Pang of nostalgia for "light" stat blocks

[Wil]

That is assuming, of course, that the scores vary from the average. For example, using SilCore if a character does not have Knowledge or Creativity listed, it is assumed to be zero (which is the average score) - so the problem of "Oh noez! We didn't include the Wisdom score!" is at the very least limited to games like D&D. And even then, had I run into a situation where I needed a Wisdom score for a monster, I would have made one up. This was true even when I was 10 or 11 years old. Therefore, the option for a monster having a Wisdom score is there even if one is not included in the rules. That makes a difference in perception, because to me exclusion of something from the stat block does not preclude it being part of the NPC.

 

[jdrakeh]

Therefore, the option for a monster having a Wisdom score is there even if one is not included in the rules.

That was the point I was trying to make - just because something isn't committed to print, doesn't mean it isn't possible. I completely understand that some folks believe differently, and for them that's the only truth there is and bully for them - but that doesn't make the folks who disagree dishonest or wrong.

That makes a difference in perception

That's the ticket, by george!

because to me omission of something from the stat block does not preclude it being part of the NPC.

Well said

 

[jdrakeh]

[snip]lenghty and well-reasoned post[/snip]

All excellent and valid points that better support the other side of the argument where the amount of rules being analgous with options is concerned. Excellent post, Merrric.

 

[Akrasia]

...
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.
....

Yes, you are. You're in 'the grip of a theory', so to speak, viz., that options require lots of detailed 'rules'. That's not the case. The fact that you interpreted my point as involving 'house rules' shows just how firmly gripped you are by this particular theory. Sorry.

 

[MerricB]

And even then, had I run into a situation where I needed a Wisdom score for a monster, I would have made one up.

Indeed. And, believe it or not, I do that all the time in my 3e games!

However, there is a fundamental problem with making things up, and it is at the heart of the difference between original D&D and AD&D.

That problem is this: lack of portability.

I'm going to give an extreme example. In your game, I come across an Ogre and Mind Blast it. You assume that the Ogre has an average Wisdom (10) and calculate the effects as such. So, let's say my Mind Blast is effective 8 times out 10.

Then I move to my friend's game. In their game, they assume the Ogre's are surprisingly wise (19!) and calculate the effects as such. In this game, my Mind Blast is effective 2 times out of 10.

Two distinctly different outcomes in what is the same situation? This isn't good. It doesn't promote good play - which I define here as using the abilities of your character to best effectiveness.

There's a problem here - and when you multiply it by the number of games and the number of such judgement calls being made, there's a vast difference in what people are calling "D&D".

With AD&D, Gary Gygax standardised the rules much more than was the case in oD&D. With that, it become much easier to move from one game to another, and especially for tournament play.

Being creative and being able to make rulings on the fly is essential to being a good DM, but the fundamentals must be covered for players to be able to know what to expect when they move from one game to another.

How many of the fundamentals must be covered is up for debate, of course!

Cheers!

 

[Wil]

I can understand the portability argument to an extent - but only so far as it stands that I doubt Ogres in any two game worlds that I would run would be even remotely related to one another, save the name. But, even then, that makes the argument more about standardization than completeness.

 

[ThirdWizard]

jdrakeh, perhaps we are using two different definitions of "option" indeed.

My definition: The ability to think of a character concept and reflect it in the game.

So some options might be sneaky, charming, brute, finesse, and so on. This has nothing to do with things being "optional" or not. I'm talking about the various things that PCs and NPCs can do and will be reflected by in the world. If I want an NPC who is a wrestler, then I can try and mold a character who is good at grappling for example. I can do this through feats, spells, classes, or whatever I can think of.

Now, to relate this back to the topic, if I want the NPC the PCs are fighting to be a wrestler, then, if this option is available in the game, I'm saying the stat block will be longer. Why? Because 1) there's more information that must be included in addition to everything else and 2) if this is an option then any counter tactics need to be applied in NPC blocks as well.

As a good example of "counters" in stat blocks that are needed, I'll use Touch AC. Before, we only needed a flat AC bonus. However, when special tactics are used (like grapple, touch spells, etc) now a Touch AC is needed in the stat block, lengthening it. The options are there for the PCs, so the NPC stat blocks need to take that into account.

Look back at the fisrt post in this thread, and take a look at thier stat block:

"AC: 4; 4th-level fighter; HP: 18; +1 to hit, +3 damage."

So, we decide, okay, he's a wrestler. I'm going to make up X rule for grappling, say a straight up strength contest. This guy is good at it, so he adds another +1 to that. So, I alter his stat block to read:

"AC: 4; 4th-level fighter; HP: 18; +1 to hit, +3 damage; Gpl+1."

Now, after years and years of adding various things, eventually we get a longer and longer stat block. Check out the 2E one I posted earlier. Now we can't just have AC, we have to have flat footed and touch, we have to show ability scores, we have to add in saving throws, etc etc. So, the stat block gets longer and longer because now we can do more stuff.

Doing more stuff = having more options.

See, this has nothing to do with limiting options. This has to do with easily and quickly adjudicating situations based on the information given in the stat block, which I will get to in MPA's post now.

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.

Okay, first of all, I have to appologise. I inferred it, but I never directly stated, perhaps, that I am specifically referring to printed stat blocks. I used one of my own simply for ease, because I only own one 3E adventure, and it isn't even here at the moment. I would not be happy to buy a published module and find this stat block.

Main problems:

1) The first thing that jumps out at me is Thoughtless. I quickly surmised that this was done to represent the 8s in Int, Wis, and Cha. At first it seems like a good idea. You can take some stats and condense them into a keyword, as WotC calls it in Magic: the Gathering. However, how many of these stat keywords are you going to make? What will you call them? Is it indicative only of your adventures or will this show up in other products? Is 8 Int/Wis/Cha more common than 8/8/10? Or 8/10/8? Or 6/8/8?

Basically, it doesn't deserve its own keyword. Creating it shortens this one particular stat block, but it adds a bunch of text somewhere else to explain what Thoughtless means. Thoughtless must be used enough for 1) people to memorize it as yet another rule and 2) be used often enough for this memorization to pay off. On this count, I don't think it is worth it. Best to put Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 8 instead.

2) You've got to calculate AC every single turn. Bad bad bad bad bad! He used a touch attack, now I have to calculate that. Grease made him lose his Dex bonus to AC, now I have to calculate that. You're requiring the DM to remember from round to round what the AC is or be forced to recalc every turn. That is not good design.

3) The abreviations are way way too much. ST, S, D. It's obvious that you're trying to cram everything in without caring about readability. Compare "ST +4 +2 +0" to "Fort +4, Refl +2, Will +0."

Basic things like this. You're sacrificing readibility, ease of use, and learning curve for brevity. I think that those things are far far more important than brevity. Look at the highly louded new stat block WotC introduced.

[sblock]
KULLEN CR3
Half-orc barbarian 3
NE Medium humanoid (orc)
Init: +1 Senses darkvision 60 ft.;
Listen +5, Spot -1
Languages Common, Orc

AC 11, touch 11, flat-footed 10
uncanny dodge
hp 31 (3HD)
Fort +5; Ref +2, Will +0
Spd 40 ft.
Melee +1 greataxe +7 (1d12+5/X3)
Ranged dagger +4 (1d4+3)
Base Atk +3; Grp +6
Attack Options Cleave, Power Attack
Special Attack Rage 1/day
Combat Gear potion of jump, potion
of cure light wounds, potion of
mage armor

Abilities Str 17, Dex 13, Con 14, Int
8, Wis 8, Cha 10
SQ fast movement, illiteracy, trap
sense +1, uncanny dodge
Feats Cleave, Power Attack
Skills Intimidate+6, Jump+13,
Listen+5
Possessions combat gear, +1
greataxe, dagger, 3gp
Rage (Ex): When he rages, Kullen
has the following changed
statistics:
AC 9, touch 9, flat-footed 8
hp 37 (3HD)
Fort +7, Will +2,
Melee +1 greataxe +9 (1d12+8/x3)
Grp +9
Abilities Str 19, Con 18
Skills Jump +15
[/sblock]

There is a reason its so popular. And, it has nothing to do with the length.

Yes, you are. You're in 'the grip of a theory', so to speak, viz., that options require lots of detailed 'rules'. That's not the case. The fact that you interpreted my point as involving 'house rules' shows just how firmly gripped you are by this particular theory. Sorry.

Player Character Option: I want to be a disarming specialist.

How do you go about this in AD&D without creating House Rules?

See, we're having two different discussions. I agree, lack of codified rules doesn't mean you can't do something. Just because there's no Disarm described in the 2E AD&D PHB doesn't mean you can't disarm someone. But, how will you design a character to be a really good disarmer? Higher Dex? Higher Str? Non-weapon proficiencies? Weapon Proficienceis? We don't even know how the DM runs a disarm in the game! In fact, for it to occur, the DM will have to make something up. I call that a House Rule.

So now, to make our Disarming Specialist character, we have to create rules for how one disarms so that the PC can gain some kind of bonus for it. There's another rule. Do you see what I'm saying? Lack of a rule being codified might not mean that something isn't possbile, but it does mean that the PC cannot try to be built around a concpet, since they have no idea how to build the character around the concept.

 

[MerricB]

I can understand the portability argument to an extent - but only so far as it stands that I doubt Ogres in any two game worlds that I would run would be even remotely related to one another, save the name. But, even then, that makes the argument more about standardization than completeness.

The two issues are related.

The more points of variance from the standard, the longer the stat-block must get.

The more advantage you take of the rules space, the longer the stat-block must get.

Consider this: In AD&D, there are well-defined rules for whether a PC can break open a stuck door or not. Those rules would also apply to monsters, but there is no monster Strength score.

Completeness indicates that the Strength score should be included. So, the entry in the Monster Manual gets a little longer. This also opens up design space for effects that affect the Strength score, because both NPCs and monsters can now be affected.

Variance (you want a weak ogre) requires the stat block get longer for those cases. (You've seen it in AD&D before).

Convenience (the third factor) likes having the value in the stat block anyway, so you don't have to look it up in the book. This is balanced by the convenience of a short stat block!

Cheers!

 

[Psion]

That was the point I was trying to make - just because something isn't committed to print, doesn't mean it isn't possible.

I was just about to step in and reply to this, but with Akrasia around, I'm sure that it would evolve into an argument we've had before...

And I have better things to do with my Holidays.

Let's just say I think that ad hoccing options has its drawbacks. (I'm sure my choice of words alone will draw fire, but you gotta draw the line somewhere...)

 

[jdrakeh]

Let's just say I think that ad hoccing options has its drawbacks.

Oh, no - I can get behind that. I'm not sure that 'ad-hoccing' is the right terminology, though as options actually exist (in real life and in games) completely independent of rules. Rules don't magically make options available, they merely codify exsiting options with specific mechanics. In point of fact rules, more often than not, impose restrictions rather than remove them. That is the fundamental purpose of rules - to provide structure (and structure, by definition, means boundaries).

Rules, by design, encourage certain conduct while excluding other conduct as a result (it's unavoidable, really). Look at things such as memorization-based spell casting or the Cleric class - by design these two design decisions specifically limit options, not open them up. For example, if I want to create a mage whose ability to cast magic is skill-based, a fighter whose sword mastery is skill-based, or a Cleric who doesn't cast spells, I have to ignore the rules or break them (i.e., house-rule them).