Good design principles

[Thymos]

If DM's are trying to run things on the fly, why are they making monsters?

They should have... wait for this... a Monster Manual with the monsters already made and tables that have, level by level, appropriate NPCs.

As far as them making monsters in between, yes, it shouldn't be tedious.

They can still use some of the PC creation rules without using them all. We can use the rules to determine their attack, their defense, HP, and abilities without delving into every nuance of their skills.

I've stated this repeatedly, I think game designers should almost always make NPC's roughly using PC rules. I think DM's should either use tables or pre-generated opponents during sessions, and have the option to create Monsters the same way designers do inbetween.

Frank, your not arguing against what I'm saying. I'm saying use some of the PC creation rules to make NPC's. Your saying that because NPC's don't use every PC creation rules that they are using different rules. I don't really care about these little nuances.

I'm also saying that more than just abilities need to work both ways, HP, Attacks, defense, and damage need to work out similarly as well.

As far as the Wizard goes. This is one of the worst designed classes I've ever witnessed. In every conceivable way. The spellcasting classes of 3.x were so poorly designed that they actually killed any chance of multiclassing working, and they also killed any chance of quickly statting up an NPC spellcaster.

[Username17]

Frank, your not arguing against what I'm saying. I'm saying use some of the PC creation rules to make NPC's. Your saying that because NPC's don't use every PC creation rules that they are using different rules. I don't really care about these little nuances.

It's not a little nuance. The rule that Character A can ignore Character Generation Phase 3 is fucking huge. That's literally taking large sections of the rules and replacing them with different rules. Rules that are incredibly short, but in no way less different for that fact.

If you have a rule that player characters have to have 10 points of negative traits and a separate rule where minor NPCs don't, that's a different fucking rule. I completely reject any and all arguments that rely on classifying taking white out to entire paragraphs and chapters of character generation rules and guidelines as being "not a difference." It's fucking difference. You took whiteout to an entire paragraph of the original material, the material is now no longer the same.

-Username17

[Parthenon]

What I'd like is to be able to make up creatures during the combat.

For example if the PCs are robbing a bank and city guards come up I want to be able to come up with their basic tactics, their AC by the time they get attacked, their attack modifiers by the time they attack and their saves on the spot as needed.

So, the DM might have a couple of 5 second pauses during the combat but it actually happens without a 30 second to 5 minute break while the DM makes up and writes down all the stats.

Is this sort of thing possible? Would it be possible to realise you need a monster and make up a description, take a couple of monster abilites off a list of abilities by CR, take an AC off a suggested range and make stuff up as the fight happens?

[RandomCasualty2]

Is this sort of thing possible? Would it be possible to realise you need a monster and make up a description, take a couple of monster abilites off a list of abilities by CR, take an AC off a suggested range and make stuff up as the fight happens?

I think so...

It would work similar to this. I'll use 4E rules for now, since they're kind of close to what I have in mind, but I would like to make the combat system more interesting, because 4E is very bland.

The PCs are busy looting some place, when all of a sudden, a bunch of goblins stroll in. Lets say that we've got 3 goblin warriors and a goblin mage.
So I take a sheet of paper and divide it into two sections, one for warrior and one for mage. We also know the PCs are going to be level 3, so lets say we also want level 3 goblins. We could do varying levels between the mage and warrior, but lets keep it simple for now.

Like 4E, you'd have monster types (though hopefully a lot more defined than the 4E types). So lets say we have a "warrior" type and a "mage" type.

First thing we want is initiative bonuses, so we look on the table for each. Lets say initiative for a warrior is 3+ level and initiative for a mage is 2+level. So we note down 6 and 5 respectively and roll it.

The PC fighter goes first and targets a goblin warrior with an arrow. This goes agaisnt the goblin's AC. So next we need to check what a "warrior" AC would be. Lets say it's 15+ level. So we write down 18 in the warrior section under AC. The PC hits, and now we have to calculate the goblin's HP. Lets say a warrior HP is 5*level. So we have a 15 hp goblin.

