Pang of nostalgia for "light" stat blocks

[Akrasia]

... As for D&D 3x providing more options to players than previous editions - I disagree. There isn't a single thing in D&D 3x that I wasn't able to do in previous editions of the game. What is different and what D&D 3x does do is provide more rules [to govern actions] - which isn't the same thing at all as providing more options. Rules =/= options. Never have

Good point. It's depressing how many people conflate 'rules' and 'options'.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Umm there are more options. Character creation options. No longer are you a Fighter4 with Fighter4 abilities. You're a Fighter4 with your own abilities. Maybe this one gets an AoO when he tries to disarm but another one doesn't, one is a master grappler, and another is a Dex based fighter with ranks in Hide and Move Silently. Another has ranks in Use Magic Device, and while usually he just fails to do things, occasionally, he makes that wand actually work. Yet another can move up to the enemy, attack, then move back to better protect his wizard companion.

You can say you could do these things in 1/2E until you're blue in the face, but the question is really what would make Fighter A better than one of the others at his thing than Fighter B? Very rarely. Usually the "yes" answer to this is that he had a magical item that allowed it. Occasionally, the DM allowed him to gain the ability in exchange for something else. Now he has the option, and its not up to DM fiat. When its DM fiat, its not really an option is "may I please do this with my character?"

Lets not even get into PrCs.

Saying you had the same options in 1/2E as you do in 3E is completely untrue. You cannot write a single line stat block in 3E and successfully represent a character because of these options. If you could in 1E then yes, you do have more options.

 

[Wil]

Actually, I may be the only one here that does anything like this, but when I develop an NPC for any game, I usually decide what I want them to be able to do without reference to the rules. So if I have an NPC that I want to be able to get a free strike at anyone who gets close to them, I usually just say something like, "Can bitch-smack anyone who gets too close". If there is an ability already present that represents that I'll usually make an effort to look it up and note anything about that I might need to know - otherwise, I don't worry about the NPC being made "legally" like the PCs. I know this a bit off topic, but it seems at least tangentally related to the question of short or long stat blocks - long stat blocks are obviously going to be desirable in games where the NPCs are built the same way the PCs are. In games where the NPCs are built however the GM sees fit, a super-detailed stat block is not as useful and the rigid format may actually be a detriment.

 

[jdrakeh]

You can say you could do these things in 1/2E until you're blue in the face

Fact is, making individually unique characters has always been possible in D&D. It isn't a possibility that has always been spelled out in black and white, though - again, that's the real difference between D&D 3x and earlier editions. D&D 3x didn't really introduce any previously non-existant options, it merely codifies a bunch of stuff with hard and fast rules that people have already been doing for three decades.

When its DM fiat, its not really an option

Hrnh? How so? How does something suddenly become more 'optional' because it's written down? It's certainly more codified, but it isn't any more or less optional (unless you're using some really obscure definition of the word 'optional' that isn't in the dictionary).

You cannot write a single line stat block in 3E and successfully represent a character because of these options.

Actually, it's the rules that make a single line stat block unfeasible, not options. As somebody else illustrated with Traveller, a single line stat block can more than adequately represent an individually unique character.

[Edit: Removed snark.]

 

[Akrasia]

Umm there are more options.
...
Saying you had the same options in 1/2E as you do in 3E is completely untrue. You cannot write a single line stat block in 3E and successfully represent a character because of these options. If you could in 1E then yes, you do have more options.

Amusingly, you're conflating rules and options here -- precisely the thing I decried in my post. Nobody would argue that 3e has more rules than pre-3e D&D. And if you need written rules in order for you to think that you have more options, then I can understand why you think the way that you do!

IME, I ran some RC D&D games a few years ago, and the players had all kinds of freedom to come up with unique characters. We worked together to help explore those options, and did not feel that these options needed exhaustive 'official' rules in the book in order for us to implement them.

But hey, if people feel that they need lots of written rules in order to have 'options', then that's fine for them. I just think that creativity can be lost by the demand for exhaustive codification. YMMV, of course.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

And please lets not turn this into another "edition wars" thread, okay?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Hrnh? How so? How does something suddenly become more 'optional' because it's written down? It's certainly more codified, but it isn't any more or less optional (unless you're using some really obscure definition of the word 'optional' that isn't in the dictionary).

Because it changes from game to game. One game will have no options, another many. That has nothing at all to do with the system, and it has everything to do with the players. Saying that 2E has as many options as 3E is not true. Saying that many DMs gave the players many options is true. But, you can't attribute that to the game, you have to attribute it to the players playing the game.

