block for secondary roles allows me to concentrate more on the "flesh" of the adventure than the number crunching.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

[Note: I know absolutely nothing about Traveller, then or now.] Something I'm wondering:

Did those 3 lines tell you absolutely every rule stat about the CT character?

Did the 18 lines for the T20 character?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "every rule stat".

the three lines so to speak were sufficient to play the character in a game that lasted several years. I imagine the 18 lines would be too.

Additional lists for equipment and stuff would be separate in both cases.

I mean, comparing the old and new WPM Burket -- 1 line of stats vs. 24 lines of stats. The old stats were not complete even for the AD&D1 rules (no mention of alignment, movement rate, ability scores, armor, damage die, etc.) The new stats tell absolutely every game mechanic stat for the D&D3 rules.

yeah, i get that. but, the question is and perhaps the nostalgia issue is, if having all that more detail in character stats, generated by the more complex system and more complex chargen (in theory...) doesn't produce better play experience or better characters that are more memorable etc... then was it worth the added complexity at all?

for sure, more time would be spent on a DND 3.5 character in chargen getting stats than on an Ad&D 1 character... but does that extra effort produce a commensurate increase in fun, in character enjoyability, in all the things you will look back on in ten years time and go "remember when..."?

Insufficient vs. overloaded. One looks simpler, the other looks complicated. But is this because of the game system, or because of the writing style guides?

Bullgrit

 

[sjmiller]

[Note: I know absolutely nothing about Traveller, then or now.] Something I'm wondering:

Did those 3 lines tell you absolutely every rule stat about the CT character?

Did the 18 lines for the T20 character?

The three line Classic Traveller character description is, surprisingly, rather complete. It would tell you the name, service they were in, their stats (in a hexidecimal Universal Personality Profile), terms served, age, important (sometimes every) skill and their ranking, and how much cash they have. Depending on which format you were using it also showed weapon carried and armor worn, if any. That's a lot of information and contained pretty much everything you need to run that character. I am willing to bet that the T20* character does a reasonably similar job. There's just more they feel is necessary, I guess.

* I shudder at the thought of this. Traveller is a game I have played since 1979, and 20-sided dice should have nothing to do with it, in my completely biased opinion.