Same rules or different Rules (PC vs NPC)

[BryonD]

Bryond, I share all your concerns about what you describe like "Art", the realism of the thing. But 4E dissociation for monster and npc rules wasn't all that monstruous as you are painting.

In 4E a DM won't write about that pebble, but if makes sense a pebble is in there I would just make % check to see if the pebble is there and if the player sees it. No big deal.

I think the problem in 4E is more in direction of dissonant rules between combat and RP than monster creation itself.

I have stated before that if I had never heard of any RPG and someone showed me 4E I would think it was the most awesome thing ever. I would love it.

At least until I found better games.

I don't really care if we call the differences monstrous or pimples. Regardless of terms, the simple fact is that there are other system out there that do a vastly better job and any new game needs to meet or exceed the standards of the other alternatives.

 

[Mallus]

Most AD&D monsters, for example, lack ability scores (other than intelligence), and therefore can't interact cleanly with those parts of the action resolution mechanics that call on ability scores.

Good catch. I should have mentioned AD&D's common descriptive language didn't include the 6 abilities. Those were PCs/NPCs. Monsters did get an intelligence rating, but it was given as text, not a numeric value.

As for interacting with the action resolution mechanics... well, ability scores didn't do a whole lot of interactin' back then. If a creature was smart and wise it was described as such in the flavor text. If it was especially stealthy/sly/cunning it surprised on 1-4 on a d6. It's strength was reflected in it's damage dice and/or size. And so on.

It's as inelegant as it's not-cumbersome. I'm coming around to appreciate that kind of design.

 

[avin]

Regardless of terms, the simple fact is that there are other system out there that do a vastly better job and any new game needs to meet or exceed the standards of the other alternatives.

Sure, but that's a matter of taste, isn't it? Some people (not me) think 4E does a vastly better job than 3.5. I think none of them is perfect, nor is Pathfinder.

I may be wrong but I think GURPS does a far far better job for creating the games you were describing in this thread than any incarnation of D&D... all the possibilities, all the fluff closely tied to rules...

...but I'm a GURPS fanboy, so, please indulge me

 

[BryonD]

Sure, but that's a matter of taste, isn't it? Some people (not me) think 4E does a vastly better job than 3.5. I think none of them is perfect, nor is Pathfinder.

I may be wrong but I think GURPS does a far far better job for creating the games you were describing in this thread than any incarnation of D&D... all the possibilities, all the fluff closely tied to rules...

...but I'm a GURPS fanboy, so, please indulge me

I'm a former GURPS fanboy. And frankly, if I was still in my 20s and gaming a lot more hours than I do now, I probably still would be.

I've found that the high fantasy wahoo that I used to mildly disdain is now what I really enjoy the most. So I hope you can see how I can agree with you on GURPS and also personally prefer PF.

That said, I made no claim of "perfect".

And, yes, it is a matter of taste. But I've been in a lot of debates with 4E fans and arguing that they prefer it because it is so vastly better on this issue is not a point I have encountered. What I have encountered is many 4E fans arguing largely the opposite, in that they can skip past a lot of that.

I'm certain that I'll now get a scad of people jumping in to tell me how THEY are 4E fans and absolutely disagree with me. And I also suspect that given enough debate it would become obvious that their definitions are highly distinct from what you and I are discussing here. (Which is NOT to suggest anything remotely inferior about their awesome and breathtaking fun that I could never hope to embrace..... )

 

[Aldarc]

Why not? Their target is to encompass all editions.

That's not entirely true. They are not really trying to "encompass all editions," but take what they perceive as the best of each edition in what amounts to "D&D essentialism," in which what's important is "the essence of D&D" and not necessarily having all the prior mechanics of D&D.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I still think the best way is a three-tier system:

Monster - Throwaway baddie, 4e style.

NPC - Important character you want to put some time into. Bit more like 3e style, and definitely closer to PC than monster creation. Perhaps include a bunch of tables of "standard NPC stats" and "standard NPC powers" to get you started making them, but make it easier than PC generation by a long chalk.

PC - Very indepth with a million choices, but you as a DM probably won't want to make them all.

I'm not really convinced even this is a good idea. The reason is that PC rules are made to create something that is suitable to be played as a PC. I don't want that conflated with what makes a good NPC. Let each system do exactly what it is good at and do it right.

Other people probably made these points before, but it was a long thread...

4e doesn't lock you down to anything. You aren't prevented from explaining as much as you want to about how a monster/NPC arrived at being what it is. You want to spend the hours describing your BBEG's various fighting styles and where he got them and what all he can do in amazing detail, GO FOR IT. You can use as much or as little of the PC side rules as you care to for this. Furthermore just because the GUIDELINES for monsters say to give them this or that number at such-and-such level +/- 2 or whatever is irrelevant to what you actually do.

Besides, there is just a vast amount of mechanics that are not relevant to PCs that may be relevant to monsters. You simply cannot reasonably use a repertoire only meant to work for an adventuring PC to give you all the things a monster may need. My dragon needs action economy to resist denial, but those abilities would be either useless, unbalancing, or awkward on each and every PC. Which gets back to my first point, PC rules should not need to be viewed in terms of how they work for monsters or vice-versa.

