PDA

View Full Version : Game rules and character stats



Raum
2008-10-15, 10:58 PM
I've been surprised over the last few months by posts equating NPC / PC / monster statistics with "rules". Have I missed a fundamental change in gaming?

Perhaps it's simply that I've always played multiple game systems but the division between a game's rules and the stats used to represent a character within those rules has been something I've taken for granted. Stats are almost always variable and often contradictory. Dig up all the different historical stats for Elminster as one example. Or dragons through various game versions and even different games as another. For that matter consider real life legends and how differently they treat various iconic characters.

To me, characters are always filtered through perception. Was Robin Hood an archer, a thief, a dispossessed noble, or a knight? Was he good, selfish, rebellious, or loyal to the rightful king? It's all a matter of perception.

Is there really an expectation that character stats will be used unchanged? Has a goblin's listed strength become as set in stone as the rule stating a hit is successful when the attacker's AB + d20 equal or exceed the defender's AC? Frankly, I've never considered character stats to be "rules" - even if they're printed in the Monster Manual.

BizzaroStormy
2008-10-15, 11:09 PM
You know, you could always say screw the system and just have a freeform game.

Raum
2008-10-15, 11:30 PM
You know, you could always say screw the system and just have a freeform game.What constitutes "the system"? Character stats don't...which is my point.

Stats are typically created by using the game rules. They're a function's result not the function itself.

Eclipse
2008-10-16, 12:10 AM
Naturally, this is up to your group to decide. However, my own take on this is that the listed stats are what an average creature of the type you're looking at has. I can't remember off the top of my head if this is said explicitly in the rules though.

For major creatures, such as a chieftain, or even the leader of a squad, I'll boost stats to make them more impressive. As an example, the goblin chieftain might have a +4 strength, or maybe he'll have +6 to wisdom and a level of cleric depending on my needs as a GM. In this way, just like the PCs are above average specimens of their races, so too are the leaders of other races.

TheCountAlucard
2008-10-16, 12:16 AM
Rather than the "10 or 11 in everything" in the MM, I'll typically use the Elite Array for solo monsters in my game.

erikun
2008-10-16, 12:18 AM
I've been surprised over the last few months by posts equating NPC / PC / monster statistics with "rules". Have I missed a fundamental change in gaming?
Short answer: 4e came out.

Long Answer: 4e came out, and a number of people didn't like the changes that were made. One such change was in the 4e MM, where most of the description, ecology, etc. were cut out of the monster blocks, to make room for more monsters and more varieties of each. Because everything is black and white (*sarcasm*) and because the stuff which was cut was fluff (*more sarcasm*), the stuff left must therefore be crunch. And because they didn't like the fluff that was removed, the remaining crunch must therefore be evil. (*extra sarcasm with cheese*)

Myself, I miss some of the stuff that was taken out. Discriptions helped me describe creatures to my players, and my own descriptions aren't always accurate. And the brief ecology gave me an idea of how the creature lived, and how it should react. Still, there are some nice concepts in the new MM...

Return of Lanky
2008-10-16, 12:35 AM
I don't even bother to use the rules when I generate NPCS these days. My focus when I'm creating a villain is to make a foe who is a tough, appropriately challenging character. If this means deviating fromn the set rules, so be it.

For example, today my PCs fought a trio of Fighters. One happened to be able to Fly at will, another was able to Dimension Door at will as a free action, and a third had a permanent Protection from Energy which switched energy type between Cold and Fire every round.

Against the rules? Yep.

A blast for the players? Also yep.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-16, 12:45 AM
Stats are averages. That's the point.

In 3.X this is stated explicitly, and one option for customizing monsters is to give them the elite array or the whatever else.

Goblins and other humanoids are the worst example - goblin and orc are just races. All the individuals are, well, individuals, with varying levels in varying classes, and varying stats ordered in varying ways. It's just not useful to separately stat out dozens of them, and the MM gives you a quick reference for an "average" member.


Against the rules? Yep.

???

How were they against the rules? Just because the PCs can't replicate it doesn't make it against the rules. I presume you had some explanation for why they had these powers. Maybe they were magically infused!

The notion that that sort of modifications are against the rules is preposterous. From a rules POV, you just applied a template you came up with to them. There's absolutely no rules problem there.

monty
2008-10-16, 12:47 AM
Against the rules? Yep.

Rule 0 is as RAW as you get.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-16, 01:06 AM
Wow, lots of surprise threads lately.

No, the MM stat blocks aren't "rules" but they are expectations... if you play them straight.

RAMBLEY
So if all the goblins you've shown so far are unable to teleport at will, and then the next one you face can teleport at will, you're going to presume that goblin is special somehow. And, more importantly, that there is a reason that one goblin out of hundreds can teleport at will, instead of one in ten, or one in two.

It penalizes your players for paying attention if your monsters are constantly inconsistent. They can't make reasonable assumptions, and therefore plan their attacks, if sometimes 50% of goblins can breathe fire, and other times none of them can... unless you present a discoverable fact about this. Like if this particular band of goblins has a special ritual that can turn chosen warriors into firebreathers.

Summary
Randomly changing stat blocks from what you've used before is unfair to players - they aren't able to use knowledge they've gained in game to plan their future actions. If a 50 pound weakling goblin is usually just a minion, but occasionally they're Gods, then your players will just stop paying attention to what you throw at them and get extremely paranoid about everything.

Internal consistency is good for the DM and PC. Shake things up, to be sure, but always do it for a reason, never "just because."

Raum
2008-10-16, 08:03 AM
Short answer: 4e came out.I don't buy into blaming everything on a new version. Particularly in this case, shouldn't the differences between a creature's stats in 3.5 and 4e make it obvious that stats are a representation of a character within the rules rather than being rules themselves?


