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

[FourthBear]

But yet "orcs" won't exist - I'm almost sure some article revealed that we'll be getting something like 5 sorts of Orcs in the MM, Orc Minions, Orc Berserkers, Orc Shamans, Orc Archers, and... Orc Bloodsomethings? I'm still very worried about this.

I suspect that these type of write-ups are intended to serve the same purpose as the villain classes in Iron Heroes: opponent write-ups that are distinctive and challenging in play, but less of a drain on a DM's mental resources. They will have presumably fewer abilities than a PC classed characters, but will be more easily leveled up and modified than such a character. I'm not very worried that we'll somehow lose a basic orc write-up that allows people to generate PC classed characters. I think those sorts of things are pretty easy, as long as you don't demand the same number of options that the PC write-ups in the PH will have.

 

[Nymrohd]

And considering how compact the Elf rules write up seems to be, adding that to several MM races seems simple and welcome without really taking more space than a paragraph. I mean we don't just want orcs, but also, goblins, hobgoblins, and ofc gnomes all of which are main races for Eberron at least.

 

[Drammattex]

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.

Thank God.

 

[mmu1]

This whole thing reads to me like this:

"Ok, people. We've had a talk, and decided to give you our permission to make ad-hoc decisions when creating NPCs and monsters. It's ok now. Just pick from the table. Or pick whatever feels right, and don't worry about the unimportant details - just make them up, if you have to... Uh... come to think of it, you will have to, because we're not giving you any rules for it - isn't that so much easier?"

Now, with that out of my system... I've never actually had a problem before with simplifying overcomplicated rules, or deciding whether the extra effort required to use advanced rules made the game more fun and was worth it. My players don't especially care whether it was a "professional designer" that made the call, or I did - as long as it was consistent. I've never wasted any unnecessary effort figuring out a 3.5 NPCs craft skill level, either.

On the other hand, creating new rules because the game failed to make provisions for something is a lot more difficult than ignoring unnecessary complexity, and I've come across plenty of RPGs which had gaping holes in the ruleset - and, worse yet, had a design which made it very difficult to use their core mechanics to fill those holes. So this impression I get from 4E (which is regularly reinforced by posts like the one referenced in this thread) that the designers decided to concentrate only on the "important things" and pretty much ignore everything else doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

 

[Dragonblade]

3E stats are exactly the same, just pushed back a level.

A 3E pit fiend has an AC of 40. That number, as you say, comes from a formula... but the inputs to the formula are just as arbitrary as in 4E. Why does the pit fiend have +23 natural armor? Why does it have a 26 Dexterity, or a Large size? No reason, it just does. Those are the numbers the game designers decided to give it. The natural armor in particular is a totally arbitrary fudge factor, which can be used to give the pit fiend any damn armor class you please.

The pit fiend has an attack bonus of +30. That's -1 size, +18 from Hit Dice, and +13 from Strength. Why does it have 18 Hit Dice and 37 Strength? No reason, it just does. If the designers wanted the fiend to have a better attack bonus without changing its damage or hit points, they could have given it Weapon Focus as a bonus racial feat, or a special "Infernal Rage" ability that gives it a +X profane bonus to its attacks. That sort of thing shows up all the time in 3E monster stat blocks.

The only difference between 3E and 4E is that 3E requires designers to go through a big song and dance to give their arbitrary numbers the illusion of coming from somewhere other than the designer's rear end. 4E dispenses with that.

Great post! I agree completely.

 

[Derren]

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.

But when the players dare to do something you did not expect when writing the plot which requires you to use the NPCs in a different role than the intended one you have big problems as nothing is there and this cases might not even be covered by the reduced NPC rules.

 

[Fifth Element]

But when the players dare to do something you did not expect when writing the plot which requires you to use the NPCs in a different role than the intended one you have big problems as nothing is there and this cases might not even be covered by the reduced NPC rules.

Very weak argument. Improvise - just like in 3E if such a situation came up. If I've got a combat monster NPC prepared to battle the PCs and they find a clever way to negotiate with it, for instance, I'll be improvising regardless of the edition.

 

[Lackhand]

This whole thing reads to me like this:

"Ok, people. We've had a talk, and decided to give you our permission to make ad-hoc decisions when creating NPCs and monsters. It's ok now. Just pick from the table. Or pick whatever feels right, and don't worry about the unimportant details - just make them up, if you have to... Uh... come to think of it, you will have to, because we're not giving you any rules for it - isn't that so much easier?"

Now, with that out of my system... I've never actually had a problem before with simplifying overcomplicated rules, or deciding whether the extra effort required to use advanced rules made the game more fun and was worth it. My players don't especially care whether it was a "professional designer" that made the call, or I did - as long as it was consistent. I've never wasted any unnecessary effort figuring out a 3.5 NPCs craft skill level, either.

