Statblocks vs adventures: Where's the balance?

[MerricB]

Once upon a time, the D&D statblock was a tiny thing. In Against the Giants, only the hit points were given. Admittedly, this was a bit short, but by the time of Pharaoh, a typical monster statblock looked like this:

Two Wraiths (AC 3, MV 12"/24"; HD 5+3; hp 20, 16; #AT 1; Dmg 1-6 and drain one level; AL LE; can only be hit by silver (1/2 damage) or magical (full damage) weapons.

It's short, and it doesn't impede the adventure flow. Thus, there is room for description of areas and other things that help the adventure.

The most bloated statblock I've ever encountered is that of Kyuss at the end of Age of Worms (3.5e), which was printed over 3 pages. Talk about overkill. At least you're very unlikely to get statblocks that long in 4e, but even so, they're very space-hungry. Once half the page is taken up by monster descriptions, the flow of the adventure is broken. (And once the combat takes an hour plus to resolve, then the flow gets broken in real time as well).

How did AD&D manage it? Well, less well as the years went on (for which, read 2E). However, there were a few interesting features of the D&D statblock:

* The statblock concentrates on the most common part of D&D combat: weapon combat. Thus, AC, #AT and Damage. The attack bonus is contained within the Hit Dice number - and the lookup tables on the DM screen.

* Spell vs Monster resolution is again handled by a look-up table on the DM screen. (In some ways, Basic D&D got this better by adding a SV: line to show how it saves). In 3E & 4E, you break this out into three actual defenses, but are they really necessary? Do they truly add to the game experience?

* Monster special abilities are (relatively) rare, but there are standard ones described briefly. Except...

* Spell look-up allows more complicated creatures. IMO, this works well when there is a very small pool of spells (original AD&D), but much, much less well when there are a very large pool of spells (3e). In my experiences running AD&D, it was very easy to know what the common spells were - it only became a pain when looking up uncommon spells.

Against that, you have the tactical options available from the longer statblock. D&D combats which only provide one option (hit with my sword) may run quicker, but if they're all like that, it's a little shallow. I wonder in many cases if the special ability could be phrased better and shorter than the current lossy format.

Consider this possible 4E Zombie, adapted from the latest Monster Vault:

Grasping Zombie, RL Brute 1, HP 33/16, AC 13, MV 4; #AT 1, Dmg 1d8+3 and grab; SA +5 damage against grabbed target; immune disease, poison; dies immediately when criticalled; AL N.

There is a certain assumption here that tables on the DM screen give a standard attack bonus, defenses, initiative and skills for a Brute 1. Honestly, the lack of written defences (F,R,W) works badly within the 4e framework, but it's only a couple of lines in the adventure.

More complicated monsters hurt a lot more. What do you choose to lose?

Efreeti Cinderlord. RL Art 23; HP 169/84, AC 37, Spd 6, fly 8, AT +28, Dmg 2d10+7 plus ongoing 5 fire (sv); SA immune fire, at will-fire bolt (8 sq, vs Ref, 3d10+10 fire plus ongoing 10 fire (sv)), efreeti's curse (20 sq, vs Ref; a creature taking ongoing damage and all adjacent take 2d6+7 fire), AL E, Bluff +22, Insight +20.

Does that work for you? Do you need more? Where lies the point between "too simple" and "too complicated", and where does it stand in relation to "readable adventures" and "unreadable adventures"?

They play off against each other, and I am curious to see what occurs as D&D moves into the future.

Cheers!

 

[delericho]

Two Wraiths (AC 3, MV 12"/24"; HD 5+3; hp 20, 16; #AT 1; Dmg 1-6 and drain one level; AL LE; can only be hit by silver (1/2 damage) or magical (full damage) weapons.

The most bloated statblock I've ever encountered is that of Kyuss at the end of Age of Worms (3.5e), which was printed over 3 pages.

To be fair, that's hardly an apples to apples comparison! Your comparing some standard low-level monsters with a unique, deity-level creature that served as the end-boss not just of an adventure, but an entire 20-level campaign!

Still...

* Spell vs Monster resolution is again handled by a look-up table on the DM screen. (In some ways, Basic D&D got this better by adding a SV: line to show how it saves). In 3E & 4E, you break this out into three actual defenses, but are they really necessary? Do they truly add to the game experience?

