| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 01 Jul 2007 : 00:16:57
I know we have discussed for years the use of the "short form" stat block, with the name/race/gender/class/level/alignment format, so that the NPC is sketched out, but not fully detailed.
One of the reasons that I liked this is that usually if someone is fleshed out in this manner, you get an idea of who they are and what they are capable of, but you don't have a lot of space wasted on details that you likely won't need.
I have also kind of thought that the short form would be a good indicator of an NPCs role in the campaign. If they are important enough to detail in this manner, but they aren't stated up, then it probably means that the role they occupy isn't as a direct combat encounter for the PCs. If you want to have your PCs fight them and remove them from the game, that's fine, but seeing them in this format is a kind of warning that they'll probably be in future products and that you may have to realize that your game will diverge from the standard (not a bad thing, just something to be aware of).
At any rate, something occurred to me recently. What if the stat block was even shorter form? What if it really did do more to define the role of the character in the campaign instead of nail down specifics.
In general what I was thinking was in terms of level. I was thinking about the level definitions that Paizo uses for Dungeon Magazine, for example. They rank adventures by Low Level (1st-5th), Mid Level (6th-12th), High Level (13th-20th), and Epic (21st +).
So in the case of Elminster, you would have:
Elminster, Human Male Wizard (Epic Level), CG (Mystra)
Or in the case of another famous Realms personality:
Drizzt Do'Urden, Drow Male Fighter/Ranger (High Level), CG (Mielikki)
Basically any classes that the character only has a few levels in wouldn't be listed, and in this form, its a lot harder for people to start, well, heated debates about how many skill points X should have, or weather Y should have a given feat. It would leave the character fairly open to interpretation, while still defining what role they should have.
I know there probably isn't much chance of something like this happening, but what do everyone think of a set up like this? |
| 18 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 07 Jul 2007 : 16:47:12
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
As for debates stopping, I would not hold my breath. With open stats there would be as much (if not more) debate.
Actually, with less info, I think there's less room for debate: neither side has proof of what they say. 
In most cases I have seen the most argumentative crowd takes lack of information as proof that their own opinions are the only true ones and all holding others are fools. That is the reason I post at Candlekeep, the lack of that sort of arguments and a general civil tone between people. |
| Reefy |
Posted - 07 Jul 2007 : 15:59:25
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
As for debates stopping, I would not hold my breath. With open stats there would be as much (if not more) debate.
Actually, with less info, I think there's less room for debate: neither side has proof of what they say.
When has that ever stopped people?  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Jul 2007 : 15:35:12
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
As for debates stopping, I would not hold my breath. With open stats there would be as much (if not more) debate.
Actually, with less info, I think there's less room for debate: neither side has proof of what they say. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 07 Jul 2007 : 14:32:08
I prefer as short a stat block as possible in most products, modules would be the obvious exception. As I never got beyond 2ed the old short form is still the one I prefer, even though there are advantages to not including the level as done here. I am not sure about the patron deity, even though this is in accordance with the old Gray box.
As for debates stopping, I would not hold my breath. With open stats there would be as much (if not more) debate. |
| shandiris |
Posted - 07 Jul 2007 : 12:44:38
Well since i never played 2nd edition my opinion could be biased but i'll give it anyway. Personally I like the big stat blocks but please, stat the damn wizards typically prepared spells! Else you have everything except the entire wizard! |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 05 Jul 2007 : 23:09:22
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Well, the thought on this would be not so much that there would be less information, but less specific game rules information.
I have to admit, I like knowing about levels, but I don't need to know all the nitty-gritty stuff (feats, skills, and the like). But I'm not much of a rules junkie to begin with, so take that for what it's worth. |
| Snotlord |
Posted - 05 Jul 2007 : 17:47:35
I've used a very short form for most npcs for about a year now, with much success in terms of saving prep time. The thing is, I like stat-crunching, but I prefer to only do it once. When I create a combat npc I usually stat them out in the DMGII (now standard) format and them in a separate file to mix-and-match in various configurations.
I usually stat the npcs as specific as necessary and as general as possible. I usually include lots of different weapons and more basic spells to make it easier to dig up a 6 months old encounter fast, make spur of the moment changes and run the encounter without making too many mistakes.
