Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 4861421" data-attributes="member: 3820">It's a good question, but you need to be asking the DM as well as the ruleset. In AD&amp;D, hit points were treated as a biological fact of species. Kobolds were defined by their 1/2 HD as much as anything else, gnolls were significant because they sat between the 1+1 HD of hobgoblins and the 3+1 HD of bugbears, and so on. That started to change with level advancement being an option for humanoids, and then eventually that just raised the question of &quot;So why can't they, like humans, fill pretty much any narrative role you need them to at any level?&quot; I think the basic point of preference is whether you go inside-out or outside-in for antagonist design. One approach basically starts with a fixed stat block for monsters, and then builds their narrative use from there. The other approach starts with the narrative use for a monster, and then builds its stat block from there. In a way, it's kind of like the choices between top-down or ground-up world design. 4e's really not very good for the &quot;the mechanics will be the foundation for the situation&quot; approach, but it's freakin' dynamite for the &quot;the situation will be the foundation for the mechanics&quot; approach. Yeah, there are other sleeker systems out there — but there's a definite market for people who want a strong narrative-first approach to a game and a rather robust core game experience married to that. I'm glad to see it myself. Like you say, there's an embarrassment of riches out there for gamers, and 4e is another neat option to choose. It does what it does very well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Barastrondo, post: 4861421, member: 3820"] It's a good question, but you need to be asking the DM as well as the ruleset. In AD&D, hit points were treated as a biological fact of species. Kobolds were defined by their 1/2 HD as much as anything else, gnolls were significant because they sat between the 1+1 HD of hobgoblins and the 3+1 HD of bugbears, and so on. That started to change with level advancement being an option for humanoids, and then eventually that just raised the question of "So why can't they, like humans, fill pretty much any narrative role you need them to at any level?" I think the basic point of preference is whether you go inside-out or outside-in for antagonist design. One approach basically starts with a fixed stat block for monsters, and then builds their narrative use from there. The other approach starts with the narrative use for a monster, and then builds its stat block from there. In a way, it's kind of like the choices between top-down or ground-up world design. 4e's really not very good for the "the mechanics will be the foundation for the situation" approach, but it's freakin' dynamite for the "the situation will be the foundation for the mechanics" approach. Yeah, there are other sleeker systems out there — but there's a definite market for people who want a strong narrative-first approach to a game and a rather robust core game experience married to that. I'm glad to see it myself. Like you say, there's an embarrassment of riches out there for gamers, and 4e is another neat option to choose. It does what it does very well. [/QUOTE]

Verification