Design Player Vs. First, then Monsters

[Voss]

Well, just from looking at early versions of D&D, you can really tell that design came afterwards (or wasn't a factor at all). Just the random accumulation of useless crap, bizarre irrelevancies and random tables of whores should tell you that they were piling stuff in, and not engaging in a design phase first.

For 1e, I give you:
the Bard
Psionics
guns
Gamma World conversion rules
random hooker table
hidden spell rules in the DMG
hell, just the DMG table of contents gives a major clue that this is a random assortment of shit, not a conscious design.

[TheFlatline]

For this reason, I'd suggest having some default thematic builds created ahead of time. So, if Wizard is a class, there might be a fire mage build, a mind-screwing build, and a summoner, just to get started. These builds would have all the obvious stuff plotted out (such as feat and spell selections). It would make sense to put these in the DMG, although I suppose they might be handy for Trevor players (or whatever the fuck that guy's name is who wants to play but doesn't really know how).

Now, I think it'd be impossible (or at least impractical) to post an exhaustive number of these builds, but it would hopefully be enough to be a useful time-saver for the DM. He might be able to whip up a lich during session planning by applying the lich template to the mind-screw wizard build, and have it fully statted in 10 - 15 minutes.

So you're advocating a book of pre-generated NPC stats so that you can pick and choose and drop a sort-of-customized challenge into the game with minimal work on MC's part. In other words... a monster manual. One that uses all the shit from the PHB for it's abilities. And these pre-generated NPCs will never be as efficient as party members.

And I'm going to suggest that 10-15 minutes to design *one* NPC out of an encounter is too long. At 15 minutes per NPC, and a party of 4 per encounter, you're looking again at an hour to design a single encounter that your PCs will blow through in about 4 rounds.

[RobbyPants]

So you're advocating a book of pre-generated NPC stats so that you can pick and choose and drop a sort-of-customized challenge into the game with minimal work on MC's part. In other words... a monster manual. One that uses all the shit from the PHB for it's abilities. And these pre-generated NPCs will never be as efficient as party members.

I would advocate it as a product for DMs who want to save time on prepping NPCs.

And I'm going to suggest that 10-15 minutes to design *one* NPC out of an encounter is too long. At 15 minutes per NPC, and a party of 4 per encounter, you're looking again at an hour to design a single encounter that your PCs will blow through in about 4 rounds.

The context of my post was a response to Shadzar, where he said that PvP should never happen. I said that evil wizards and black knights are a staple of the genre and need to be supported. Your only two options on these are either to make "evil wizard" a special snowflake entry in the Monster Manual, or to use rules for generating PCs to create them.

Several people pointed out the obvious issue of PCs being complex and taking time to create. That's why I suggested a way to generate certain popular archetypes more quickly. Hell, it could come out with quite a few fully statted NPCs that would be ready to use, for that matter.

[Whipstitch]

I'm going to regret this but.

Did Shadzar really just say:

so the game should be designed for the way it was created to be played, not for some new age game theory.

That is by far the most non-sensical sentence I've ever heard. The game should be designed the way it was created. What? WHat came first, the game or the design for the game. WTF.

Yeah, his brain shit its pants again. In the overall context of Shad-speak, I think he was just referring again to his belief that planning and informed decision making is badwrongfun and that you and your character ought not to have goals aside from seeing what is out in the game world. Which, you know, is plenty weird and passive aggressive even within the context of D&D, but it it hits me as especially weird in this case given that we're currently talking about design in a more general sense and so it is entirely possible that games may be explicitly about politicking vampires or traveling the world forming your own gladiator troupe or some other bullshit in which the goals you pursue are pretty obvious.

[angelfromanotherpin]

I dunno, it'd explain a lot if shadzar existed outside of time.

[Avoraciopoctules]

So you're advocating a book of pre-generated NPC stats so that you can pick and choose and drop a sort-of-customized challenge into the game with minimal work on MC's part. In other words... a monster manual. One that uses all the shit from the PHB for it's abilities. And these pre-generated NPCs will never be as efficient as party members.

I would advocate it as a product for DMs who want to save time on prepping NPCs.

I'm pretty happy with Pathfinder's NPC Codex as both a "monster manual" and an aid to prepping NPCs quickly. I get a lot of use out of it as Mister Cavern.

[Wiseman]

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Enemies_and_Allies



There was a sort of "NPC MM" for 3e. The builds kind of suck most of the time, but it's useful if you need a quick NPC.

