Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wil" data-source="post: 2780183" data-attributes="member: 3502">Err..I'm not sure that I agree with how ad-hoc is being bantered about - the general&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; This is not bad in any way, nor does it indicate that a game is &quot;incomplete&quot; (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.&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; Am I just to shrug and say, &quot;Well, it's committed to a stat block now, guess I have to live with it&quot;?&nbsp; Nope...and I don't ever have to let the players know about my mistake either.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I'm glad I won't play in groups like that, partly because of that reason.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wil, post: 2780183, member: 3502"] Err..I'm not sure that I agree with how [i]ad-hoc[/i] 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 [i]ad-hoc query[/i] 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 [i]without modification[/i] 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 [i]stored procedure[/i], 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 [i]after the fact[/i] (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]I forget to give the NPC the necessary skills[/i]? 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 [i]should have had[/i] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification