Pang of nostalgia for "light" stat blocks
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
jgbrowning
Hero
What would be an example of ad hoccing and what would be an example of the application of general principles? I'm looking for a specific description of the diference 'cause I really don't see one besides where an individual decides to draw a line—a line which another individual could reasonably draw elsewhere.
joe b.
joe b.
Last edited:
Akrasia
Procrastinator
jgbrowning said:
The difference is astonishingly simple, and is not as abritary as you seem to suggest.
'Ad hoccing' occurs when you come up with an entirely new rule to cover a situation previously not covered by the rules.
Applying general principles to specific cases occurs when a general rule, which already covers a class of situations, is applied to a specific situation.
To take an example, a player wants his PC to 'fast talk' a guard. Let's assume that the game in question does not have a 'fast talk' skill.
'Ad hoccing' would involve coming up with an entirely new 'fast talk' rule to cover this situation.
OTOH, if the game has a general mechanic to handle PC-NPC interactions, say a 'Charisma' ability score, applying that general mechanic to this situation would involve the GM asking the player to make a 'charisma ability roll' (+ or - various modifiers, as appropriate to that situation).
A game could have a small number of general rules that apply to most likely situations. Such a game is not 'ad hoc' in nature. Alternatively, a game (e.g. 3e) could have a huge number of specific rules that apply to those same situations. Neither game is 'more complete' since they cover the same range of situations. The more detailed game is simply ... more detailed (for people who like that sort of thing).
ThirdWizard
First Post
If a tailor made suit is an ad hoc solution to a problem (the suit needs to fit the guy) then surely an ad hoc solution is application of general principles to a specific solution.
Say I'm an expert carpenter and I've built lots of decks for houses. I come across a house with a strange grade to the land underneath where the deck is supposed to be that I've never seen before, so I come up with a plan to make it stable on this particular ground. That is an ad hoc solution.
Say I'm a computer programmer and I come upon a strange protocol that my program has to interact with after several years of being released. I make a patch that will adapt a part of the system to interact with this new protocol. That's an ad hoc solution.
So where's the difference between these scenarios, which have professionals using the principles of design to solve a problem, and a DM who needs to figure out how to adjudicate a situation not covered in the rules of a game?
Where does it say that ad hoccing something makes up something totally new?
Say I'm an expert carpenter and I've built lots of decks for houses. I come across a house with a strange grade to the land underneath where the deck is supposed to be that I've never seen before, so I come up with a plan to make it stable on this particular ground. That is an ad hoc solution.
Say I'm a computer programmer and I come upon a strange protocol that my program has to interact with after several years of being released. I make a patch that will adapt a part of the system to interact with this new protocol. That's an ad hoc solution.
So where's the difference between these scenarios, which have professionals using the principles of design to solve a problem, and a DM who needs to figure out how to adjudicate a situation not covered in the rules of a game?
Where does it say that ad hoccing something makes up something totally new?
Akrasia
Procrastinator
ThirdWizard said:
The DM already has the necessary rules to adjudicate the situation. The situation is covered by the rules of the game.
If you want to label that 'ad hoccing', then fine. But normally the charge of 'ad hoccing' is levelled against 'incomplete' games (games that do not even provide general rules to cover all relevant situations).
jgbrowning
Hero
Akrasia said:
No, he's not labling it 'ad hoccing.' It is ad hoccing.
joe b.
Wil
First Post
Err..I'm not sure that I agree with how ad-hoc is being bantered about - the general usage that I'm aware of is when you are doing something based on the current situation and the results may not be applicable to any other situation. For example, when I issue an ad-hoc query against a database, that means I am executing a query that I have just written, for a specific purpose, that is not likely to be able to be used without modification for another purpose. So, even though I might be able to use the same query again to get the same kind of information, if I need to change the criteria manually it is ad-hoc. If I turn the same query into a stored procedure, where there are input and/or output parameters, it ceases to be ad-hoc even though the query is identical.
So, using this as a guideline, every time you make a ruling that is not covered explicitly by the rules (and I mean, word for word by the rules) it would be ad-hoc. This is not bad in any way, nor does it indicate that a game is "incomplete" (unless the ad-hoc rulings are a direct result of lack of rules or poorly designed rules).
To bring this back on topic, the idea of having to adjust NPCs after the fact (or, we could say, ad-hoc) is something that I think every GM needs to embrace at some point. I mean, everyone makes mistakes...what if I have a ranger NPC that needs to have hunting and trapping skills to help the party survive part of the adventure and I forget to give the NPC the necessary skills? Am I just to shrug and say, "Well, it's committed to a stat block now, guess I have to live with it"? Nope...and I don't ever have to let the players know about my mistake either. If I overlook a feat, or a Charm, or a power that an NPC should have had but I forgot and the oversight becomes obvious during play - damn straight I'm going to give it to them.
Now, in play groups where there is a adversarial relationship between GM and players this may not work and you might need everything spelled out for NPCs. I'm glad I won't play in groups like that, partly because of that reason.
So, using this as a guideline, every time you make a ruling that is not covered explicitly by the rules (and I mean, word for word by the rules) it would be ad-hoc. This is not bad in any way, nor does it indicate that a game is "incomplete" (unless the ad-hoc rulings are a direct result of lack of rules or poorly designed rules).
To bring this back on topic, the idea of having to adjust NPCs after the fact (or, we could say, ad-hoc) is something that I think every GM needs to embrace at some point. I mean, everyone makes mistakes...what if I have a ranger NPC that needs to have hunting and trapping skills to help the party survive part of the adventure and I forget to give the NPC the necessary skills? Am I just to shrug and say, "Well, it's committed to a stat block now, guess I have to live with it"? Nope...and I don't ever have to let the players know about my mistake either. If I overlook a feat, or a Charm, or a power that an NPC should have had but I forgot and the oversight becomes obvious during play - damn straight I'm going to give it to them.
Now, in play groups where there is a adversarial relationship between GM and players this may not work and you might need everything spelled out for NPCs. I'm glad I won't play in groups like that, partly because of that reason.
jgbrowning
Hero
Akrasia said:
Any situation that isn't completely covered in the ruleset and which requires adjudication results in an "entirely new" rule. Just like any new species is "entirely new" even if it's a just a newly discovered Canine and we name it under the accepted nomanclature according to fixed guidelines.
A guideline for making up new rules isn't a rule. It's design advice.
If you use d20 + +modifiers - -modfiers to make a new rule, you're not using the actual rules because you're the one deciding what modifiers to apply—another person may reasonably decide different modifiers apply— but under no circumstance is the rules deciding what happens. You may decide the player gets X bonus and I decide he wouldn't. Since there's only a guideline for the procedure in making up new rules, we're ad hoccing and both of us will have a correct answer if our respective parties accept our ruling. You're not using the rules, you're designing the rules.
You do realize that this is just as arbitrary as saying "You have an X% chance to succeed" because both situations can take cause and effect, situation and chance to create an equally valid outcome? Both are ad hoc solutions.
The only thing the d20 version is is better game design for a d20 game because it follows the trending pattern. It is, still, however, ad hoc because two people given the same situation could easily come up with a different % chance of success that two people could both see as a reasonable outcome.
Hence, ad hoc. A non ad hoc solution would give the same results every time. An ad hoc solution may give the same results, but it also may not.
joe b.
Last edited:
jgbrowning
Hero
WayneLigon said:What?That way you can write the numbers as a string and have no confusion, and you don't have to bother writing the stat. When D&D finally converts to just using the bonus, you'll probably see characters like:
Bob, Male Ftr Stats: 231004 Though putting in a negative modifier ruins that.
I think it'll be more like this because of monsters
Big Monster: 12|-1|12|0|0|-3
But it will be quite an improvement.
joe b.
Similar Threads
