Revisionist game publishing

[Obryn]

If I am understanding you right, all of the discussion about internal consistency that is being tossed around here is ignoring one of the basic conceits of 4E: NPCs and PCs follow completely different rules.

That's it, and a lot more concisely than I put it.

-O

 

[catsclaw227]

If I am understanding you right, all of the discussion about internal consistency that is being tossed around here is ignoring one of the basic conceits of 4E: NPCs and PCs follow completely different rules.

You are correct, sir!

So, basically, we have some hand-wringing and teeth gnashing about a problem that either:

1. doesn't exist yet
2. only exists in a vacuum without taking into account 4e design methodology.

I like lists.

 

[MrMyth]

If I am understanding you right, all of the discussion about internal consistency that is being tossed around here is ignoring one of the basic conceits of 4E: NPCs and PCs follow completely different rules.

Now, as much as I find the concerns put forward in this thread completely absurd and out of touch with the game itself, I do feel obligated to play devil's advocate for a moment.

I think the concern is not that NPCs and PCs are different mechanically, but that some of those mechanical differences go beyond the boundaries of the mechanics and rules alone. The objections are when the differences result in NPC and PC being physically different, rather than simply different ways to portray the same species.

Now, it's a silly concern since it only has come up in two specific instances, both of them the NPC races in the back of the MM as compared to the monster versions of those races, and both situations that will clearly no longer be an issue when the races get a proper PC write-up.

So I don't think there is anything at hand for these folks to actually be concerned about... but I do think their complaints are a bit more involved than just being about the 4E divide between NPC and PC rules.

 

[Garthanos]

Sadly, I must spread some experience points around before awarding them to Obryn again. But this post right here is absolute win, with an perfect summary of the thread.

Got it covered.

 

[pawsplay]

In short. You're arguing non-simulationist rules from a simulationist perspective,

What is a non-simulationist rule? That sounds like Forge-talk while huffing glue. I have never seen it coherently argued anywhere that non-simulationist (*shudder*) games are immune to concerns about simulation. GNS and the like only talk about gaming priorities, not gaming characteristics. Non-simulationist games do not lack simulation.

Great, now I've just discussed Forgie concepts and feel like my brain needs a bath. Thanks, Obryn, thanks so much for that.

 

[pawsplay]

I, for one, am utterly unconcerned that some DM somewhere is brazenly making darkblind NPC kobolds without regard to setting integrity. I am also unconcerned that a DM somewhere is "cheating" by adding darkvision in blatant disrespect to the Rule of RAW. Is this something I, as a 4e DM and player, should be concerned about?

Oh, yeah! No, no you should not. If you are going to claim the existing state of things on the kobolds matter is good design, however, I'm afraid it's time for more frog pills.

 

[keterys]

I'm not sure there _is_ an existing state on the kobold matter. Every time I've made a kobold, I've just made it based on whatever I wanted it to be based on balance and appropriateness.

That little stat block in the back of the MM is largely useless for _anyone_. Trying to argue rules about it is like trying to argue about how silly the brawling table was in 2nd edition -for a game that wasn't even using it- WotC gave us all these tools for actually making monsters, then left in these 'oh, you can use these to make NPCs' rules and they're downright awful. Don't use them. Ever. For kobolds or tieflings or anything. Problem solved.

 

[Obryn]

What is a non-simulationist rule? That sounds like Forge-talk while huffing glue. I have never seen it coherently argued anywhere that non-simulationist (*shudder*) games are immune to concerns about simulation. GNS and the like only talk about gaming priorities, not gaming characteristics. Non-simulationist games do not lack simulation.

I'm not really using it in a Forgie fashion, as far as I know! And if it's GNS, it's largely because those are just actual useful terms for discussion like this, that people on ENWorld largely use in similar ways.

Anyway, if it helps to frame it this way, 4e is perfectly willing to let world simulation be trumped by game concerns, and perfectly willing to let some things be outside of the players' ability. 3e is largely unwilling to let world simulation get trumped, but tries to make it expensive and/or hard.

In 3e, players are almost encouraged to say, "Hey, how did that guy do that? I want to do that" and then work towards doing it. Hardly anything is outside the players' purview; even the monster manuals are geared towards an assumption that players can and will play members of monster races. Because 3e - and more 3.5 than 3.0 - uses the same design for PCs, NPCs, and monsters, this works fine, other than some cost issues (like with yak-folk, and any caster).

The 4e approach is to pick what works in the game, then justify it after the fact. There's also no default assumption that the players can do stuff the monsters can do; NPC casters have their own list of special whammies that PCs don't necessarily have any access to. And yeah, if your arguments don't take that into account, you're not really addressing any concern a 4e player is likely to have. It took a month or two, but after some flailing around, I learned to stop worrying and love the ...um... NPC rules.

Great, now I've just discussed Forgie concepts and feel like my brain needs a bath. Thanks, Obryn, thanks so much for that.

If it helps any, I think these terms have moved waaaay beyond their GNS roots and stand for almost completely different things on ENWorld than they do on the Forge. And, from what I understand, the Forge is basically dying; indie RPGs are coming from other places, now.

That little stat block in the back of the MM is largely useless for _anyone_. Trying to argue rules about it is like trying to argue about how silly the brawling table was in 2nd edition -for a game that wasn't even using it- WotC gave us all these tools for actually making monsters, then left in these 'oh, you can use these to make NPCs' rules and they're downright awful. Don't use them. Ever. For kobolds or tieflings or anything. Problem solved.

Oh yeah. And this, x100. Every time I need a unique Ogre or Troll, I start up the monster* builder, find one that's close, and change its role, damage, and powers accordingly. Those MM templates are not actually useful in practice.

-O

* whoops! monster, not character!

 

[catsclaw227]

Every time I need a unique Ogre or Troll, I start up the character builder, find one that's close, and change its role, damage, and powers accordingly. Those MM templates are not actually useful in practice.

I am guessing that you mean that you fire up the Monster Builder.

And, ditto on using the NPC rules in the back for Monsters. I reskin, refluff, refit existing monsters with other similar/interesting powers often, and adding in the DMG guidelines for adding a class or template and we're good to go.

 

[Scribble]

I am guessing that you mean that you fire up the Monster Builder.

And, ditto on using the NPC rules in the back for Monsters. I reskin, refluff, refit existing monsters with other similar/interesting powers often, and adding in the DMG guidelines for adding a class or template and we're good to go.

I very rarely use the class template stuff for NPCs... I just build a normal monster, and make it either elite or solo if I want it to be more powerful. I use the template stuff occasionally, but normally just swap powers and damage types and stuff to make it more "somethingy..."