For example, today my PCs fought a trio of Fighters. One happened to be able to Fly at will, another was able to Dimension Door at will as a free action, and a third had a permanent Protection from Energy which switched energy type between Cold and Fire every round.

Against the rules? Yep.In my view, giving some power to your fighters wasn't "against the rules" however changing how said power is activated (free vs standard action) probably was. So the only one of the trio you described which I probably would have avoided is the DD as a free action.


The notion that that sort of modifications are against the rules is preposterous. I thought so also...until I began seeing many posts with an explicit expectation of identical monsters.


Rule 0 is as RAW as you get.For a variety of reasons I think "Rule 0" is the most abused rule in the book and should be discarded. That's for another thread though. Suffice it to say using it as an argument generally means we're refusing to look deeper into why we make a change.


Wow, lots of surprise threads lately.

No, the MM stat blocks aren't "rules" but they are expectations... if you play them straight.I disagree. Do you expect all dogs to be the same? How about all humans? Tell a rodeo cowboy all bulls are the same and he'll laugh in your face...right before he talks you into riding the meanest and canniest bull of the lot.

How does a race of goblins differ from the human race? If the goblins are all expected to be identical, shouldn't humans be identical also? It's just carrying the same expectations to their logical conclusion.

JupiterPaladin
2008-10-16, 08:38 AM
For a variety of reasons I think "Rule 0" is the most abused rule in the book and should be discarded. That's for another thread though. Suffice it to say using it as an argument generally means we're refusing to look deeper into why we make a change.

Are you kidding? Or just provoking? Without Rule 0 you have much more limited power as the DM and the players then have the right to argue the rules with you in any situation. You also forget the fact that not every single decision/reaction/whatever is outlined by RAW and as soon as you as the DM make a call, you are invoking Rule 0.

When I DM, it's to make the game fun, not to adhere to a printed set of rules. If I want every goblin in the multiverse to have random stats and abilities then they will. The players will learn that they are either all the same or all random. How would that not be fair? And not everything that they expect is IC knowledge, but player OOC knowledge.

So what is the real issue here? That stat blocks are a result of the ruleset and not the rules? Not entirely true. Monsters and PCs have different systems because the players' options must be consistent to be fair to all who build a character. Monsters can follow different rules because they should be able to do crazy or unique things. If they are bound by a limited ruleset, they become less fun and less special.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-16, 09:35 AM
For a variety of reasons I think "Rule 0" is the most abused rule in the book and should be discarded. That's for another thread though. Suffice it to say using it as an argument generally means we're refusing to look deeper into why we make a change.

I hate it. The fact that it's codified as a "rule" strikes me as desperately stupid. If a person does not understand that the GM has the power to do anything, within the limits of fun and the players' consent and support, in order to make the game more interesting/fun/dramatic, you shouldn't be playing RPGs anyway.

Yakk
2008-10-16, 09:56 AM
There are RPGs without a Rule 0. Take a game where the PCs have mechanical narrative control, for example.

All an RPG requires to be an RPG is to have roleplaying be part of it. :-)

Saph
2008-10-16, 10:12 AM
I disagree. Do you expect all dogs to be the same? How about all humans? Tell a rodeo cowboy all bulls are the same and he'll laugh in your face...right before he talks you into riding the meanest and canniest bull of the lot.

I'm assuming the cowboy expects all bulls to have four legs, right? And obey the laws of physics? And not be able to breathe fire? In that respect, they are the same. If he found himself riding a bull that could teleport, I think he'd stop laughing pretty quick.


How does a race of goblins differ from the human race? If the goblins are all expected to be identical, shouldn't humans be identical also? It's just carrying the same expectations to their logical conclusion.

You're arguing against a straw man. Sure, one goblin can be stronger or tougher than another - the stats in the MMs are averages. They can have class levels, too. However, the players still expect them to follow the rules to some degree - a basic goblin might have 16 strength, but he can't turn into a Pit Fiend.

If you carry your argument to its 'logical conclusion', then there's no reason for the players to pay any attention to a monster's name or type at all - it's abilities are totally dependent on the DM's whim, so why try to make sense of it?

- Saph

Cuddly
2008-10-16, 10:13 AM
I've been surprised over the last few months by posts equating NPC / PC / monster statistics with "rules". Have I missed a fundamental change in gaming?

Perhaps it's simply that I've always played multiple game systems but the division between a game's rules and the stats used to represent a character within those rules has been something I've taken for granted. Stats are almost always variable and often contradictory. Dig up all the different historical stats for Elminster as one example. Or dragons through various game versions and even different games as another. For that matter consider real life legends and how differently they treat various iconic characters.

To me, characters are always filtered through perception. Was Robin Hood an archer, a thief, a dispossessed noble, or a knight? Was he good, selfish, rebellious, or loyal to the rightful king? It's all a matter of perception.

Is there really an expectation that character stats will be used unchanged? Has a goblin's listed strength become as set in stone as the rule stating a hit is successful when the attacker's AB + d20 equal or exceed the defender's AC? Frankly, I've never considered character stats to be "rules" - even if they're printed in the Monster Manual.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.

AKA_Bait
2008-10-16, 10:32 AM
I disagree. Do you expect all dogs to be the same? How about all humans?

Well, within particular parameters, yes. I expect that most humans will be between five and six and a half feet tall. I expect that they will have hands with opposable thumbs and be able to throw and carry things. I expect that they will have the ability to solve most simple and some complex problems. I expect them to have language. I expect their blood to be red. I expect males to be larger and stronger than females, but not by an enormous amount. I expect them to be unable to throw fireballs, move objects with the power of their mind, fly, or lift more than 300 lbs over their head. I have a similar list of expectations for dogs.

When a dog or a person doesn't conform to these usual things then they are, well, unusual and there is typically some reason for that (genetically anomolous family or pituitary disorder in terms of unusual height etc.).