Depends. If the numbers are going to be very close to one another (say, within a point or two), it's probably just as good to collapse them to a single value. If, however, many monsters have some defences notably higher or lower than the others then having separate values has some value - it rewards players for identifying and exploiting weaknesses.

There is a certain assumption here that tables on the DM screen give a standard attack bonus, defenses, initiative and skills for a Brute 1.

See, that's what I don't like about the abridged format. The fewer references I have to chase down while running the monster, the better. If you can't include a decent stat-block in your adventure, just give me a page reference to the Monster Manual and I'll use that.

Does that work for you? Do you need more? Where lies the point between "too simple" and "too complicated", and where does it stand in relation to "readable adventures" and "unreadable adventures"?

One of the few things that the Delve Format adventures got right was in supplying full stat blocks for all monsters (or at least, as full as required for the adventure - no point including "desert adaptation" if the adventure takes place underwater!). When reading the adventure, I can skim over the stat blocks easily enough; when running the adventure time is of the essence - make the stats as easy to use as possible.

The worst stat blocks I'm aware of were the ones from the early 3e adventures - they were compressed much like the older edition blocks yet contained far more information. This meant that they were several lines long - long enough to take up non-trivial amounts of space, but compact enough to be a major pain to actually use. I could never find saves (in particular) in those blocks!

 

[MerricB]

See, that's what I don't like about the abridged format. The fewer references I have to chase down while running the monster, the better. If you can't include a decent stat-block in your adventure, just give me a page reference to the Monster Manual and I'll use that.

There's a big difference between including the references on the DM screen and hiding them in a book, IMO. When I play 4e, I use the screen for looking up conditions all the time (as well as the standard damage codes so I can upgrade early monsters to the new maths on the fly).

Compare to the use of the keyword "undead" in early 3e, which implied all of these special abilities you could only find in the MM glossary - they weren't printed on the screen. I don't mind table look-up so much, especially if it saves massively on space in the statblock.

(It works very well in AD&D partly because the table look-up removes the maths part of the equation. Adding 3+4 is fairly trivial, but 19+32 isn't so trivial, and that's the sort of calculation I need to make again and again in 4e; the range of numbers now required does slow things down).

The worst stat blocks I'm aware of were the ones from the early 3e adventures - they were compressed much like the older edition blocks yet contained far more information. This meant that they were several lines long - long enough to take up non-trivial amounts of space, but compact enough to be a major pain to actually use. I could never find saves (in particular) in those blocks!

Oh, I know.

Cheers!

 

[delericho]

There's a big difference between including the references on the DM screen and hiding them in a book, IMO.

That may be our disconnect - I don't use a screen.

(It works very well in AD&D partly because the table look-up removes the maths part of the equation. Adding 3+4 is fairly trivial, but 19+32 isn't so trivial, and that's the sort of calculation I need to make again and again in 4e; the range of numbers now required does slow things down).

Interesting. That sort of arithmetic is just second nature to me, so I simply didn't notice it. The benefits of growing up in a house of teachers, I guess!

I do feel that the 4e (and 3e) numbers tend to be too high - on a d20 system, I would argue that the sweet spot for modifiers should be between +5 and +15 or so. But I tend to come to that for a PoV that I'd rather fix the math in that regard, rather than hacking the stat blocks to work with the existing numbers.

YMMV of course.

 

[MerricB]

Interesting. That sort of arithmetic is just second nature to me, so I simply didn't notice it. The benefits of growing up in a house of teachers, I guess!

Make no mistake: I'm very, very good at arithmetic, and generally fast as well, but I'm noticeably slowing down as I get older, and my players are far worse than me. Watching them trying to add up 5d6 is agony.

Actually, the slowest calculations are HP calculations. 325 - 68 really makes me think about it...

Another thing on the 4E screen that I adore is that it lists the creature origins and the Knowledge skill associated with each one - information that is very important in game, but would be painful in the actual statblock.

I don't think that 4E can use the drastically shorter statblocks I propose without a fair amount of rejigging. (Lower numbers would be nice).

Cheers!

 

[ExploderWizard]

I like simple statblocks. The easier it is to jot down what is needed to run an encounter with just paper and pencil the more likely I am to want to prep and DM that system.

The most important npcs/monsters should have more space available for them but the more streamlined the combat part is, the more room there is for cool stuff such as backstory, motivations, and likely reactions to certain events, etc.