So... the short stat block for Osavir Marliir in my campaign could be:
Osavir Marliir of Arabel, Senior War-wixard, LG Male Tethyrian Human (1325 - present): Insert notes or whatever
or
Driz'zt Do'Urden, Drow Ranger Champion, GG Male Drow (XXXX - present): Insert notes or whatever
...so if anyone wants to fight this guy, I should have some half-decent stats somewhere. The same goes for "Tashalan Snake-cultist", "handmaiden", "demi-lich necromancer", "ghoul sorcerer", "harper informant", "pit fiend lord", "wizard sky-ranger", "orc king", "damaran barbarian chief" and so on.
|
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 04 Jul 2007 : 07:13:05
Well, the thought on this would be not so much that there would be less information, but less specific game rules information. |
| Penknight |
Posted - 03 Jul 2007 : 23:50:56
Many a time, I wish there was more information about a character or a location. Some places just feel... empty, I guess is the word. I'm sure you all know what I mean. |
| Wenin |
Posted - 03 Jul 2007 : 05:33:09
The fear I have with 3.X as a GM with high level NPCs are the PCs wanting to give a beating to an NPC I wasn't expecting them to tangle with.
I suppose you just got to return to the fast and loose with such NPCs. =)
"He did what?!?!?!" |
| Darkmeer |
Posted - 03 Jul 2007 : 05:32:02
Hey,
I thought I'd chime in at this point.
I hate number crunching. I do just enough to make my own PC's and NPC's work with the theme that I create for them. The format actually works for me, except for one-two things. I think it should read:
name/race/age/gender/class/level/alignment/personality
Age is obvious, but also leads to ideas on how to roleplay, say, an Elf. A 145 year old elf may not act like a 352 year old elf, and the same goes for other species as well.
Personality should encompass a simple 1-4 word description:
Grumpy old town baker.
Quirky grumpy nice wizard (Elminmster)
just thoughts |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 Jul 2007 : 04:17:10
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Come on, people argue about everything.
I quite disgree with that statement!   |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 02 Jul 2007 : 22:41:29
I like the idea (since I'm not a DM, I don't really care about stats). But I don't think it would end internet debates. Come on, people argue about everything. |
| Halidan |
Posted - 02 Jul 2007 : 20:03:31
quote:
Originally posted by Wenin
Where did the rule that the game is run by the GM, and not WoTC, run off to?
It's been hiding in a closet afraid to come out since the introduction of 3.0 
While I say that at least partly in jest, it's also more true than not. Because Cook et.al. chose to use a very language-precise game system, where every game term has a single, specific definition, and only that particular term can be used to discuss aspecific condition in the game, many players have been afraid to strike out from the books and what all of the game publishers (not just WotC) have handed out to us consumers.
Let's face it, 1st and 2nd edition AD&D were loose and sloopy. A PC might be stunned, dazed, confused, and even beguiled and the effect in games terms was the same. People could play loose and sloopy and no one was any the wiser.
3E is a different animal completely, and the consumers very quickly (shockingly quickly in my book) adopted to the new reality. Now consumers want it all laid out for them - every skill and gp worth's of equipment - and most game publishers are happy to cater to that demand. And even those of use who are 30 year veterans of the RPG wars have started to bend with the prevailing winds.
For example - When I first looked at the JR's original post, I was shocked to hear that little voice in my head say, "but that's just not enough information - I couldn't even role-play just a brief encounter with an NPC with that little info."
I'm now headed out the door to get a lobotomy. 
|
| Zanan |
Posted - 02 Jul 2007 : 16:17:17
Let me see:
Drizzt Do'Urden, Drow Male Fighter/Ranger (High Level), CG (Mielikki)
Drizzt Do'Urden (Drow Male Ftr10/Rgr5/Bbn1, CG Mielikki) ... how about that? ;) |
| Wenin |
Posted - 02 Jul 2007 : 11:42:43
Where did the rule that the game is run by the GM, and not WoTC, run off to?
"Speed of Plot"
I'm sure Khelben could be 10 levels higher than the PC in your game. =) ....if he was still alive. =) |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 01 Jul 2007 : 04:41:51
Yeah, while I kind of like my own idea, heh, as soon as I typed that, it occurred to me, for example, that it would be hard to figure out that Larloch could probably mop the floor with Elminster, for example . . . still, part of me likes the idea of leaving things as open as possible. I always liked that bit about Khelben being 10 levels higher than the PCs to serve as a "bigger fish" for the campaign. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Jul 2007 : 04:22:18
It's a little too spare, for me. I at least like a level. I might not do much with it, but I like to have it there -- particularly since there's a wide range of potential just within each of your categories. I may not have a combat role for him, but it would be nice to know if Bob the Low-Level Mage *can* cast fireball, or if he's struggling with just wizard lock. Even outside of combat, that knowledge can still be handy. |
|
|
