D&D 4E Stephen Radney-MacFarland on Conversions and Adventures in 4e

[S'mon]

I've always hated the 3e (GM, not book) trope that "The rules are the physics of the game world." It seems that 4e shares my philosophy that the rules are just there to aid the GM in managing PC-world interaction, which is great for me.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

If 4e's NPC/monster creation chapter states "Here are the most important stats. You can handwave everything else. End of chapter." then your concern would be justified as that doesn't seem to promote a coherent system of physics. I just don't think they'd be that slack.

Except that in the Pit Fiend we saw precisely that. A few in combat options, significantly less options than 3e by the way even in combat. A stat system that doesn't even match the weapons and armor their description puts them in with the stat block. And the reminder that if we want them to do anything else "Just make it up as you go along like we did the wish granting ability" At least where I'm concerned that is "here are the most important parts if you need something more just make it up"

I still fail to see any problem.

I don't expect you too, based on what I've read 4e is right up your alley. But for me, I see problems and a design philosophy far more gamist than 3e or my preferred game style.

 

[zoroaster100]

While I still need to see the details of how this is accomplished, having easy and simple to generate NPCs (and high level monsters) is one of the things I am most excited about concerning 4th edition. Overly complex and time-consuming rules for creating NPCs was the biggest drag for me in 3.5. Preparing for one session just took too long once we got into the really high levels (13th through 20th).

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Could you give some sort of concrete example instead of just tossing around gamist gamist gamist?Saying the rules aren't consistent = 1+1=2 today, and 1+1=6 later.

Below are quotes from Mearls in his posts at the NPC/Monster creation thread.

For monsters, things might be a little trickier if you want to account for all the numbers. You might give your level 18 demon a suit of plate and find that his AC is a little lower or higher than you want. In that case, you can either accept some wiggle room and change the number or find some reasonable explanation (the guy wears plate, but his AC is a little higher than expected because he has thick skin; you give him a shield or a couple of feats) or tinker with his attributes.

In designing monsters, we accepted that the monster's attack is more than a sum of its weapon die and its stats. It also represents the monster's combat tactics and tendencies.

For instance, an ogre might do more damage and have lower accuracy than you expect based on his level, Strength score, and weapon. This reflects the ogre's wild but powerful swings. We essentially built Power Attack into his stats.

If you arbitrarily gave the critter in plate an above average AC, that feels just as realistic at the table as jumping through all the hopes to justify a series of additions that also put you above the average. If the plate comes off, you simply drop the monster's AC by plate's AC bonus under either approach.

Now while he specifically said that you COULD go through the steps and build an NPC on the same rules platform as the PCs this was not the default setting of the game. The default was built around a set of tables covering approximate values for a specific role and purpose in the adventure at a specific level. Furthermore that monsters wouldn't even have this much, they were built randomly from the table values with no unifying mechanics. Anything beyond that was handwavery for monsters because there was no mechanical basis to tie them together.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

I don't expect you too, based on what I've read 4e is right up your alley. But for me, I see problems and a design philosophy far more gamist than 3e or my preferred game style.

Things like 'simulationism VS gaminsm' is more pedant theory than reality, to me. Too ceberal, etheral things that don't fit the real world at times.

Things are more than easy labels or abstract concepts.

 

[Crothian]

And that's the nail in the coffin for me where 4e is concerned. Some of the mechanical adaptations may be backported but I had enough of that technique with the Storyteller system and if it's the core of 4e then I'm no longer their customer.

If the easy way of making NPCs is an issue then why not use the PC rules to create all NPCs? It just sounds like there is a faster and less complete way to create NPCs in this version of the game. But since PCs will be fully fleshed out like before I see no reason why we can't use those rules to create NPCs.

 

[HeinorNY]

"The truth is, it’s just a heck of a lot easier to create monsters and NPCs, because you build them enough for the role they are designed to play in the plot and in the game. And we really latched on to this philosophy in monster, NPC, and adventure design. Like characters in a movie or play, they are fleshed out as much as they need to serve the story—in this case the adventure."