The 4E statblock seems like an unwieldy brick shoehorned into the adventure text. Often the space taken by these blocks in no way corresponds to the importance of the encounter. A minor road ambush encounter can eat up as much page space as the encounter with a major villian. This format leaves little room for descriptive,exploration based text without the adventure becoming rulebook thick.

 

[NN]

Put statblocks in separate booklet.

 

[billd91]

See, that's what I don't like about the abridged format. The fewer references I have to chase down while running the monster, the better. If you can't include a decent stat-block in your adventure, just give me a page reference to the Monster Manual and I'll use that.

<snip>

One of the few things that the Delve Format adventures got right was in supplying full stat blocks for all monsters (or at least, as full as required for the adventure - no point including "desert adaptation" if the adventure takes place underwater!). When reading the adventure, I can skim over the stat blocks easily enough; when running the adventure time is of the essence - make the stats as easy to use as possible.

I'm pretty much with you on this. I do use a DM screen, but I have it sitting by the side of my DM-space and pick it up to check common skill modifiers and conditions. I really don't want to use it to look up monster abilities or routine combat. I like having a decent stat block in front of me when I run the game, one of the few things the Delve format is actually good for.

What I usually do is cut and paste stat blocks together into a Word or Pages document. Either I get them right from the adventure's PDF file or I nab them from the Bestiary's PDF file. At game time, I have them printed out so I can note conditions/hp loss on them or make any other run-time annotations. I've got the adventure's PDF called up on my iPad, my printed stat blocks, and my screen and I'm largely set to go.

The worst stat blocks I'm aware of were the ones from the early 3e adventures - they were compressed much like the older edition blocks yet contained far more information. This meant that they were several lines long - long enough to take up non-trivial amounts of space, but compact enough to be a major pain to actually use. I could never find saves (in particular) in those blocks!

Agreed! I found them very difficult to read. The newer 3e/PF formats may take up more column space, but they're actually readable. And that's even more important than space-saving.

 

[wrecan]

I like the layout of the 4e statblock. I do sometimes miss the AD&D statlines for simple creatures, but do you remember what happens if the creature has spells? Here's a statblock for the Queen from the 1e adventure Dungeonland (which I chose because it's downloadable free with the Wizards website)

The Queen of Courland (Human Cleric: S 14. I 10, W 18, D 18, C
16, Ch 17; AC -3 [+2 plate mail, dexterity bonus]; MV 12”; L 13;
hp 70; #AT 1; D rod of smiting [d8 +3, triple damage and 1
charge burned when a “20” is rolled]; SA spells; SD 25% magic
resistance).
The Queen is not too bright, and she tends to be forgetful. Her
short attention span can be used to advantage. If a combat is in
process, she will wade in with the flowerheaded rod, or cast
one or more spells, as she deems best. If her life is seriously
threatened, she will immediately retire to the palace. If, on the
other hand, there is no fighting, the Queen will greet the party
royally, act as if they were expected, and command them to
play croquet. Her spells:
First level: command (x3), cure light wounds (x4), sanctuary
Second level: hold person (x5), resist fire, silence 15' radius
Third level: continual darkness (x2), dispel magic (x4), prayer
Fourth level: cure serious wounds (x2), neutralize poison
(x2), sticks to snakes
Fifth level: flame strike
Sixth level: blade barrier
​

Not only is it long, it's broken up with descriptive text before the spell list and you still have to look up each spell to see what it does!

The benefit of 1e and 2e statblocks was they didn't take up much space, but I don't care too much about that. I do prefer monster statblocks to take up no more than a column of a three-column landscape page, and most standard monsters will do that in 4e.

 

[CuRoi]

Great topic.

In 2e, I could cook up a few key NPCs before a game and do everything else on the fly without a laptop. When I started running 3e I bought a computer program to track everything - NPCs, PCs, monsters. It worked, but I always felt it weighed a bit on the game.

At any rate, while I do see some stremlining in 4e, it's still not on that same "on the fly" level as 2e IMO.

I'm currently brainstorming ways to adopt a minion / boss setup in 3e. Right now it involves consolidating stats so that you have less than a dozen "stats" for minions. Once done, I should be able to get away with about 10 stats in a monsters stat block followed by a description of any special abilities (probably drop feats for minions as well leaving just special attacks / defenses). Bosses will get the full 3e treatment.