Same rules or different Rules (PC vs NPC)

[Ahnehnois]

But does "playing by the same rules" necessarily need to mean the same stat generation methods?

To create an NPC do they need to be generated in the same manner as a PC? or is itenough that they play by the same rules as in they interact with the world the same way?

It means that for a monster to be truly usable, it must have ability scores that can be allotted, damaged, or increased. It must have skills and feats in whatever form the PCs do so that the DM can customize it if needed. Its basic statistics (HP, attacks, saves, AC, etc.) must be calculated in the same manner, so the monster can be advanced, or receive class levels, and the math still works.

If these things are not the case, if I can't take a monster apart and put it back together again, then a monster is effectively useless to me as a DM, as I am forced to read it out of the book and can't do what I want with it.

Does it mean that monsters need tons of fiddly little powers? No. But neither does anyone else.

 

[Dausuul]

I support the 4E approach to monsters and NPCs: Don't make them use the same rules as player characters. They don't need feats or classes. They do need ability scores and skills, but need not generate them the way PCs do. For important NPCs or monsters, like the aforementioned archdemon, more detail is indicated. The archdemon should have a wider variety of abilities, including non-combat ones, some special equipment, etc. However, that still doesn't mean the archdemon needs feats or a character class.

If you as DM really want to build an NPC using the PC rules, of course, there's nothing stopping you. But it should not be a requirement.

 

[KidSnide]

Both!

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

Absolutely.

The flexibility to use both will allow OCD GMs to use PC-style monsters all the time, but most of us can use that complexity only when a nemesis (or ally) has an appropriately large amount of expected screen time. The key here is figuring out how to adopt "elite" and "solo" concepts for PC-like enemies, and how to calculate a monster's level (for xp and encounter building purposes) for monsters with a much larger set of abilities.

I also want "classed" monsters to select powers from the common set of powers available to the appropriate power source, even if the rest of the stat block was derived through a simple monster system. I would also like to see weapon wielding monsters to exhibit the particular characteristics of those weapons.

Lastly, we need a wider variety of stat blocks formats. We probably need some crunchier monsters (something between a minion and a standard monster) for quick fights, and many of those creatures don't need a stat block as long as the 4e version. On the other hand, the 4e stat block is a cumbersome way to express complicated creatures. It takes several pages to print a PC's character sheet -- an abbreviated version for fleshed-out NPCs might be necessary. Maybe fleshed-out NPCs include the expected combat powers 4e stat-block style and a second list of "other powers" that are just listed (3e stat-block style), allowing a GM to look them up if they become relevant.

-KS

 

[Balesir]

I try to climb a steep hill, a 15 foot tall chain link fence, and a 30 foot tall brick wall. I can make informed decisions about how difficult those would be. I haven’t a clue how to set quantified distinction between them. As a DM I may call them DC 8, 14, and 25. But the players and their characters know “a steep hill, a 15 foot tall chain link fence, and a 30 foot tall brick wall”. Now they can make the same informed decision I can if I see those in the real world.

But they can't, really, though - that is my major issue with the "DM fiat" thing all along.

If I face those obstacles in real life, I have my own conception of how difficult it might be to overcome them. That view - part of my world model - might be accurate or inaccurate, but I also have some view on how accurate or inaccurate they might be.

Contrast that with a game where the DM links a (secret) system assignment of difficulty to a verbal description. From the verbal description, I have an idea of how difficult I think the challenges would be, based on my world-model. But that is only peripherally related to what the actual, in-game difficulty will be. What I will actually face, in game, will be related to what the DM thinks the real world difficulty would be, modified by the DM's understanding of how the probabilities of the game mechanics work out and how "difficult" a given DC really represents.

At best, my handle on how accurate (or otherwise) my assessment of the difficulties is in the real world is replaced by how well I know the DM, what my view is of how hard s/he will judge those obstacles to be to overcome (given his or her view of the genre and tenor of the current game campaign) and what value he or she places on the probabilities and character assets to be tested in the challenge.

In other words, unless both the DM and I have some significant sports climbing experience and know each other pretty well, I may as well roll a random number for all the good it will do me. The information given purports to be telling me something, but actually it tells me hardly anything useful at all.

This is why I generally consider this sort of "real world proxy" information as a feed into player skill based decision making dysfunctional. I would far rather have:

- For games where the main aim is a skill contest to be overcome by the players, the information should be the actual DCs/ACs etc. - or some approximation of them, the quality of which is determined by the character's skills.

- For games where immersion and world experience are the aim, a feedback mechanism of explicit probability information and opportunities to change plan/correct/adjust based on the character's skill (i.e. high skill characters give detailed information and advice from DM to player and many chances to revise plans, low skill characters give vague information and revision generally only after trouble has reached waist depth or higher).

“Covered in steel” is an informed decision. ACs are out of the question.

"Covered in steel" could mean anything, depending on the genre we are playing, the detailed knowledge the DM has of the effectiveness of medieval armour, the form of the armour (are we talking Gothic plate or Roman maille? Or Chinese scale?) and what "magical strengthening" is assumed to have taken place (if PCs "covered in steel" can range from AC14 to AC25, wouldn't NPCs armour, logically, do the same or more?) If this is your idea of an "informed decision", I guess we just have different definitions of that phrase.

Can you name a movie or novel in which the characters consistently and reliably expect definable and balanced rewards for their risks? I really don’t see what that has to do with an RPG *as I personally* enjoy it.

Yes - every single one. The twist is, though, that "reward" is not defined in exclusively material terms. Expand the rules to encompass non-material goals/rewards and I think you're golden.

