Pang of nostalgia for "light" stat blocks

[Akrasia]

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...)

You're on holidays already? Lucky bugger.

I understand and appreciate your position based on our previous discussions -- which is why I'm mystified that you would use the term 'ad hoccing' to describe a kind and style of game that you happen not to personally like.

 

[Psion]

I understand and appreciate your position based on our previous discussions -- which is why I'm mystified that you would use the term 'ad hoccing' to describe a kind and style of game that you happen not to personally like.

I wasn't aware the term was derogatory. Indeed, I thought I was just describing the sort of play that JDH described. And he didn't seem to disagree. (shrug)

 

[Akrasia]

I wasn't aware the term was derogatory. Indeed, I thought I was just describing the sort of play that JDH described. And he didn't seem to disagree. (shrug)

... I'm not sure that 'ad-hoccing' is the right terminology ...

Didn't disagree? Well, I'm being picky now.

But my objection had more to do with the inaccuracy of the term.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Ad hoc:

"Ad hoc is a Latin phrase which means "for this [purpose]." It generally signifies a solution that has been tailored to a specific purpose, such as a tailor-made suit, a handcrafted network protocol or a specific-purpose equation, as opposed to general solutions. It can also refer to an improvised and often impromptu event or solution "on an ad-hoc basis", as opposed to well-prepared ones."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc

"Something that is ad hoc or that is done on an ad hoc basis happens or is done only when the situation makes it necessary or desirable, rather than being arranged in advance or being part of a general plan. [3]"

http://www.ee.oulu.fi/research/ouspg/sage/glossary/

 

[jdrakeh]

Didn't disagree? Well, I'm being picky now.

Picky? Not all. I did, in fact, disagree - 'ad hoccing' was an inaccurate description of my play style, as I'm not making up options, merely adderessing existing (but not pre-defined) options on a case by case basis as players bring them into play. For example:

A character is falling down a cliff face and they want to drive their climbing axe into the rock in an effort to stop their descent. Well, they've just enacted an option - one that (as far as I know) is not specifically addressed in any version of D&D. I didn't pull that option out of thin air, nor did the player - it became available as a result of logical thought as soon as the character started falling down the cliff face.

So, no - 'ad hoccing' is not the right word. I think 'application of logic' might be a more accurate description

 

[WayneLigon]

It's not that bad. (Was there a 16, by the way? I thought it only went from 1 to 15. How'd they write the 16?) Just remember that A=10, B=11, C=12, and so forth. Admittedly, I've done some elementary programming in the past, so remembering these is second nature, but it's not that hard.

Now, people can wax nostalgic about Classic Traveller characters, but what did they do when characters had psionics? How was that written? Same thing in D&D - a character with magic ability has a lot more stat info than a straight fighter.

Oh, it was 15. I can't count. I know 'F' was the general highest you could get in most things, and it was also the default highest level of Imperial tech. After 15, they just went on and used more letters. 16 was 'G', for instance. I was only vaguely familiar about hexidecimal numbers, so it took me a couple years to get the joke behind a Traveller cartoon about this scientist discovering the hexidecimal digit 'Q'.

Psionics was written as a skill. You had Psionic Strength, then the level of the skills in one of the six diciplines.

A psi character might be:

John A36F66-A Rifle-2 Cutlass-3 Telepathy-5 Teleportation-2

It was so rare for anyone to have psionics that you'd just have to look up those rules at the time.

 

[WayneLigon]

Oh my god!

Bullgrit

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.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Interesting discussion, though as far as prep time goes, I find that NPC generators (Jamis Buck's, eTools) render it pretty much moot.

When I can generate a fully statted NPC in five or so clicks -- less time than it takes me to type this sentence -- and just cut and paste the whole block into my adventure document, there's no reason not to use the full stat block, other than it takes up a little more room on the page.

 

[philreed]

As in "wow, that guy was a total pushover; I didn't feel challenged at all?"

Then the DM made a mistake. With a screen and imagination players need never know the statistics of an opponent. For that matter, I feel any DM can run an effective combat without full stat blocks.

 

[Vascant]

Then the DM made a mistake. With a screen and imagination players need never know the statistics of an opponent. For that matter, I feel any DM can run an effective combat without full stat blocks.

During the 1e days, I agree just about any DM could wing it without a complete stat block for every creature at every encounter. Then 3e came along, I notice some trends starting to form during situations when I would have to revert to my old format. So I started creating detailed stat blocks for everything. I DM for 3 different groups so this started eat at a huge chunk of time even with re-using old NPC stats in some cases. This is what caused me to work on my projects, creating generators to handle my needs as a DM. Now I have the best of both worlds, I can wing just about anything these days and have the complete stat blocks I enjoy.

I think it comes down to what you desire from your game as a DM. If you are winging it so to speak, you tend to adjust the out come even if you are not aware of it. Just human nature. When I DM, I view I manage a world and the PCs make up the story.