On the other hand, creating new rules because the game failed to make provisions for something is a lot more difficult than ignoring unnecessary complexity, and I've come across plenty of RPGs which had gaping holes in the ruleset - and, worse yet, had a design which made it very difficult to use their core mechanics to fill those holes. So this impression I get from 4E (which is regularly reinforced by posts like the one referenced in this thread) that the designers decided to concentrate only on the "important things" and pretty much ignore everything else doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

You have two points here, one of which I violently disagree with, and one of which I am completely in agreement here. Or possibly I'm just seeing double and schizoid

I believe that one should play a game according to the rules of the game. Make Stuff Up does suck as a rule (as a rule), but if the way a vast majority plays is to make stuff up, or the alternative sucks even worse, then one is probably better off making the official version make stuff up (with guidelines) and making the alternative being stricter and stricter guidelines. This is because otherwise (if nobody follows the rule) why write it down, why pay for it?

On the other hand, you also feel that they're not providing enough guidelines. I wouldn't know; I don't feel like I have enough data. I mean, they're providing 300 examples of 'valid' monsters; that should be pretty helpful, beyond whatever actual monster-design guidelines which are supplied. But I see where you're coming from here, at least

 

[Professor Phobos]

On the other hand, creating new rules because the game failed to make provisions for something is a lot more difficult than ignoring unnecessary complexity, and I've come across plenty of RPGs which had gaping holes in the ruleset - and, worse yet, had a design which made it very difficult to use their core mechanics to fill those holes. So this impression I get from 4E (which is regularly reinforced by posts like the one referenced in this thread) that the designers decided to concentrate only on the "important things" and pretty much ignore everything else doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

To what RPGs do you refer? Just so I have a sense of what you're talking about when you say "gaping holes."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This whole thing reads to me like this:

"Ok, people. We've had a talk, and decided to give you our permission to make ad-hoc decisions when creating NPCs and monsters. It's ok now. Just pick from the table. Or pick whatever feels right, and don't worry about the unimportant details - just make them up, if you have to... Uh... come to think of it, you will have to, because we're not giving you any rules for it - isn't that so much easier?"

Now, with that out of my system... I've never actually had a problem before with simplifying overcomplicated rules, or deciding whether the extra effort required to use advanced rules made the game more fun and was worth it. My players don't especially care whether it was a "professional designer" that made the call, or I did - as long as it was consistent. I've never wasted any unnecessary effort figuring out a 3.5 NPCs craft skill level, either.

On the other hand, creating new rules because the game failed to make provisions for something is a lot more difficult than ignoring unnecessary complexity, and I've come across plenty of RPGs which had gaping holes in the ruleset - and, worse yet, had a design which made it very difficult to use their core mechanics to fill those holes. So this impression I get from 4E (which is regularly reinforced by posts like the one referenced in this thread) that the designers decided to concentrate only on the "important things" and pretty much ignore everything else doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

I think the 4E system (as well as the 3.x one, in those cases it worked) had one critical advantage about most other systems: They give you guidelines that allow you to determine how challenging a monster will be for the party. In my experience, that can be one of the worst gaping holes of a system.

I remember we once played a session of the new Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. The adventure culminated in us having to go against a Demon. Interestingly enough, the Demon was weak sauce compared to the damn cultists protecting and summoning him. The Cultist carried armor and dealt hefty damage. The Demon did not wear armor (I don't remember the damage, but I think it was okay), and that made it easy. That for me looked like a gaping hole in the system - the importance of armor was not accounted for in the monster and adventure design.

3.x had a small error here: Outsiders didn't wear armor, but a lot of them - by their humanoid figures - would be able to wear them. But if you did that, there strong AC would become an unbeatable AC. Nothing in the CR system told you that this could happen.

4Es approach to determining "challenge" gives you the "real" guideline to the question of degree of challenge. If you give the Pit Fiend a Full Plate +5 instead of his "fluff-only" Brest Plate, you'll see a change in numbers, and know that they're outside the expected values. Thanks to the guidelines, you can probably determine its level a lot better then you could the CR of a creature before...

And that's the key point why the "gaping" hole can be closed. If you make stuff up, you have a baseline to compare to. You don't have to count on 4-8 years of D&D 4 DM experience (or plain superior intellect) to figure out whehter the monster you just created is CR 8 or CR 12. You compare to the baseline, and see where it will fit in.

And then there's the opposite way - you know you need a group of monsters and NPCs for a 4th level party - use the guidelines, and choose the special abilities that seem appropriate for what you're going for. Or use the PC rules to build one of the NPCs (I guess at this level, it doesn't really matter yet which way you go...)