To me it is all about creating an alternate universe and seeing events unfold within it. The creation and storytelling are overwhelmingly more important than "game". I absolutely enjoy the game as well, I don't mean to suggest otherwise. But the story-telling and creation and art are on a separate tier. And I say that as a guy with an active imagination who likes to tell stories and I also say that as an engineer and programmer who enjoys building and tinkering.

I couldn't XP, but thank you.

The goal of design is not to create a battle.

Simulationist goals (which is what are described here by ByronD, almost to a 'T') are perfectly fine RPG goals - but not the only ones. And, in my view, D&D does not suit (and never really has suited) those goals well. Not that I begrudge anyone trying, but I think the level span, the reward mechanisms, the injury mechanism ('hit points'), the level of assumed magic and a laundry list of other elements in the "core" of D&D really mitigate against it.

Outside of that, creating a 'challenge' - be it a combat challenge, a social challenge or an exploration challenge - is a perfectly valid and interesting design goal. It may not be one you value, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value.

 

[vagabundo]

Well you can create NPCs right now in 4e using the PC rules, nothing stopping you. For the rest of us time strapped DMs who just want interesting challenges and encounters, and couldn't give a fiddlers about the odd +1 or missing feat, we'll use the quick and easy monster ones.

Really all that would be needed for the new system is some advice on balancing and xp for the PC/NPCs.

 

[DonTadow]

So should PCs, with only a few exceptions. Thus the same platform for all. What other information would you need?

For a definition of mainstream, perhaps you should check the "what races and classes are core" thread and note the number of respondents who posted orc as a race. I don't define "mainstream" as "tactical combat focused around the killing of monsters". My goal is to make D&D more palatable by allowing all types of games (including those that don't particularly focus on tactical combat and may want to use monsters for other purposes). I think it should be *easy* to use an orc (or a monster in general) for any use that a "mainstream" game could plausibly need.

That's true, the goal of the rules is to resolve conflict.

As it relates to the original thread topic, conflicts are easier to resolve when everyone uses the same rules.

By mainstream, I mean if the typical person who has a mild interest in fantasy is looking for the hobby, they have possibly read, seen or heard of stories involving humans against monsters. Being a monster in most cases is not something the average fantasy lover/non-dnd fan has seen. So thus, this would not be something of interest.

I hate to use the word combat statistics only. Saves are not combat statistics only.

Oddly though, I think I may be agreeing with you because your argument is strong and valid. But, only if WOTC adopted a system for player creation like the one in my head, where player creation is so easy/so simple, i wouldn't care if i needed to do monsters the same way.

To summerize, i've been saying that players should have stats generated from class/race. (this would be easy to do with monsters). With skills and saves generated from the special abilities chosen). Again, this would be easy to do as well. If all I have to do is decide what one thing something gets at each level, and those things had CR's attached to them. And I had a basic template for that monster with this limited number of stats, there'd be no issue. Time would not be a problem.

So I guess, with this question, the main answer comes from, is pc building going to be as tedious as it is now?

 

[BryonD]

I'm all for major foes, but in your example, you use the one time you would do an NPC. What about the two storm troopers (we are not the droids you are looking for), do they need a full stat and item equipment sheet? How important are they. Are they worth the 10 minutes apiece to create?

Thing with DND is, for every 1 foe that needs the full statblock, there are 20 or 30 who don't. I like the table idea. I'd be happy with a table of basic npc stats i can reference.

But i agree, that i want the BBEG or important npcs to have a few more releavant stats just in case.

Didn't I cover that?
I said that "it is fine for the mooks to all be one line".
And I actually have a reference sheet of stock mook goblins, stock mook orcs, etc... That is perfectly cool.
And, really, there can be plenty of other examples.
The real point is that I CAN make a crazy detailed Goblin *if I want to* and I also can run CR18 Demons off the top of my head and on the fly. Obviously it is almost always the other way around. But in the system I play now I have that. So that is my answer to Lost Soul's question.

 

[BryonD]

But the goal of D&D (at least in my opinion) is to resolve conflict. Weather that is combat, social or whatever kind of conflict you need.

The Goal of D&D is to create fans and turn those fans into a revenue stream. Obviously that is neither here nor there to you personally. But we should keep in mind that this entire forum is about creating a new edition that does a better job of appealing to a larger overall market. So in that context is is important.

That said....

The goal of D&D is to be part of the story and to see your creations take on the illusion of life.


(at least in my opinion)


And conflict resolution is a highly important Part of that. But just a part.


So that would seem to make it your opinion against mine. But here is the thing. A system that reaches my standards of creation can also have short cuts so that people who just want conflict resolution can skip to that with relative ease. A system that is just about conflict resolution has given up on being best in class when it comes to creation.

My way can have tools to provide your way.
Your way just doesn't offer anything to people who want my way.

Not saying it is remotely perfect. A system fine tuned to you is going to be better for you than a bigger tent with tools.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So I guess, with this question, the main answer comes from, is pc building going to be as tedious as it is now?

If you have to look through eight books of feats to select a feat for your first-level feat. That's a problem.

If you have to look through eight books of spells to select spells for your dragon, that's a problem.

The problem is not that the dragon uses the same rules as PC spellcasters.

Hopefully, the system will be simple but robust and meet all our expectations.

 

[herrozerro]

If you have to look through eight books of spells to select spells for your dragon, that's a problem.

The problem is not that the dragon uses the same rules as PC spellcasters.

Though, I think it can be related. if NPCs use the same character generation as PCs, as soon as the first PC splatbook comes out NPC generation just got more complicated.