Same rules or different Rules (PC vs NPC)

[Sirdrasco]

4th does have some issues (in my eyes) the primciple being a point and click feel, I agree 3.5 was getting a bit wild on the options, it was up to the gamemaster to limit it to fit the campaign.

But 4th did try to simplify matters and make it more streamlined, a big bonus for the GM and speed of the game.

That simplfied aspect of 4th should be carried over, but a more fluid system with options, and not a point and click, should be looked at.

I will look at 5th when it comes out, but for now pathfinder is my game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Isn't 3e the fluke in this? I didn't really see much "Sameness" looking at 1e and 2e monster statblocks.

And considering how monster statblocks and "ease of prep" seem to be the #1 positive most can agree on about 4e, hopefully it will be what 'sticks'.

You say "fluke", I say "innovation".

I don't think detailed monsters with character and monsters that are easy to run are mutually exclusive and I don't see the need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Pickles JG]

If they are different then you can always make up an NPC as a PC anyway.

I prefer different for practical purposes though in 2001 I loved the fact that every creature in the world used the same rules.

As I will be saying a lot they need to be less prescriptive about doing it other than the basic way & give guidance on how to give any enduring characters character.

 

[herrozerro]

The reason to create monsters with depth even if they might die in a few rounds is because if that doesn't happen, it's a lot easier to ignore detail you don't need than to create detail you don't have. It's entirely possible to get a flavorful, dynamic, detailed monster on one page without the annoying page references. That should be the standard.

Though its alot easier to create simplicity that you can just add to. I would rather make simple creatures and then have to add more because they turn into a main focus of a game then to have to make complicated and indepth creatures everytime and then have to be let down that they just keep dying.

 

[Aldarc]

That's one style. Are you sure you want to make a blanket statement ("most cases")? You can build a campaign around a monster (especially a dragon, note the name of the game). Even if you don't a monster is just a nonhuman NPC, and deserves to be treated as a character (and many NPCs die fast as well).

The reason to create monsters with depth even if they might die in a few rounds is because if that doesn't happen, it's a lot easier to ignore detail you don't need than to create detail you don't have. It's entirely possible to get a flavorful, dynamic, detailed monster on one page without the annoying page references. That should be the standard.

That should be the advanced or expert, but that should not be the standard. The standard should be quick stat blocks that the DM can churn out with relative easy without stressing out about minutia. If the monster survives, then the DM will still be treating it as a "prop."

 

[Pickles JG]

You say "fluke", I say "innovation".

I don't think detailed monsters with character and monsters that are easy to run are mutually exclusive and I don't see the need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It might have been innovation in Runequest in nineteen seventy something...

The reason is to avoid doing lots of work most of which is irrelevant & having clean statblocks.

However I agree there should be some guidance on producing more interesting NP characters/monsters. Having more fluff in the Monster Manual (cf later 4e monster boxes) would be a good start.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The reason is to avoid doing lots of work most of which is irrelevant & having clean statblocks.

If you're doing less work for characters as a whole, that issue is solved. It's not about whether monsters should be bogged down with a bunch of abilities; no one should be.

It's about whether monsters should have their attacks generated by the same method as characters, or whether they should be generated to challenge characters. I'm firmly for the former.

 

[Mengu]

I like the 4e way. 4e taught me even how to make and run monsters on the fly. I never want to go back on that flexibility.

The PC's did something unexpected and I need to run a quick encounter against a wildebeast, some halfling wraiths, and a swamp thing, but I had an encounter ready for 3 human bandits, an ogre and a rage drake? No problem. I have all the defenses, attacks, and damage right in front of me anyway. I jot down a couple different encounter/recharge power effects, add some resist/vulnerable, done.

The amount of time I spend on creating monsters for running games is minimal and I enjoy the great flexibility.

 

[herrozerro]

If you're doing less work for characters as a whole, that issue is solved. It's not about whether monsters should be bogged down with a bunch of abilities; no one should be.

It's about whether monsters should have their attacks generated by the same method as characters, or whether they should be generated to challenge characters. I'm firmly for the former.

If character generation is simple enough I wouldn't mind going the PC gen route. But the 3.x method is way to complex, with hit dice, classes, LAs... etc.

 

[Umbran]

Both!

Give me a base system for simple NPCs, but make it dovetail well with using NPCs built as if they were PCs.