[Avoraciopoctules]

I vaguely remember that book. I think it had more detailed NPCs, where you actually had some kind of agenda and backstory in addition to a couple lines of combat tactics. It was pretty nice as an idea mine, but I didn't use anything right out of the book.

[RobbyPants]

Yeah, the builds would have to not suck for it to work. I haven't read that book, but if the NPCs in the DMG2 are an indicator, they were probably terrible.

[schpeelah]

I'm going to regret this but.

Did Shadzar really just say:

so the game should be designed for the way it was created to be played, not for some new age game theory.

That is by far the most non-sensical sentence I've ever heard. The game should be designed the way it was created. What? WHat came first, the game or the design for the game. WTF.

Keep in mind this is the guy who says "play the game not the rules" so you can apparently create a game before writing any rules. After translating from shadzarese I read it as "design the game to create the desired playstyle, not to fit some bullshit theory from Forge".

[Cyberzombie]

Yeah, the builds would have to not suck for it to work. I haven't read that book, but if the NPCs in the DMG2 are an indicator, they were probably terrible.

Yeah. That's always been my problem with pregen NPCs. It does no good if they're not even up to the CR they should be.

[Foxwarrior]

So presumably, the NPC section should be some sort of community wiki, rather than a book written and printed by people who thought the game was balanced.

[K]

So presumably, the NPC section should be some sort of community wiki, rather than a book written and printed by people who thought the game was balanced.

Well, if the choice is between a giant database of NPCs that DMs will never be capable of reading and using or a system of chargen that is fast and easy, I think I'd go for the fast and easy chargen.

Complex chargen seems as much an obstacle as a benefit. The value of a higher level of customization is a lower ability to balance material and a much higher amount of time spend generating characters. Heck, games like Eclipse Phase are basically unplayable because your first two sessions are probably spent making characters.

Games like Shadowrun or Vampire have chargen that can be done very fast with little math or bonus tracking at all, and I don't think those games are less for it.

[TheFlatline]

So presumably, the NPC section should be some sort of community wiki, rather than a book written and printed by people who thought the game was balanced.

Well, if the choice is between a giant database of NPCs that DMs will never be capable of reading and using or a system of chargen that is fast and easy, I think I'd go for the fast and easy chargen.

Complex chargen seems as much an obstacle as a benefit. The value of a higher level of customization is a lower ability to balance material and a much higher amount of time spend generating characters. Heck, games like Eclipse Phase are basically unplayable because your first two sessions are probably spent making a characters.

Games like Shadowrun or Vampire have chargen that can be done very fast with little math or bonus tracking at all and I don't think those games are less for it.

The nice thing about Shadowrun is that I don't need to gen a full character to have a good NPC for combat or other interactions. Combat NPCs you give them a gun, give them some armor, give them the appropriate combat stats, and off you go. In fact, when I run SR games, I have a binder where I keep NPC stat blocks so I can speed things up even more.

The always-online chargen program missed a big opportunity for D&D. They needed a button to upload your character as an NPC. Strip out the name and any fluff and upload the stat block as an NPC. Then go hit an NPC tab and pull characters out of the database and within 90 days your NPC problem is probably a null issue. That way you get a customized, possibly optimized NPCs.

[wotmaniac]

So presumably, the NPC section should be some sort of community wiki, rather than a book written and printed by people who thought the game was balanced.

Well, if the choice is between a giant database of NPCs that DMs will never be capable of reading and using [...].

Could you explain why the bolded part would necessarily be the case?
(I'm not being a contrarian -- I'm genuinely curious)

[Cyberzombie]

Well, if the choice is between a giant database of NPCs that DMs will never be capable of reading and using or a system of chargen that is fast and easy, I think I'd go for the fast and easy chargen.

Complex chargen seems as much an obstacle as a benefit. The value of a higher level of customization is a lower ability to balance material and a much higher amount of time spend generating characters. Heck, games like Eclipse Phase are basically unplayable because your first two sessions are probably spent making characters.

Games like Shadowrun or Vampire have chargen that can be done very fast with little math or bonus tracking at all, and I don't think those games are less for it.

White wolf is quick is because there's no noticeable CR expectation. The DM pretty much assigns whatever numbers he wants and designs a numerical representation of an NPC, but we really have no idea how tough that NPC or how many of them would make a reasonable encounter for the PCs.

You don't really need a chargen system for those games, because the way PC advancement works is so freeform that any type of NPC is possible. Also there's no dependencies, so you can partially construct these characters. Knowing that someone has 5 firearms doesn't use up any kind of pool of points that means that he later can't have 5 hacking too. If your vision requires he have 5 hacking and 5 firearms, you just go and do that.

Also let me note that Shadowrun is not fast to make a character. The main reason is equipment. Try making an NPC decker where you pick out his equipment or a rigger with drones. Be prepared to take a long time.

[K]

So presumably, the NPC section should be some sort of community wiki, rather than a book written and printed by people who thought the game was balanced.

Well, if the choice is between a giant database of NPCs that DMs will never be capable of reading and using [...].

Could you explain why the bolded part would necessarily be the case?
(I'm not being a contrarian -- I'm genuinely curious)

Sure.

You've decided to go with a complex chargen system like 3e or 4e DnD, and that mean that there are lots of possible customized configurations. Even for something like a Wizard, there are probably 100 possible completely unique takes on Wizard that should be in your database (for example, five pyromancers, some charmers, some necromancers, some summoners, some themed combos like necromancer/pyromancers, diviners, polymorphers, dragon-themed, etc.... you get the point). In all probability, there are probably thousands of wizards in your database.

To find the one you want to use, that means reading and understanding at least 100 stat blocks. That takes time... much more time than just designing a single stat block of your own.

The only way to speed the process up is to not actually read all of the those stat blocks. You pick a random level 10 Wizard for your Lich monster based on a short description and hope that the designer delivered on his promise made in that description.

In effect, the only way to use a vast database of NPCs more quickly than designing your own NPCs is to not use it as intended, but to use it as a random generator, and at that point you've given up on ever accomplishing the original purpose of creating the database.

[TheFlatline]

Well, if the choice is between a giant database of NPCs that DMs will never be capable of reading and using [...].

Could you explain why the bolded part would necessarily be the case?
(I'm not being a contrarian -- I'm genuinely curious)

Sure.

You've decided to go with a complex chargen system like 3e or 4e DnD, and that mean that there are lots of possible customized configurations. Even for something like a Wizard, there are probably 100 possible completely unique takes on Wizard that should be in your database (for example, five pyromancers, some charmers, some necromancers, some summoners, some themed combos like necromancer/pyromancers, diviners, polymorphers, dragon-themed, etc.... you get the point). In all probability, there are probably thousands of wizards in your database.

To find the one you want to use, that means reading and understanding at least 100 stat blocks. That takes time... much more time than just designing a single stat block of your own.

The only way to speed the process up is to not actually read all of the those stat blocks. You pick a random level 10 Wizard for your Lich monster based on a short description and hope that the designer delivered on his promise made in that description.

In effect, the only way to use a vast database of NPCs more quickly than designing your own NPCs is to not use it as intended, but to use it as a random generator, and at that point you've given up on ever accomplishing the original purpose of creating the database.

Not necessarily. An intelligent, thoughtful DB designer could, with a bit of interaction with the designers, create a DB that could thoughtfully deliver pretty granular results quickly. Databases are incredibly powerful that way.

Shit, with a good database designer you could request the output like "give me a mage who will immobilize half a 5th level party on the first round and then deal at least 15 acid damage per round and is geared to win init" is a totally doable query against a properly designed database. The data is already there in the DB, it just needs to have an interface that can quickly pull things that granular or "gen an 8th level party of 4 for me" level of abstract.

Then you link that in with D&D insider, and you've suddenly got a DB of maybe, let's say a million characters that have been actually played in the real world. Since it's a DB, and text, and it is fucking absurdly cheap to have multiple TB of storage (and once all your data fields are designed, each PC is only going to take up kilobytes of information), you can feasibly save *iterations* of characters at every level or every fucking session. Shit, for less than a couple thousand bucks a month I could host a server cluster on Amazon Web Services that would be more than enough horsepower to throw at that shit. The only expensive part would be the DB design and front end interface design. It'd have to be intelligent and powerful, and that means designed by someone who knew what the fuck they were doing. But that's a static cost, and you're feasibly going to be charging a nominal fee for the DB and chargen program.

Throw a simple thumbs up/thumbs down button into the NPC library and characters that are designed well can quickly rise to the top. Once you pass some arbitrary number of thumbs ups, That character at that level goes into an e-book of sorts you load into the NPC library and is retired from the DB: it's been found to be "good enough", and doesn't permanently dominate the list. After a similarly arbitrary large number of thumbs downs, the NPC is pulled from the database: it's not useful enough, or is built too stupid, or it's too fucking derivative.