 

[Umbran]

I'm certain that I'll now get a scad of people jumping in to tell me how THEY are 4E fans and absolutely disagree with me. And I also suspect that given enough debate it would become obvious that their definitions are highly distinct from what you and I are discussing here.

Preconceived notions of what the other person is going to say, and why, are not the hallmark of open-minded discussion in which you hope to exchange ideas.

Pre-emptive dismissal of others based upon your preconceived notions is just downright rude. Certainly not constructive. Please don't continue in the discussion if that's how you're going to approach it. Thank you.

 

[pemerton]

I should have mentioned AD&D's common descriptive language didn't include the 6 abilities. Those were PCs/NPCs. Monsters did get an intelligence rating, but it was given as text, not a numeric value.

Although the intro/glossary for the MM does give a translation of that text into a 2 or 3 number range (I remember, when I first read it, being struck by the definition of Average intelligence as 8 to 10, which is below the 3d6 average).

As for interacting with the action resolution mechanics... well, ability scores didn't do a whole lot of interactin' back then.

This is true. I remember that the DMG has a table for calculating a creature's WIS if needed for psionic (I think?) combat.

Roger Musson, in his White Dwarf article "How to Lose Hit Points and Survive" (the first version of Wound/Vitality that I'm aware of) gave a chart for calculating a creature's CON score, which his system required. (That said, why don't creatures need to roll system shock checks when they get polymorphed, hasted etc?)

It's strength was reflected in it's damage dice and/or size. And so on.

It's as inelegant as it's not-cumbersome. I'm coming around to appreciate that kind of design.

I find myself a little bothered by its oddities. An ogre, for example, is 18/00 STR and attacking with a club or spear, but from memory does 1d10 damage (average 5.5), whereas a PC with that STR (perhaps acquired via Gauntlets of Ogre Power) will do 1d6+6 (average 9.5) with the same attack.

Now I'm not saying that this is per se objectionable - that sort of difference is fairly ubiquitous in 4e, for example - but in AD&D it still strikes me as a bit odd, because in other ways AD&D tries to be more concrete than 4e about what stat bonuses, damage rolls etc mean.

Those oddities aren't a deal breaker - RM monster stats have similar oddities (but also have the virtue of being non-cumbersome), and I worked with them for many years. But I do find myself liking 4e monster stats better.

For stats that are both elegant and non-cumbersome, I think it's hard to go past RuneQuest.

 

[pemerton]

I have stated before that if I had never heard of any RPG and someone showed me 4E I would think it was the most awesome thing ever. I would love it.

At least until I found better games.

As [MENTION=6762]avin[/MENTION] said, that seems a matter of taste, or of suitability of a system to desired play. I mean, if the only RPG I knew was 3E or PF, I might think it was pretty awesome - I certainly thought Moldvay Basic and AD&D were awesome when I discovered them - but (assuming my preferences to be held constant) I would come to like other games better when I discovered them. (From the fantasy genre, that would be RQ, RM, and 4e. Maybe BW also.)

And, yes, it is a matter of taste. But I've been in a lot of debates with 4E fans and arguing that they prefer it because it is so vastly better on this issue is not a point I have encountered. What I have encountered is many 4E fans arguing largely the opposite, in that they can skip past a lot of that.

I'm certain that I'll now get a scad of people jumping in to tell me how THEY are 4E fans and absolutely disagree with me. And I also suspect that given enough debate it would become obvious that their definitions are highly distinct from what you and I are discussing here.

If I'm following rightly, "the issue being discussed here" is the issue of immersion, of having an experience of "being there".

In my own playing experience, Runequest and its variants (CoC, Stormbringer etc) is the most reliable system for delivering that. I've also heard good things about HarnMaster in this respect, but have played very little of it - what I did play did have an immersive character, however.

 

[BryonD]

As [MENTION=6762]avin[/MENTION] said, that seems a matter of taste, or of suitability of a system to desired play. I mean, if the only RPG I knew was 3E or PF, I might think it was pretty awesome - I certainly thought Moldvay Basic and AD&D were awesome when I discovered them - but (assuming my preferences to be held constant) I would come to like other games better when I discovered them. (From the fantasy genre, that would be RQ, RM, and 4e. Maybe BW also.)

Of course.

But, of course, Jethro Tull also won a grammy for Heavy Metal.
You can be a fan of either, or even both, and still agree that even if both fall under "rock music" there reaches a point when just calling something a matter of taste starts to defeat the purpose of having meaningful conversation.

If I'm following rightly, "the issue being discussed here" is the issue of immersion, of having an experience of "being there".

In my own playing experience, Runequest and its variants (CoC, Stormbringer etc) is the most reliable system for delivering that. I've also heard good things about HarnMaster in this respect, but have played very little of it - what I did play did have an immersive character, however.

I have limited experience with those systems. But what I have know of them I'd happily agree they were designed with goals kindred to mine at heart.