Now the goblin wizard acts. We need to know what kind of spell attack he has (or spell DC if you're running 3.5), so once again we look up the respective collumn under "mage". Designing attacks may well be the toughest thing, and hopefully unlike 4E, we'd have a few options we can do. Templates like "area blasting", "Single target blasting", "Single target hindering", Area hindering", "Single target incapacitating", etc.. Where hindering effects get a list of status conditions they can throw on people.

So we decide we want our goblin wizard to have some kind of incapacitating thing. Choosing from a quick list of status conditions from the incapacitating list, we choose "Fear" as our status effect. So we choose a defense (will makes sense) and roll an attack with our fear effect.

We have to also mark down the ability for future reference.

And you basically keep going with that, looking up numbers in a table as you need them.

The drawback here is that you have to accept that NPCs don't have substats, they just have basic stats, and whenever you need to generate a substat for whatever reason, like "how much of his AC comes from dispellable spells?" you have to make more stuff up.

[Thymos]

I mean there is a difference between rule meaning every character generation phase, or rule meaning character generation phase 3.

If you take PC generation rules to mean the entirety of making a PC, then yes, they use different rules. If you mean that NPC's can use parts of PC generation rules, like the ones for finding out how much HP they should have, then they are using some of the PC creation rules.

I'm suggesting for NPC's to use some of the PC creation rules and have some other alternative rules to speed up some problem areas.

What I was calling a little nuance is the difference between rule referring to the whole of PC creation rules or to some piece of them. Your arguing that when the word rule refers to all of the PC creation rules then NPC's and PC's use different rules. I'm saying that NPC's can use some of the PC creation rules, like perhaps character generation phase 2 (to use a completely undefined and arbitrary example).

[Thymos]

RC2, how is that any different after doing the addition from just using premade tables (where we have a mage table and a warrior table)?

[RandomCasualty2]

RC2, how is that any different after doing the addition from just using premade tables (where we have a mage table and a warrior table)?

Well the problem with doing math and having premade stuff is that eventually you run into problems of stuff you haven't run into.

The "mage" monster table is something abstract that can be used to represent anything from a human wizard to a beholder. It's not a pregen, so much as a guideline.

When you do the math however, you now have a table that's very specific. It's a table that's made for "a human wizard who took feat X, Y, and Z." And that's basically what a pregen is. You have a few snapshots of a set of very specific character concepts.

Now whenever you want to change that, you end up having to do math. And that slows down the whole process since it's no longer just looking something up on a table. It's choosing new feats, replacing a longsword with a battleaxe, applying new racial modifiers and so on. And that's a pain in the ass and introduces slowdown.

Now, I'm not saying that the monster type tables shouldn't be based on what a PC can do at any given level. They absolutely should. But I don't think it's a good idea to rely on pregenerated NPC stats because they're so limited. I just can't count on always having a 4th level drow cleric of Lolth who uses a morning star, large shield and wears chain mail on hand as a pregen. And even if I did, I probably don't want to waste the time flipping through some binder looking for that specific character that I need. Because a lot of the time I may want an ice mage or an enchanter for the story and find that I only have an abjurer and a fire mage of that level.

[Draco_Argentum]

Because even if you use the same ability sets for NPCs doesn't mean you give NPCs the same amount of abilities from those sets.

This was the entirety of my point. NPC mooks need to have less abilities than I would want from a PC. A PC has an entire brain directing it. The NPCs have a fraction of a brain, they must therefore be substantially simpler to avoid running out of system resources.


Since the number of abilities will be different NPCs will have different rules in that part of the generation process. Therefore accepting my processing power constraint invalidates Thymos' position. The NPCs will have at least on phase that they use and which has different rules than the PC version.

[PhoneLobster]

Since the number of abilities will be different NPCs will have different rules in that part of the generation process.

Then I repeat Murtak's point that you seemed to miss.

, if you write up a D&D wizard and fighter one uses different character creation rules than the other.

Oddly we don't call that a different rules set.