The idea being that you cull the stupid shit out and create an "NPC manual" for the good builds. So that way people like you can go to the NPC "book" and pick proven builds for NPCs, while if you're willing to experiment more you go to the DB and mine it for NPCs that do what you want.

I'd use the FUCK out of a system like that and would consider paying money to use it. Subscribers get the books for the duration of the subscription, and for say 10 bucks you can buy the E-books with 50 or 100 NPCs in them. If your "hall of fame" NPC pool is big enough, you put a search engine on that motherfucker, so you can have the Big Book of Dwarves NPC book, or NPCs for Parties level 8-12 or the NPC Book of Pyromancers or whatever.

[tussock]

Did Shadzar really just say:

so the game should be designed for the way it was created to be played, not for some new age game theory.

That is by far the most non-sensical sentence I've ever heard. The game should be designed the way it was created. What? WHat came first, the game or the design for the game. WTF.

Keep in mind this is the guy who says "play the game not the rules" so you can apparently create a game before writing any rules. After translating from shadzarese I read it as "design the game to create the desired playstyle, not to fit some bullshit theory from Forge".

The correct parsing is ...

"the way it was created to be played" is the way EGG played back in some weird alternate timeline where 2nd edition still uses many of the 1st edition rules and so Gary made it, or actually what Shadzar played as a 14-yr old.

"some new age game theory" is everything that has happened since then.

So we have

the game should be designed for how young-Shadzar played it, not for how people who aren't Shadzar would like to play it.

To which I must say, I agree, only it should be designed for me and my personal preferences associated with fond childhood memories. Fuck all y'all other people.

[K]

Throw a simple thumbs up/thumbs down button into the NPC library and characters that are designed well can quickly rise to the top..

The average DnD player can't do that. Hell, the above-average DnD player can't do that, much less tag entries well enough that a searchable database can be produced.

The downside to leveraging the wisdom of the crowd is that the crowd is rather stupid. Expect 1,000 3.5 Monk builds to top your charts.

[TheFlatline]

Throw a simple thumbs up/thumbs down button into the NPC library and characters that are designed well can quickly rise to the top..

The average DnD player can't do that. Hell, the above-average DnD player can't do that, much less tag entries well enough that a searchable database can be produced.

The downside to leveraging the wisdom of the crowd is that the crowd is rather stupid. Expect 1,000 3.5 Monk builds to top your charts.

Well, first it's the average DM who is probably going to be evaluating the quality of NPCs. Who in theory are looking for good challenges.

And second, that's a bullshit argument because I can use that hyperbolic argument about anything RPG related to dismiss it if I don't like it. "Oh that won't work because the average player is too fucking stupid to ever get any better."

So why fucking even bother discussing anything RPG-related then? It's just mastabatory theater at that point. The market is too stupid to ever improve.

[K]

Throw a simple thumbs up/thumbs down button into the NPC library and characters that are designed well can quickly rise to the top..

The average DnD player can't do that. Hell, the above-average DnD player can't do that, much less tag entries well enough that a searchable database can be produced.

The downside to leveraging the wisdom of the crowd is that the crowd is rather stupid. Expect 1,000 3.5 Monk builds to top your charts.

Well, first it's the average DM who is probably going to be evaluating the quality of NPCs. Who in theory are looking for good challenges.

And second, that's a bullshit argument because I can use that hyperbolic argument about anything RPG related to dismiss it if I don't like it. "Oh that won't work because the average player is too fucking stupid to ever get any better."

So why fucking even bother discussing anything RPG-related then? It's just mastabatory theater at that point. The market is too stupid to ever improve.

Dude, if your plan revolves around the random people doing all of the game-design, their aggregate skill level is completely relevant.

Check out the average CharOp forum. Those are the guys who are going to use your rating system, and they think the 3.5 Monk is uber.

[wotmaniac]

While I think that TheFlatline's idea is good in theory, I'm leaning towards K's point, because:
a) never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups (especially on the internet), and
b) WotC's propensity to fuck shit up. Hell, even when they're not ficking it up directly, they've even gone and had shit happen like their project lead go and get involved in a murder-suicide. Go figure.

[OgreBattle]

The best way to do it is be able to follow other people's NPC creation, so if you trust someone to make good NPC's you can use them.

[ishy]

But such a database would be created for the majority of people.

So if the majority approve of terrible things, and thus when they do a search, they get the terrible things they like, there is no problem?