Actually, it's the rules that make a single line stat block unfeasible, not options. As somebody else illustrated with Traveller, a single line stat block can more than adequately represent an individually unique character.

That can't be right. As far as I can see, its backwards. Without the rules, the stat block will be longer, not shorter. Take a simple feat like Dodge. If the rule exists (ie the feat) then you write Feats: Dodge somewhere. If the rule doesn't exist, then you write "can add +1 dodge bonus to AC against one opponent which can be changed on their turn."

Any 1 line stat block will by definition not have these options because you have to spell them out. Give me a 1E fighter that can trip and disarm better than other fighters and can cleave and power attack. I guarantee you it will not be one line.

Pining for the one line stat block is pining for less options available.

Amusingly, you're conflating rules and options here -- precisely the thing I decried in my post. Nobody would argue that 3e has more rules than pre-3e D&D. And if you need written rules in order for you to think that you have more options, then I can understand why you think the way that you do!

I'm confusing nothing. Just because you saw fit to add rules to the game and call them options doesn't mean that there were the same number of options but less rules. House Rules are aptly named.

And lets not confuse the issue. I'm talking about one line stat blocks, or three line stat blocks if we want to go wild. Could those PCs with "options" (ie new rules made up for them) be expressed in one to three lines? That is the real question here. I say, no, they couldn't. The more options you give the longer the stat block has to be to express said options. You seem to be reading some edition debate into what I'm saying.


If, in fact, a 1E NPC could be written in one line, and nothing is missed, then it is, frankly, impossible to argue that the same options were present in 1E than 3.X, at least for NPCs. I'm saying that the longer stat block is a logical outgrowth of these added options.


As an example of a "long" stat block here is an example from my last session: an elite guard mook who the PCs fought around two groups of four during the adventure (less than expected because of good tactics).

[sblock]
Elite Guard, Fighter 4: CR 4; Size M; HD 4d10; hp 28; Init +5; Spd 30 ft; AC 17, touch 12, flat footed 13; BAB +4, Grapple +6; Atck +8 melee (1d8+4 longsword), Atck +8 ranged (1d8+2 longbow); AL LN; SV: Fort +4, Refl +2, Will +0; Str 14, Dex 14, Con 10, Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 8.
Skills & Feats: Spot +3, Listen +3; WF (ls), WS (ls), II, Combat Refl., Toughness, Dodge.
Possessions: mw longsword, mighty longbow, chian shirt, heavy shield
[/sblock]

I can't imagine trying to cram that into one or two lines.

EDIT:
Of the options that I expressed here: As a guard they had quick reflexes to react to situations around them. To achieve this effect, I used the rules of Improved Initiative and Combat Reflexes. I also wanted them to be good with their particular melee weapons, so I gave them Focus and Specialization in the longsword. Since the PCs have the option to try to get the drop on the guards (using Move Silently and Hide) I decided to not only list the rules for their Spot and Listen, but also included their flat footed AC, along with touch since the PCs have the options to try to forgo saving throws and instead use touch attacks in their spells.

 

[jdrakeh]

Because it changes from game to game.

Okay... now perhaps you could answer the question that I asked. What makes a written rule more optional (not different) than a choice that isn't disallowed by the rules? The above answer explains how the two things are different in terms of presentation, but does not address what makes one more optional than the other. By definition, they're both options - and options aren't measured in degrees. There's no such thing as a 'more optional option' - more appealing options, sure, but more optional options? Nope. An option is an option is an option.

One game will have no options, another many.

Again, you're asserting that rules equal options - which isn't necessarily the case. Do you have a written rulebook that tells you how to put your pants on in the morning? No? Then pants must not be an option according to your logic. D'oh! Obviously you still have the option to put on your pants in the morning even though there isn't a rule book telling you how to do it. Or maybe you don't, but I seriously doubt it. So.... how 'bout it? Are you wearing pants right now?

That has nothing at all to do with the system...

It does have something to do with the system. Rules, by design, govern how things work and in doing so they specifically state that things work like this and not like that. That is, they embrace one approach to a given situation at the expense of all others. A system that doesn't codify a given circumstance in specific terms excludes no approach to the situation by design. Note that (as the pants example proves), not having written rules that tell you how to do something does not exclude that something as an option.

Saying that 2E has as many options as 3E is not true.

I'm just a liar, then? Is that your big rebuttal? You've said this twice now, so it would be really cool if you took the time to explain why this is instead of simply parroting that this is the case without offering any explanation that speaks directly to the matter. Why are the things I say untrue? They're supported by simple logic and over thirty years of gameplay by hundreds of thousands of people. Are they just untrue because you don't agree with them? 'Cause that's the vibe I'm getting here.