They use the same basic mechanics, much of the same generation methodology, the same terms, and many of the same (or same potential) abilities.

That NPC generation can generate the same character as a PC or a character that is dramatically different to a PC does NOT make it a separate riles set which defies and is distinct from PC rules.

Because other PCs do that already.

People like RC and Frank are instead discussing a situation where there is some sub set of NPCs who are built with a rules set and abilities entirely distinct from PCs. Indeed not just that but excluding the possibility of a subset of NPC only rules that some single NPC MIGHT exclusively pick from but rather having NPCs that MUST exclusively pick from that set.

They claim that the benefits of overlapping the PC & NPC ability sets and general mechanics as much as possible, are negligible in comparison to writing an entire parallel system a fraction of the complexity that is supposed to interact meaningfully with the bigger system! Or even that to overlap them at all is to FORCE us to use identical systems down to every detail and step and generate identical characters and treat them as main characters with giant backstories!

So no, some little slight of hand and a pretence that the Rogue and the Fighter use "a different rules system" is not acceptable. And making that kind of mistake is part of bad design philosophy.

[Username17]

Murtak's point is retarded. When you make a Fighter or a Wizard you end up different places, but you are still passing through the same flow chart to get there. The moment your flow chart asks you the question "Player Character or Non Player Character" and deposits you in different places and gives you different subsequent powers, any possible claim you have to using the same rules for PCs and NPCs is laughable.

If you accept that an NPC can go through the creation process and have an ability set that a PC could not have after having gone through the same creation process, you are being a fucking twat if you still claim that there isn't a difference between those rulesets.

-Username17

[Thymos]

No one is claiming NPC's and PC's should use the same rulesets. It's possible to use some of the rules without using the entire set.

[Murtak]

Murtak's point is retarded. When you make a Fighter or a Wizard you end up different places, but you are still passing through the same flow chart to get there. The moment your flow chart asks you the question "Player Character or Non Player Character" and deposits you in different places and gives you different subsequent powers, any possible claim you have to using the same rules for PCs and NPCs is laughable.

Frank's point is retarded. When you make a NPC or a PC you end up different places, but you are still passing through the same flow chart to get there. The moment your flow chart asks you the question "Wizard or Fighter" and deposits you in different places and gives you different subsequent powers, any possible claim you have to using the same rules for Wizards and Fighters is laughable.

You know, I can't see a logical difference between these statements.

[Username17]

No one is claiming NPC's and PC's should use the same rulesets. It's possible to use some of the rules without using the entire set.

Then what are people claiming when they say:

Personally I would even say that monsters should be built using the exact same system.

If it's not the same rulesets, how could it be "the exact same system?"

You know, I can't see a logical difference between these statements.

A player can follow the flow chart to make a wizard or a fighter as their character. They cannot follow the flow chart to make an NPC as their character. At some level there is an insurmountable difference that must exist. NPCs have access to monodimensionality that PCs by necessity do not.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

They claim that the benefits of overlapping the PC & NPC ability sets and general mechanics as much as possible, are negligible in comparison to writing an entire parallel system a fraction of the complexity that is supposed to interact meaningfully with the bigger system! Or even that to overlap them at all is to FORCE us to use identical systems down to every detail and step and generate identical characters and treat them as main characters with giant backstories!

The requirement of a new system is there because you need speed. If you're building a Shadowrun PC or a mid to high level D&D PC, you're just not going to be able to do that quickly enough in play to create one on the fly.

It's not that the PC generation system is bad for either of those games, it's just that it's not what you want. You don't need that level of detail, you just want some numbers that you can use to play the game, because shit you don't want to grind the game to a halt because the PCs decided to go a direction you didn't expect.

The thing is that while we'd all like to use one system for designing a character, we just can't. PC generation can't give us the speed we need, so we need a custom system built with speed in mind.

[Murtak]

A player can follow the flow chart to make a wizard or a fighter as their character. They cannot follow the flow chart to make an NPC as their character. At some level there is an insurmountable difference that must exist. NPCs have access to monodimensionality that PCs by necessity do not.

You know, if you put it the other way round I might agree. But what exactly is that special quality of "having less stuff on my sheet" that players can't get? Isn't it exactly the opposite, namely NPCs not getting some stuff, while players get all of what NPCs get and then some?

And if what I just said is true, what is keeping us from marking certain parts of a hypothetical character creation system as [optional] and just not using them for grunts, using parts of them for some semi-important henchman and using all of it for BBEGs?

[RandomCasualty2]

And if what I just said is true, what is keeping us from marking certain parts of a hypothetical character creation system as [optional] and just not using them for grunts, using parts of them for some semi-important henchman and using all of it for BBEGs?

Mainly because most of the time those parts are in fact, not optional.

Lets look at a 3E character.
You have:
-Ability scores
-Select Race
-Class level assignments
-Feat Selection
-Skill selection
-Known Spell selection (or spellbook spells for wizard)
-Magic item selection
-Prepared spell selection (for non spontaneous casters)

Now, none of these are particularly skipable. You may think you scan skip skills, only spot and listen are skills as are hide/move silent and that's stuff you may care about in combat.

You could arguably skip the wizard's spellbook and just say he didn't have a spellbook on him, but that's seriously it. If you want an NPC for a combat, you have to do all that shit.

It's not so much that NPCs have fewer steps, we just want to do the regular PC steps faster.

[Thymos]

3.x is just bad as far as creation goes. Character and Monster.

Please stop using it as an example.

Other systems, like Feng Shui can handle it fine.

[RandomCasualty2]

3.x is just bad as far as creation goes. Character and Monster.

Please stop using it as an example.

Other systems, like Feng Shui can handle it fine.

I don't know Feng Shui, so I really can't do much with it. And it doesn't seem very popular anyway, so it's not like I consider it a great example regardless, because most of us are playing other games. So I'm assuming Feng Shui has some big flaws. Based on what you're saying, my guess would be that one such flaw is that PCs are too simple.

But okay, lets use some other PC generation systems.

D&D 4E (still requires purchasing magic items, choosing feats, skills and powers)
Shadowrun (once again long creation process)
White Wolf Games (long creation process)
GURPS (yeah... right)
BESM (easier than GURPS but still involves too much math)

So there you go... that's a bunch of other non-3.5 examples.

[Username17]

You know, if you put it the other way round I might agree. But what exactly is that special quality of "having less stuff on my sheet" that players can't get? Isn't it exactly the opposite, namely NPCs not getting some stuff, while players get all of what NPCs get and then some?

Well it's both. NPCs can, for example, utilize daily or yearly abilities without concern. For better or worse, NPCs do not exist from a mechanical perspective while they are not onscreen, which gives them the ability to ignore consequences that would last beyond their appearance.

That's an ability that a PC cannot get.

It's not just that a girallon is allowed to have no social or investigative ability while a PC is not. It's also that he doesn't have to worry about having lost hit points from previous encounters because there are no previous encounters. Every NPC gets to ignore the past and the future as surely as a suicide bomber, because when they aren't on screen they literally are not even rolling dice.

So your NPC creation rules not only have to be different from the PC creation rules for speed, the NPC resolution rules have to be different as well. They have to create a feeling that the NPCs are doing the same thing the PCs are doing between PC/NPC showdowns even though they aren't. If you just give NPCs the same number of power charges as PCs they will actually feel completely different because the NPCs only exist for short periods of time and would therefore logically utilize their power charges at a much higher rate than PCs would in the same battle. For the game to represent NPCs and PCs doing the same thing, NPCs need to be using different literal rules during their appearances.

-Username17

[Thymos]

Ok then. How are game developers supposed to make the rules for NPC creation that assures that NPC's will be created quickly and balanced?

[RandomCasualty2]

Ok then. How are game developers supposed to make the rules for NPC creation that assures that NPC's will be created quickly and balanced?

The best way to handle NPCs is to just have their numbers be based on CR (or whatever the game equivalent is).

The tough part though is balancing abilities, and there's no sure fire way to do this. The best way is to provide guidelines for the DM. Given that the DM isn't trying to kill his PCs, it's generally okay to provide him advice like "Don't do this, because it will make the encounter way more difficult." whenever you get some kind of killer combo in monster abilities.

But there is going to be a need for ad hoc stuff, because we just can't have a super complex rules code for that, because super complex rules code takes time to run through. This needs to be fast, and that means occasionally cutting corners. But that's generally okay, because odds are the monster will be dead at the end of the battle anyway, so even if its flame burst was slightly over or underpowered, it likely wont' even matter.

[Thymos]

Saying CR means jack shit. I'm asking how do you know what appropriate numbers for CR is? How do you determine what CR NPC BBEG who use PC rules are?

Do you do it the hackneyed way 3.x did where Monsters and PC's used different systems and have CR be a guess, and NPC's are not even close to their actual CR?

[RandomCasualty2]

Saying CR means jack shit. I'm asking how do you know what appropriate numbers for CR is? How do you determine what CR NPC BBEG who use PC rules are?

From a table. This is where the game designers have to do some math to help you out, and basically where the rules of creating the monster come from.

As far as determining CR for someone using PC rules, that's tough. That's why it's often easier to have a CR in mind and then design the monster based on that CR, rather than trying to assign a CR to a creature that already exists.

When using PC rules you'll always run into trouble because the PC rules produce such varied numbers. This is especially true in classless sytems like Shadowrun or GURPS. The actual point total can be relatively meaningless, because it factors in noncombat activities. And nobody really cares if the guy shooting at you happens to be a master safecracker and diplomat. All that matters are his weapon skills, because he's just a combat challenge, and that's it.

So in general, assigning CR is going to be a matter of eyeballing. And there is no tried and true system. But once again, I'm advocating that you not create NPCs using a PC system and instead generate NPCs via a "CR first" system, where the CR is the starting point, not a tag you slap on afterwards.

And that makes sense, doesn't it? Because you set about looking to create a given encounter of a given difficulty. If you spent 2 hours creating the great demilich Acererak and then realize that he'll wipe the floor with your PCs, then you've just wasted 2 hours.

[Username17]

Ultimately there has to be some kind of threat level mechanic, and NPCs are going to have to pop out mostly fully formed based on those threat levels. Shadowrun hands out rules for NPC groups and Feng Shui just gives Mooks a number.

The 4e conceit of giving enemies a roll and a level and handing out approximate numbers for them to use is actually pretty decent. I genuinely don't think the problem is having a rule slot for a 4th level brute monster. 4e has many problems, but that idea was very good.

-Username17

[Murtak]

Well it's both. NPCs can, for example, utilize daily or yearly abilities without concern. For better or worse, NPCs do not exist from a mechanical perspective while they are not onscreen, which gives them the ability to ignore consequences that would last beyond their appearance.

That sounds like willful ignorance of said NPCs abilities to me. If Beholders can disintegrate at will there should damn well be elaborate tunnel systems where they swoop down from holes in the ceiling.

It's not just that a girallon is allowed to have no social or investigative ability while a PC is not. It's also that he doesn't have to worry about having lost hit points from previous encounters because there are no previous encounters. Every NPC gets to ignore the past and the future as surely as a suicide bomber, because when they aren't on screen they literally are not even rolling dice.

NPCs in my games (both when I GM and when a friend does) frequently do worry about conserving, for example, their spells slots. They also occasionally encounter the PCs at low health, out of spells or prebuffed from a previous fight.

So your NPC creation rules not only have to be different from the PC creation rules for speed, the NPC resolution rules have to be different as well. They have to create a feeling that the NPCs are doing the same thing the PCs are doing between PC/NPC showdowns even though they aren't.

To me, that is an artificial constraint imposed by overly complicated resource systems. Just selecting spells known for a high level wizard is such a chore you instinctively look for easier alternatives. But in, say, Feng-Shui, creating a sorcerer from scratch takes about 2 minutes so you might well be willing to stat out a simple henchman.