Dogs and people are also a very bad example in terms of what are reasonable expectations of species. Both of our species are very heteromorphic, mainly because of selective breeding by humans for particular visible traits (yes, we also selectivley bred ourselves). Despite that, there is still an extensive list of traits that can be reasonably expected to be shared by the entire species. If there weren't, the very concept of species would be mostly useless.


I'm assuming the cowboy expects all bulls to have four legs, right? And obey the laws of physics? And not be able to breathe fire? In that respect, they are the same. If he found himself riding a bull that could teleport, I think he'd stop laughing pretty quick.

Not only that, but if our theoretical cowboy couldn't at least make basic assumptions about the behavior, size, and abilites of all bulls there wouldn't be a profession based around it. There couldn't be one because no one would have any idea what could happen any given Rodeo. The bull could explode killing hundreds with horn and bone shrapnel, for example.


If you carry your argument to its 'logical conclusion', then there's no reason for the players to pay any attention to a monster's name or type at all - it's abilities are totally dependent on the DM's whim, so why try to make sense of it?

- Saph

Indeed. The logical extreme of 'it is reasonable to expect the average of something' is not 'all things of this type are average' but that 'most things of this type are within a few degrees of average'. Players do expect, and have a right to expect unless otherwise informed, that concept to hold true.

Cuddly
2008-10-16, 10:38 AM
Indeed. The logical extreme of 'it is reasonable to expect the average of something' is not 'all things of this type are average' but that 'most things of this type are within a few degrees of average'. Players do expect, and have a right to expect unless otherwise informed, that concept to hold true.

Most goblins may be mooks, but Garggle Blackhook of Clan Ironspire, with his warg mount Deathfang, isn't.

If your players are dumb enough to think that this is another 50lb weakling, they deserve to die.

I see no reason why goblins shouldn't also share the same distribution of phenomenal individuals that the PHB races enjoy.

Morty
2008-10-16, 10:41 AM
I see no reason why goblins shouldn't also share the same distribution of phenomenal individuals that the PHB races enjoy.

Especially since humans are the only PHB race without a MM entry; expecting every goblin or orc to be the same isn't any different from expecting every elf or gnome to be the same.

AKA_Bait
2008-10-16, 10:51 AM
Most goblins may be mooks, but Garggle Blackhook of Clan Ironspire, with his warg mount Deathfang, isn't.

If your players are dumb enough to think that this is another 50lb weakling, they deserve to die.

I see no reason why goblins shouldn't also share the same distribution of phenomenal individuals that the PHB races enjoy.

I totally agree. Most humans, elves, dwarves etc. are mooks too. Adventurers and anyone with much better than the elite array are highly exceptional examples of their species and probably genetic outliers. Truly exceptional examples fall outside of the idea that most of species x are like y because they aren't most x. Garggle does too.

I think it's useful to note that the outliers in a particular species are where the analogy between the real world and a magical game world begin to break down. Even a statistical outlier human in the real world could never be expected to be able to stop time and turn into a dragon. In a world with magic the range of reasonably expected abilities that an outlier might have increase dramatically. This doesn't negate that for most of a particular species, there are still standard and typical things that can be expected. It just means that there is a much broader range of things that can be reasonably expected from the highly exceptional members of that species.

Kalirren
2008-10-16, 11:04 AM
...

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.


I think what the OP is trying to say is that they think that the line between what people consider "the rules" versus what people consider "the system" or "the game" has become ever more blurred in recent gaming culture, and they are wondering exactly when/how that occurred.

Honestly, I would blame not 4e, but 3.Xe for this. It was D&D's one big attempt at actively modeling a world as opposed to just being a system for the expediting of world-related decisions (e.g., how many goblins in the encounter?). There's also the effect that the OGL and the Internet had; because of the poorer/different quality of many of the 3rd-party/independent OGL developers' products, there has also come to be this idea that anything WoTC pubishes is somehow "canon" in a way that no other publication is.

What you got from these forces was a movement in the gaming culture that holds a certain thesis: that there is an ideal interpretation of canon rules which define a world that is the world that one should be playing in, whether or not this was intended by the designers who wrote said canon in the first place. Emperor Tippy and Tippyland is one such example of this. I would argue that no such world was intended by the designers; if anything, the worlds they design often betray such a carelessness through blatant internal inconsistencies that it can more easily be argued that the rules were written to make PCs stand out from the otherwise drab world that the designers had imagined.

Anyhow, to return to the flow, there's a whole generation of players who are unwitting participants in this movement, who grew up playing 3.X and looking at the 3.X D&D books like this, and I think many of these people have a fundamentally different attitude towards the rules' place in the game than those who came before them. These people place a lot more emphasis on the "rules", whether RAI or RAW, and correspondingly less emphasis on the game, or the context of the rules within the game system, than their predecessors did.

I think WotC realized this and created 4E to get D&D back on track, so to speak. 4E makes very little attempt to define a world. There are tricks like rituals, there are utility powers and Prestidigitation, but there are very few suggestions present in the rules that allow the powers of the characters to be generalized very far past the narrow scope of combat. I think it's for this reason that a lot of people who played 1E and 2E claim that 4E feels more like "D&D" than 3E does, even though ruleswise the exact opposite is obviously true. The rules may be completely urecognizeable as D&D, but the 4E system is more true to the concept of D&D than the 3.5E system that often resulted from adhering to a more similar, orthodox D&D ruleset.

Thoughts? especially from the OP, have I missed your point?

Cuddly
2008-10-16, 03:30 PM
I think what the OP is trying to say is that they think that the line between what people consider "the rules" versus what people consider "the system" or "the game" has become ever more blurred in recent gaming culture, and they are wondering exactly when/how that occurred.

Honestly, I would blame not 4e, but 3.Xe for this. It was D&D's one big attempt at actively modeling a world as opposed to just being a system for the expediting of world-related decisions (e.g., how many goblins in the encounter?). There's also the effect that the OGL and the Internet had; because of the poorer/different quality of many of the 3rd-party/independent OGL developers' products, there has also come to be this idea that anything WoTC pubishes is somehow "canon" in a way that no other publication is.

What you got from these forces was a movement in the gaming culture that holds a certain thesis: that there is an ideal interpretation of canon rules which define a world that is the world that one should be playing in, whether or not this was intended by the designers who wrote said canon in the first place. Emperor Tippy and Tippyland is one such example of this. I would argue that no such world was intended by the designers; if anything, the worlds they design often betray such a carelessness through blatant internal inconsistencies that it can more easily be argued that the rules were written to make PCs stand out from the otherwise drab world that the designers had imagined.

Anyhow, to return to the flow, there's a whole generation of players who are unwitting participants in this movement, who grew up playing 3.X and looking at the 3.X D&D books like this, and I think many of these people have a fundamentally different attitude towards the rules' place in the game than those who came before them. These people place a lot more emphasis on the "rules", whether RAI or RAW, and correspondingly less emphasis on the game, or the context of the rules within the game system, than their predecessors did.

I think WotC realized this and created 4E to get D&D back on track, so to speak. 4E makes very little attempt to define a world. There are tricks like rituals, there are utility powers and Prestidigitation, but there are very few suggestions present in the rules that allow the powers of the characters to be generalized very far past the narrow scope of combat. I think it's for this reason that a lot of people who played 1E and 2E claim that 4E feels more like "D&D" than 3E does, even though ruleswise the exact opposite is obviously true. The rules may be completely urecognizeable as D&D, but the 4E system is more true to the concept of D&D than the 3.5E system that often resulted from adhering to a more similar, orthodox D&D ruleset.

Thoughts? especially from the OP, have I missed your point?

So, basically, it's a guise for powergamers vs. non-powergamers?

I used to play a lot of that old school stuff, where you're a pathetic whelp beholden to the almighty DM, in a world that doesn't know anything about magic, despite there being a bard, cleric, AND wizard all running around in the same party. Everything focused on really cool swords and smacking stuff a lot, without any attention paid to the advantage fly adds, or a solid save-or-die, or the logistical nightmare of 5th level spells in a presumed non-magic world. Those types of settings lack a certain sort of internal consistency that I find distasteful.

There's a way to include both game types in the same setting, however, and I find that really fun.

chiasaur11
2008-10-16, 04:35 PM
Not only that, but if our theoretical cowboy couldn't at least make basic assumptions about the behavior, size, and abilites of all bulls there wouldn't be a profession based around it. There couldn't be one because no one would have any idea what could happen any given Rodeo. The bull could explode killing hundreds with horn and bone shrapnel, for example.



Man.

I'd watch more rodeos on TV if that sort of thing happened.

Kalirren
2008-10-16, 06:29 PM
So, basically, it's a guise for powergamers vs. non-powergamers?

I used to play a lot of that old school stuff, where you're a pathetic whelp beholden to the almighty DM, in a world that doesn't know anything about magic, despite there being a bard, cleric, AND wizard all running around in the same party. Everything focused on really cool swords and smacking stuff a lot, without any attention paid to the advantage fly adds, or a solid save-or-die, or the logistical nightmare of 5th level spells in a presumed non-magic world. Those types of settings lack a certain sort of internal consistency that I find distasteful.

There's a way to include both game types in the same setting, however, and I find that really fun.

I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with powergaming. Granted, most powergamers do fall into the pattern of trying to impose the rules upon the verisimilitude of the world, because the extent to which the OOC written rules govern IC world behavior is exactly the same extent to which powergaming is effective. But there are plenty of people who are not powergamers, or even optimizers, who still pursue an excessive strictness to the rules, clearly indicative of a lack of perspective on reality. My PbP DM is one such. 160 gp to start, she says, not a silver different, even if there's obvious IC haggling going on for margins of half a gold piece, and my character's a merchant who makes 20 such transactions an hour. Or another DM who ruled that a slowed, entangled, enfeebled (6 Str damage on 12 permanent) target doesn't grant sneak attack damage to a hasted rogue in position to stab.

I have to agree with you, the old-school style of play is very vexing because it fails to consider the effect that magic has on the world. However, there's a difference between a) actively considering the effect magic has on the world and b) an extension from that into the thesis that the OOC rules determine (not merely indicate) how the IC world behaves. My problem with the latter extension is that when the rules are interpreted so inflexibly, as they often are these days, the inherent limitations of a finite rules language often unduly constrict player agency and choice in the development of their characters.

This last isn't to say that anything should be feasible. Quite the contrary. Lots of people have died iRL because they tried things that just don't work, or don't work as well as another method already established. But sometimes certain character options, even certain niches, become privileged because they are more thoroughly, succinctly, and effectively described by the (finite) rules language, while other concepts that are just as important to a wholesome world fabric are similarly disprivileged because their effective execution/description on the character sheet requires jumping through all sorts of hoops that are artificially imposed by the rules language.

This inflexibility, induced by a canonistic attitude toward the rules, is what I am opposed to, and what I suspect the OP may be reacting against as well - hence their comments about the inflexibility of character/monster stats, the description of characters, player expectations, etc.

Edit: I read the OP again, and I couldn't find any indication of a general underlying opposition towards inflexibility. What I did find was an opposition towards the notion that things are (IC) as they are described (by the OOC rules), and the observation that people seem to assign more weight to the descriptors used by any given set of rules than would seem justified.

DM Raven
2008-10-16, 06:38 PM
The argument is turning into one we've all seen before. The easy answer is that there is no answer...at least no absolute answer. Each group can figure out for itself where to find the fun in gaming. Freeform or rule-lawering...whatever floats your boat and everyone agrees is fun. Most people will fall somewhere in the middle, but if they don't that ok...

Raum
2008-10-16, 07:02 PM
Are you kidding? Or just provoking? Not kidding at all. Moving on now...


So what is the real issue here? That stat blocks are a result of the ruleset and not the rules? Not entirely true. Why not? Do you need those stat blocks to play? Most games I play don't have a monster manual. They're either in a home brew world, in a system with little or no monster stats, or both. If said stats were rules, how could I game without them?


Monsters and PCs have different systems because the players' options must be consistent to be fair to all who build a character. Monsters can follow different rules because they should be able to do crazy or unique things. If they are bound by a limited ruleset, they become less fun and less special.First, using different subsystems is not the same as stats being rules. Second (and a completely separate question), how would they be "less fun" or "less special" if they were built with the same rules as PCs?

In my experience the vast majority of interesting antagonists are interesting because of what, how, and why they do things not because of what they are. If the antagonists are easily replaced with a similar archetype they're not very memorable. Joe the clerk may well have the same stats as Joe the former clerk turned serial killer...but which is more interesting?


I'm assuming the cowboy expects all bulls to have four legs, right? And obey the laws of physics? And not be able to breathe fire? In that respect, they are the same. If he found himself riding a bull that could teleport, I think he'd stop laughing pretty quick. I'd say that depends on what genre you're playing in except it misses the point. I haven't advocated giving random off the wall abilities to anything just because. I'm simply questioning when and how a character stat block came to be regarded as a rule.


You're arguing against a straw man. Err, how do you figure? The closest I've come to making any statement of an opponent's position was a general observation of threads and posts. Since that observation has been repeated in this thread, it's difficult to call it a straw man.


Sure, one goblin can be stronger or tougher than another - the stats in the MMs are averages. They can have class levels, too. However, the players still expect them to follow the rules to some degree - a basic goblin might have 16 strength, but he can't turn into a Pit Fiend. As a personal preference, I prefer they follow the rules. It's the expectation that 'monster X' is always 'monster X' and shouldn't differ in any material fashion that I find shocking.


If you carry your argument to its 'logical conclusion', then there's no reason for the players to pay any attention to a monster's name or type at all - it's abilities are totally dependent on the DM's whim, so why try to make sense of it?Please point out where I said monster stats should be random. If you point it out I can correct or explain the statement.


Well, within particular parameters, yes. I expect that most humans will be between five and six and a half feet tall. I expect that they will have hands with opposable thumbs and be able to throw and carry things. I expect that they will have the ability to solve most simple and some complex problems. I expect them to have language. I expect their blood to be red. I expect males to be larger and stronger than females, but not by an enormous amount. I expect them to be unable to throw fireballs, move objects with the power of their mind, fly, or lift more than 300 lbs over their head. I have a similar list of expectations for dogs. I'd point out that many of your expectations are demonstrably violated in real life except it's beside the point again. To reiterate, I haven't advocated randomizing stats.


When a dog or a person doesn't conform to these usual things then they are, well, unusual and there is typically some reason for that (genetically anomolous family or pituitary disorder in terms of unusual height etc.). True to a point - depends on how narrow your expectations are. A question though, how many RPG campaigns deal with the usual and mundane? I'm sure some one has run a successful game of Sims, the RPG but most games I've played in have been about exceptional PCs dealing with unusual situations.


Dogs and people are also a very bad example in terms of what are reasonable expectations of species. Both of our species are very heteromorphic, mainly because of selective breeding by humans for particular visible traits (yes, we also selectivley bred ourselves). Despite that, there is still an extensive list of traits that can be reasonably expected to be shared by the entire species. If there weren't, the very concept of species would be mostly useless.Is there an assumption that game species are any less heteromorphic? It seems to me most intelligent game species are very anthropomorphic. If so, shouldn't they have similar range and variety as humans?


Not only that, but if our theoretical cowboy couldn't at least make basic assumptions about the behavior, size, and abilites of all bulls there wouldn't be a profession based around it. There couldn't be one because no one would have any idea what could happen any given Rodeo. The bull could explode killing hundreds with horn and bone shrapnel, for example.Eh, random stuff again. Where did I recommend randomizing abilities? I really need to correct any such statement.


Indeed. The logical extreme of 'it is reasonable to expect the average of something' is not 'all things of this type are average' but that 'most things of this type are within a few degrees of average'. Players do expect, and have a right to expect unless otherwise informed, that concept to hold true.I agree - to a point. To me, the 'average being' is a mythical being. Few, if any, will ever be truly average in all ways. Yet it's far easier for us to represent the majority as that mythical average. I certainly tend to do so. It's when the expectation becomes 'all' instead of 'majority' that I have philosophical differences.

Raum
2008-10-16, 07:21 PM
I think what the OP is trying to say is that they think that the line between what people consider "the rules" versus what people consider "the system" or "the game" has become ever more blurred in recent gaming culture, and they are wondering exactly when/how that occurred. Pretty much. I still think of 'rules' as the Newtonian physics of the game world. They determine how a character can hit something, how many actions get resolved, and even how a character is represented. But the representation of a character is simply that, a representation of an individual within a given rule system.


Honestly, I would blame not 4e, but 3.Xe for this. It was D&D's one big attempt at actively modeling a world as opposed to just being a system for the expediting of world-related decisions (e.g., how many goblins in the encounter?). There's also the effect that the OGL and the Internet had; because of the poorer/different quality of many of the 3rd-party/independent OGL developers' products, there has also come to be this idea that anything WoTC pubishes is somehow "canon" in a way that no other publication is.Interesting thought. Makes sense, WotC makes a bigger profit if people buy more supplements instead of creating their own material. I haven't noticed similar expectations in other game systems either, it's usually the opposite.


What you got from these forces was a movement in the gaming culture that holds a certain thesis: that there is an ideal interpretation of canon rules which define a world that is the world that one should be playing in, whether or not this was intended by the designers who wrote said canon in the first place. Emperor Tippy and Tippyland is one such example of this. I would argue that no such world was intended by the designers; if anything, the worlds they design often betray such a carelessness through blatant internal inconsistencies that it can more easily be argued that the rules were written to make PCs stand out from the otherwise drab world that the designers had imagined.Eh, I'm not going to try and guess what some designer intended. All you really have to go by is the published material. I'm simply recognizing that each of us filter the material through our own perception and set of expectations.


Anyhow, to return to the flow, there's a whole generation of players who are unwitting participants in this movement, who grew up playing 3.X and looking at the 3.X D&D books like this, and I think many of these people have a fundamentally different attitude towards the rules' place in the game than those who came before them. These people place a lot more emphasis on the "rules", whether RAI or RAW, and correspondingly less emphasis on the game, or the context of the rules within the game system, than their predecessors did. [off subject rant]
I'm not sure the time spent playing correlates with Gamism vs Narrativism. For that matter I've been called gamist for saying rules (as opposed to stats) should be consistent. Yet I've gone through entire sessions with less than half a dozen rolls. Shrug. I am a gamist. I am also a narrativist. Call me a simulationist as well if you like, I do prefer a high degree of verisimilitude after all. I play RPGs because I enjoy both games and role play. If I only wanted one I'd find an activity focused on one over the other. I simply don't understand why RPGs need to make a choice.
[/rant]

Edit:

So, basically, it's a guise for powergamers vs. non-powergamers?Please god, no!


Edit: I read the OP again, and I couldn't find any indication of a general underlying opposition towards inflexibility. What I did find was an opposition towards the notion that things are (IC) as they are described (by the OOC rules), and the observation that people seem to assign more weight to the descriptors used by any given set of rules than would seem justified.I do oppose inflexibly applying stat blocks. In my experience they're better used as a template or starting point than as a mold.

Cuddly
2008-10-16, 07:33 PM
Kalirren- just pulling out the bits I wish to discuss; I agree with the rest of it.


Or another DM who ruled that a slowed, entangled, enfeebled (6 Str damage on 12 permanent) target doesn't grant sneak attack damage to a hasted rogue in position to stab.

I'm hesitant to let players do things that the rules don't permit, simply because if it works once, they'll do it again. I had a DM that simply let criticals auto-hit, as opposed to just natural 20s. We were pretty hack'n'slash, and he threw sizeable mobs at us. There were also something like 8 to 10 players at the table. Rolling criticals just took up more time. Of course, this led us all to crit spec beasts, and under the 3.0 rule set, my barbarian had a 12-20 crit range. Something of an unintended consequence.


b) an extension from that into the thesis that the OOC rules determine (not merely indicate) how the IC world behaves. My problem with the latter extension is that when the rules are interpreted so inflexibly, as they often are these days, the inherent limitations of a finite rules language often unduly constrict player agency and choice in the development of their characters.

Such as the absurdity of Gaterape, or drowning someone back to life? Or the tacit acknowledgment that only high level wizards rule anything worthwhile.


This last isn't to say that anything should be feasible. Quite the contrary. Lots of people have died iRL because they tried things that just don't work, or don't work as well as another method already established. But sometimes certain character options, even certain niches, become privileged because they are more thoroughly, succinctly, and effectively described by the (finite) rules language, while other concepts that are just as important to a wholesome world fabric are similarly disprivileged because their effective execution/description on the character sheet requires jumping through all sorts of hoops that are artificially imposed by the rules language.

Wonderfully said!
I know exactly what you mean. Wanting to build a caster is very easy- you practically can't fail, as long as you don't lose too many caster levels, and know what a good spell looks like. On the other hand, some archetypes totally fail unless you approach them in rather absurd ways, due to the rule set. Like the best precision damage types don't actually have any rogue levels. If you want to make a solid WoW type rogue (melee DPS, battlefield maneuverability), you're best off without any rogue levels. Which is a bit odd.


I read the OP again, and I couldn't find any indication of a general underlying opposition towards inflexibility. What I did find was an opposition towards the notion that things are (IC) as they are described (by the OOC rules), and the observation that people seem to assign more weight to the descriptors used by any given set of rules than would seem justified.

That's what I sort of thought he was getting at, though his post replying to AKA_Bait does little to elucidate what he's going on about. It seems largely tangential.

Cuddly
2008-10-16, 07:43 PM
I do oppose inflexibly applying stat blocks. In my experience they're better used as a template or starting point than as a mold.

I'm not really sure what you're railing against, then. In my experience on these boards, for most of the members that talk about it, the DMs change stat blocks freely.

Most DMs I play with change the stat blocks of their monsters, and actively remind us characters that the creatures on the pages of the MMs are merely representations of an "average".

I find this is necessary, both in my experience as player and DM, since different groups necessitate different monsters than what the books offer. If I'm telling a story about trolls, and the players are all strong casters, then my trolls are going to be a little cannier, with some ranger or divine caster levels. If the party are mostly unoptimized meleer's, then the trolls won't have class levels or templates.

Sometimes, I want to throw monsters with a particular flavor but a different power level, than any of the listed ones. Demons and devils are a good example of this. An unprepared, low level party will get absolutely demolished by an imp or quasit, much less multiple of them. But adding the fiendish or half-fiend template to monkeys or kobolds? Then I get what I want.

JaxGaret
2008-10-16, 08:08 PM
I've been surprised over the last few months by posts equating NPC / PC / monster statistics with "rules". Have I missed a fundamental change in gaming?

No, you haven't. There is still the same range of DM types and player types there always was.


To me, characters are always filtered through perception. Was Robin Hood an archer, a thief, a dispossessed noble, or a knight? Was he good, selfish, rebellious, or loyal to the rightful king? It's all a matter of perception.

Are you talking about what the character actually is, or what they are perceived to be? Those are two different things.


Is there really an expectation that character stats will be used unchanged?

By the player? It depends on the player.

There should be no expectations by the character beyond those the character would make themselves. Perhaps what you're really trying to talk about is the player/character dichotomy?

Kalirren
2008-10-17, 12:39 AM
Cuddly, I think you're still missing the core of Raum's issue; it isn't about stat blocks, or even about changing stat blocks when necessary or appropriate. It's about flexibility in the interpretation of the relationship between a character/a character's abilities and that character's representation in stats. The fact that some people deny the need for any but the most trivial such interpretation is discordant with his aesthetic (and mine).

I raise another example. I was DM'ing and a player once asked me if he could finesse a bastard sword. I understand there's a feat or two for this, but instead I asked him what his Str and his Dex were. He responded with figures in the 20s. I said go for it. That's flexibility. An ogre could finesse a bastard sword with less Str and Dex than that.

Point is, I am less reluctant to make exceptions and elaborations upon any given rule, because it just becomes a basis for a new and better generalization, one that may even serve as a precedent for improvement of other facets of the rule set. I don't view continued breaking of the original rule as an undesirable outcome. I would hazard the observation that an attachment to the original rule as written is a form of canonism. If an improvised rule needs to be nailed down more carefully, I'll do that when the time comes; for example, if another player asks, "hey, when can I finesse a bastard sword, I've got a strength of 19 now," I will have to give him an answer. And I'll cook up somethig, and we'll change it later if it seems stupid. It's a ongoing process, and it's a desirable outcome for me and my group, because we get to revise the rules to produce a more natural rules language without sacrificing much effort. It's certainly better than getting hung up on the same crap stupidity over and over again each time we play.

Re: the GNS reference: IMHO, Ron Edwards' Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist breakdown suffers from more than a few flaws, the most significant of which I find is that it's not a useful metric of roleplaying styles. It is a somewhat useful metric of moderation techniques; but that means that most experienced and good moderators use Gamist and Narrativist and Simulationist techniques to make for an interesting game. A much more useful breakdown of playing style is Gamist-Explorationist-Narrativist, which are three axes that define a space rather than three extremes that define a spectrum.

JupiterPaladin
2008-10-17, 02:07 AM
Why not? Do you need those stat blocks to play? Most games I play don't have a monster manual. They're either in a home brew world, in a system with little or no monster stats, or both. If said stats were rules, how could I game without them?

No, I personally do not need any stat block to play. The DMG specifically states that all printed rules are a guide, and subject to Rule 0. Monster stats are suggested averages. There must be an average to base the CR on in D&D 3.X because how can you assign an XP value to a monster with no stats? There are even rules for adjusting CR in the Monster Manual if you increase or decrease the stats. The stat block is not itself a rule, but a tool to base the encounter on. Your system with no Monster Manual seems more like a freeform than anything, which is OK, but freeform games tend to have arbitrary stats and experience associated. I know the 3.X CR system is not perfect, but it is one of the big reasons monsters have stat blocks. As many others have said, they are averages, and there can be exceptional or excessively weak members of the species if the DM so wishes.


First, using different subsystems is not the same as stats being rules. Second (and a completely separate question), how would they be "less fun" or "less special" if they were built with the same rules as PCs?

In my experience the vast majority of interesting antagonists are interesting because of what, how, and why they do things not because of what they are. If the antagonists are easily replaced with a similar archetype they're not very memorable. Joe the clerk may well have the same stats as Joe the former clerk turned serial killer...but which is more interesting?

Consider the real difference between a PC and many monsters. A PC does not have the option to take a Swallow Whole ability, burrow in the ground, or slap you with a 50ft long tail, but many monsters should be able to do that. That's why there is a different system to build the monsters. Sure, you can give a Minotaur some Swordsage levels, it's a fun encounter! But that same Minotaur and his massive build qualifies for monstrous stuff that a Dwarf or Human can't. There are abilities a Dragon should have that humanoids should not. Monsters with class levels can be interesting.

Devils_Advocate
2008-10-17, 08:11 PM
As a personal preference, I prefer they follow the rules. It's the expectation that 'monster X' is always 'monster X' and shouldn't differ in any material fashion that I find shocking.
This, right here, is the straw man. Unless you can point to someone actually saying that. If someone genuinely is saying that modifying monsters violates the rules, they're being ridiculous; the Monster Manual talks about how to modify monsters. I don't see anyone saying that it's a rule that monsters can't be given extra hit dice or class levels or the elite array. And if anyone is saying that, well, they're wrong. And surely in a very small minority.

There's even an Adding Special Abilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#addingSpecialAbilities) section (MM p. 294) that covers stuff like the modifications Lanky mentioned. So why he'd call this "Against the rules" is beyond me. It's against the rules for a DM to do something the rules give him explicit permission to do? Sorry, no. If you want to put an "I'm a rebel! Woo!" type spin on this type of activity (you dork :smallamused:), you could maybe say that it's uncommon and frowned upon by some groups. But calling it a rules violation is just blatantly factually inaccurate.


Please point out where I said monster stats should be random. If you point it out I can correct or explain the statement.
Either you're arguing against the straw man that monsters shouldn't be modified in perfectly normal, standard ways, or you're arguing for modifying them in arbitrary, random ways. Unless I'm missing some third option or something.

Kalirren
2008-10-18, 11:22 PM
Either you're arguing against the straw man that monsters shouldn't be modified in perfectly normal, standard ways, or you're arguing for modifying them in arbitrary, random ways. Unless I'm missing some third option or something.