I DMed 3E just like that.
If a character is going to talk with the innkeeper and tries to "bluff" him, I need to know the Innkeepers sense motive check.
I don't have a sheet of stats for him.
In those 5 seconds when the players are waiting my call, I think: "Okay, the innkeeper is an experienced old fellow, he is lvl 2. 2+3 for max ranks is 5, as an inkeeper sense motive is important to him, so he probably maxed it. He also needs to be wise more than anything for his job, so let me give him a +1 from a WIS 12. So his sense motive check is +6."
Five seconds later I roll Sense Motive, resolve the situation and game goes on. I'd never waste 1 minute designing a whole sheet for an innkeeper, or any other non-combative npc.
If the character decided to attack the innkeeper, I'd do the same mental exercise and quickly generate his relevant numbers, like he is a fat guy, AC 10, hp 10, attack +1, etc....

My whole problem is that I don't need a DMG to tell me how to do that. I want a core rule book with rules. I'm happy I'll have a guidelines designed by great designers and experienced DMs to make my style of DMing even better though. BUT I want to be able to fully create an inkeeper stats if I want too, I don't want a game enforcing and pushing me to play/DM D&D the "cinematic" way.
I don't like to run my games as if they were movies. I always though it hurted immersion and "believeability". I don't care about realism I care about verisimilitude. My games are like the LotR books, not like LotR movies.

I don't think I made a lot of sense, sorry

 

[A'koss]

Now while he specifically said that you COULD go through the steps and build an NPC on the same rules platform as the PCs this was not the default setting of the game. The default was built around a set of tables covering approximate values for a specific role and purpose in the adventure at a specific level. Furthermore that monsters wouldn't even have this much, they were built randomly from the table values with no unifying mechanics. Anything beyond that was handwavery for monsters because there was no mechanical basis to tie them together.

Personally, I think that's a brilliant way to go. If you want to go through the trouble of creating a fully-stated critter/NPC you can, but more importantly, if you want to generate an NPC or Beastie who's just there for the fight - it's sounds really simple to do! Guideliness are right there for appropriate HPs, AC, Dmg, Def, etc., tweak to taste. This is a good thing!

 

[Rechan]

Now while he specifically said that you COULD go through the steps and build an NPC on the same rules platform as the PCs this was not the default setting of the game. The default was built around a set of tables covering approximate values for a specific role and purpose in the adventure at a specific level. Furthermore that monsters wouldn't even have this much, they were built randomly from the table values with no unifying mechanics. Anything beyond that was handwavery for monsters because there was no mechanical basis to tie them together.

But all of that is consistent with the rules. If it wasn't consistent, there wouldn't be tables and formula. If it wasn't consistent, two pit fiends have different stats.

 

[Benimoto]

Now while he specifically said that you COULD go through the steps and build an NPC on the same rules platform as the PCs this was not the default setting of the game. The default was built around a set of tables covering approximate values for a specific role and purpose in the adventure at a specific level. Furthermore that monsters wouldn't even have this much, they were built randomly from the table values with no unifying mechanics. Anything beyond that was handwavery for monsters because there was no mechanical basis to tie them together.

This sort of thing was built into 3rd edition too. While there were guidelines for how much natural armor a monster of a certain size had, or how much damage a slam attack did, there were no hard and fast rules, and the monsters as presented in the monster manuals varied widely. Plus, monsters had fairly arbitrary abilities to vary even weapon damage, such as the cloud giant's ability to wield an oversized weapon.

I can understand that you may have liked the fact that most of these deviations were called out as a special ability, but at their core they were just as arbitrary or handwavey as the 4th edition monster guidelines.

The fact that monsters were built in a similar fashion as PCs were was one of the things I was really excited about when 3rd edition came out. Over the past few years, as I've DMed, I've come to see the limitations of the system. For that reason, I'm looking forward to the 4th ed monster design guidelines.

For years, I've come up with an idea for what I want a monster or NPC to be able to do to challenge the party or provide for an exciting and then had to spend hours rummaging through books for the perfect feat or prestige class ability to fulfill my idea. Why can't I just throw off the shackles and design the monsters and NPCs I want?