That can't be right. As far as I can see, its backwards. Without the rules, the stat block will be longer, not shorter.

Check out Traveller, Risus, Over the Edge, Pandemonium, Castles & Crusades, Core Elements, Maelstrom Storytelling, The Window, and hundreds of other games then. They all manage to represent unique and dynamic characters with short stat blocks (and, again, somebody demonstrated this with Traveller in this very thread). Your assertion might hold water if you ignore the fact that all of these other games exist, but otherwise it's a sieve. A really big sieve riddled with thirty years worth of hundreds of holes.

Pining for the one line stat block is pining for less options available.

This thread isn't about 'one line' stat blocks, though - merely about condensed stat blocks. And again, more ink on the page doesn't necessarily mean fewer options. If it did, we'd all live in a world without pants

 

[MPA]

I can't imagine trying to cram that into one or two lines.

Elite Guard, F4; hp 28; Al LN; ST +4 +2 +0; S+2 D+2; sword (+8, d8+4); bow (+8, d8+2); chain shirt (+4); shield (+1); Spot +3; Listen +3; Improved initiative, Combat reflex, Dodge; Thoughness.

He doesn't have any special template or the like, so CR, HD and size can be easily removed - the first two are the same as level and M size is standart, giving no modifier therefore doesn't affect his stats.
Encumbrance is standart (30ft)
AC can be seen quickly: normal 10(base)+2(dex)+4(chain)+1(shield)=17
Attack bonus for other weapons will probably not be used but if needed can be calculated easily +4(level)+2(str)=+6; touch 10(base)+2(dex); flat-footed 10(base)+4(armor).
Grapple and initiative can be similarly calculated.
Con gives no modifier, so there is no need to be noted; INT, WIS and CHA do have modifier, but will hardly come into play, its far easier to assume its 10 (its effects would still be noted on the skill bonus)

I would probably also drop a few more things:
Elite Guard; F4; S+2 D+2; sword (+8; d8+4); bow (+8; d8+2); chain (+4); shield; Spot, listen +3; reflex, dodge, though.

However, as I usually play OD&D, the character would be like this:
Elite Guard; F4; HP22; AC3; EP??
I remember how much EPs this guy would give so I wrote ?? instead. Anyway, since the stats are so few, I can even write HP and EP! Even the longest monsters take a single notebook line, though MUs can take a few more.

 

[MerricB]

One of the fascinating things about collecting DDM is that you see how they compress the statblocks of creatures. You can leave out a lot of information if your only interest in the creature is in fighting it.

However, I've also noticed how leaving things out restricts options. A good example of this is the Basic D&D game (the BECM edition, not the collected Cyclopedia game).

In my copies of the Basic Game, there is no mention of the Intelligence score of the Orc. Nor of the dragon, ghoul, minotaur, etc. It's not considered important.

In the Master set of the rules, they introduced the maze spell. How long it lasts depends on the Intelligence score of the target. Oh dear - we don't have intelligence scores for monsters. Well, we'd better add them! They did. In the master set is a big table listing the intelligence scores for all previous monsters!

Having the intelligence scores listed opens up design space. You can now have effects that trigger on this.

There's a parallel in AD&D. The Monster Manual (1e, of course!) lists the Intelligence score of each creature. Gary wasn't going to run into the Maze problem! However, psionic powers have an effect based on both Intelligence and Wisdom. Gary's solution? He's got a table in the DMG for determining Wisdom based on the Intelligence score.

So, you come up against an Orc with your psionic character, and you Mind Blast it!

What happens next? In 3e, you'd have the Intelligence and Wisdom scores there. No biggie. In 1e, you first need to consult the Monster Manual (as Intelligence is rarely listed in stat blocks), then you need to consult the DMG and find the dice you need to roll for the Wisdom score.

There comes a point when the DM of such a campaign just starts including Int and Wis values in their statblocks because it's simpler.

Another DM, perusing an adventure the first DM has written, says, "Why do you need those Int and Wis scores? They'll rarely come up!" But they do all the time in the first DM's campaign.

If you ever want to see something particularly bizarre, read the description of the AD&D (1e) Ray of Enfeeblement spell.

3e is a system that went for the completist method. Not only that, it said, "well, if we're listing Intelligence for that rare case when someone casts maze, why not have other effects that are reliant on Intelligence?"

Short stat blocks in 3e? I see them all the time. They read:
Goblins (6), see MM.

The issue of NPC standardisation is a for a later time.

Cheers!