Honestly, it seems to me that the OP would be in perfect agreement with you, actually. He's protesting the -expectation- that monsters should be cookie-cutter identical "because the stat blocks said so." From his rhetoric it's plain that he supports the sensible, situational tweaking of monster concepts and stats.

So my answer to the original concern incorporating this point of view: this particular extent of inflexibility, insisting on stat blocks as given in the MM or as ordained on the character sheet by the player, is indeed rare. Nevertheless it certainly exists, and is both indicative of and a product of a general trend towards such inflexibility that has come about in recent years of D&D culture.

Raum
2008-10-19, 10:18 AM
I'm not really sure what you're railing against, then. In my experience on these boards, for most of the members that talk about it, the DMs change stat blocks freely.Yet not everyone agrees DMs should change stat blocks...some appear to equate stats with rules that shouldn't be changed. That's what initiated my comments.


No, you haven't. Wow. You must know me better than I do.


This, right here, is the straw man. Unless you can point to someone actually saying that. If someone genuinely is saying that modifying monsters violates the rules, they're being ridiculous; the Monster Manual talks about how to modify monsters. I don't see anyone saying that it's a rule that monsters can't be given extra hit dice or class levels or the elite array. And if anyone is saying that, well, they're wrong. And surely in a very small minority.I've been using general terms both to avoid calling anyone in particular out and because I've seen several posts / threads following the same pattern. Since it appears you haven't seen the pattern, here is one quote:
Is it ok for the DM to change the rules on enemies/powers/feats/skills in story-based encounters to make for a more challenging battle or is this sort of behavior unacceptable? Is DM Cheese acceptable? (My players now pretty much call everything I do that doesn't follow the exact rules DM Cheese...at least when it isn't benefitting them ;p )


But calling it a rules violation is just blatantly factually inaccurate.Which is why I found it surprising.


Either you're arguing against the straw man that monsters shouldn't be modified in perfectly normal, standard ways, or you're arguing for modifying them in arbitrary, random ways. Unless I'm missing some third option or something.Yes, you appear to have missed several comments in recent threads.


Honestly, it seems to me that the OP would be in perfect agreement with you, actually. He's protesting the -expectation- that monsters should be cookie-cutter identical "because the stat blocks said so." From his rhetoric it's plain that he supports the sensible, situational tweaking of monster concepts and stats.Yep!


So my answer to the original concern incorporating this point of view: this particular extent of inflexibility, insisting on stat blocks as given in the MM or as ordained on the character sheet by the player, is indeed rare. Nevertheless it certainly exists, and is both indicative of and a product of a general trend towards such inflexibility that has come about in recent years of D&D culture.I hope it stays rare. Several posts over the last year or so have made me wonder, hence my initial questions.

JaxGaret
2008-10-19, 10:53 AM
Wow. You must know me better than I do.

Mine was an external judgment (on the situation) rather than an internal one (on your perception of the situation). Since your stated premise from the OP (that there has been a fundamental change in gaming) hasn't occurred, you couldn't have "missed" it.

As such, I didn't need to know you at all to answer in the manner that I did.

Yahzi
2008-10-19, 11:14 AM
it's abilities are totally dependent on the DM's whim, so why try to make sense of it?
And if they can't make sense of it, they can't make their own decision on whether to fight or flee. They can't pick their own enemies. The DM has to do that for them.

I think this robs the players of important choices. And since a game is a series of interesting choices, the more control you give players, the better.

Raum
2008-10-19, 01:31 PM
Since your stated premise from the OP (that there has been a fundamental change in gaming) hasn't occurred, you couldn't have "missed" it.That was a question - not a premise. The question was based on an observation which you appear to be saying I can't have made. If so, it doesn't leave much room for discussion...


I think this robs the players of important choices. And since a game is a series of interesting choices, the more control you give players, the better.Player control vs GM control is an interesting subject and probably worth a thread of its own. Here I'll simply say you need to find a balance between the two which works for your group. Some are perfectly happy riding the railroad through Dungeon X. They might not enjoy sandbox play. Others can't stand railroads of any stripe. I suspect most fall somewhere in between the two extremes.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-10-19, 02:00 PM
I've been surprised over the last few months by posts equating NPC / PC / monster statistics with "rules".

...

Is there really an expectation that character stats will be used unchanged? Has a goblin's listed strength become as set in stone as the rule stating a hit is successful when the attacker's AB + d20 equal or exceed the defender's AC? Frankly, I've never considered character stats to be "rules" - even if they're printed in the Monster Manual.

The stats presented for monsters generally represent average members of the species using 10s and 11s as the base stats. From that we can see that the statistics blocks convey rules information about the size of the attribute modifier.
The modifier is a rule, but there are several suggestions to how the base score can be modified.

This is even taken further by a blanket suggestion about adding any kind of special ability to a creature as long as it is balanced in the CR, so the RAW gives a wide range of by-the rules options for modifications of existing creatures even without resorting to creating your own templates, monsters or resorting to rule "0".




ADDING SPECIAL ABILITIES

You can add any sort of spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary ability to a creature. As with a class level, you should determine how much, or how little, this ability adds to the creature’s existing repertoire. A suite of abilities that work together should be treated as a single modifier for this purpose. If the ability (or combination of abilities) significantly increases the monster’s combat effectiveness, increase its CR by 2. Minor abilities increase the creature’s CR by 1, and truly trivial abilities may not increase CR at all. If the special abilities a monster gains are not tied to a class or Hit Die increase, this CR increase stacks.

A significant special attack is one that stands a good chance of incapacitating or crippling a character in one round. A significant special quality is one that seriously diminishes the monster’s vulnerability to common attacks. Do not add this factor twice if a monster has both special attacks and special qualities.

Make sure to “scale” your evaluation of these abilities by the monster’s current CR.


The statistics blocks present other rules information, but I suspect such a discussion is outside the scope of what you intended by this thread.