The divide between Player Character and Non-Player Character

[Tanuki Tales]

So, I was reading through the thread about monster intelligence and the fairness of playing a monster to it and I saw a line of discussion that I felt deserved its own topic: what separates an Non-Player Character from a Player Character.

I saw a few individuals who were of the mindset that a PC, by very virtue of being a PC, should be superior to an NPC, because that's why they're not an NPC in the first place. That monsters and NPCs, coming from incredibly harsh environs and living conditions that may not be universally experienced by PCs (who can start their careers as farm hands, baker apprentices or erudite acolytes hidden behind the walls of a tower), should not have a possibility of being tougher and more cunning than a PC.

I understand that this was fully the case in earlier editions of d20 games. Non-player characters were level 0 and only Player Characters went around gaining XP and reaching the apex of max level. Monsters were there to kill and take the loot from and even established kings could eventually bow down to a party.

But that hasn't been the case since the advent of 3rd edition. Now, the only thing that sets Player Characters and Non-Player Characters apart is who is playing them. If PCs have any leg up on NPCs, it's from a superior stat generation method (which is something that varies from table to table) and the accepted principle that everyone is there to have fun. So if everyone's accepted kind of fun is that the PCs ultimately save the day, then they'll naturally have something of a plot shield compared to NPCs. Otherwise, NPCs and PCs can be identical in build, with NPCs actually benefiting from anything the DM/GM's plot requires them to have or be able to do in order to run a good game and tell a good story.

I guess this is something of a pet peeve of mine, which was exacerbated from reading Knights of the Dinner Table (which I've inquired towards and have been informed that, while the cast represent a somewhat extreme exaggeration, that kind of mentality and playstyle has been a "thing" in the past), but I felt it could lead to a good discussion.

So...have at it!

[Amphetryon]

NPCs are Characters that are not run by the Players at the table (aside from the DM). In many cases*, they may have Levels - perhaps exclusively - in the designated NPC Classes: Commoner, Expert, or Adept from Core. The nature of those Classes is such that - barring edge cases - those with Levels in actual PC Classes will generally be superior from a mechanics POV.

*Faerun is often pointed to as an exception here, rightly or wrongly.

[Phelix-Mu]

Gah, I don't like PC-bias. Reality doesn't favor the characters, plot favors the characters; there's an important distinction. The whole issue is rather meta, but I like a game that has a complex nature and a world where it's the player's decisions, not the nature of their characters, that makes them special (or not special, if they phone it in).

In short, pcs are not better than npcs in my game. In fact, throughout the majority of 1-20, they are not even the biggest players on the field (probably not until they have access to wish-level stuff...I run a high-powered setting). I don't mind killing pcs if they are foolish, and the players I play with regularly are generally aware that, sometimes, the solution to the problem is retreat. If I coddle or spotlight the party too much, I find it reduces the reward they feel when they finally survive/thrive.

It takes all kinds, of course, and I'm sure this style of play won't suit everyone (nor should it...the power of the system is that it is flexible enough to support many play styles).

[Chronos]

PCs are better than most NPCs, because most NPCs are first-level commoners. But the Duke of Hugerealm, or the Archchancellor of the Wizard's College, are both NPCs, and may well be as good as or better than the PCs.

[Tanuki Tales]

NPCs are Characters that are not run by the Players at the table (aside from the DM). In many cases*, they may have Levels - perhaps exclusively - in the designated NPC Classes: Commoner, Expert, or Adept from Core. The nature of those Classes is such that - barring edge cases - those with Levels in actual PC Classes will generally be superior from a mechanics POV.

*Faerun is often pointed to as an exception here, rightly or wrongly.

See, I don't buy into that school of thought. I haven't reviewed all of the printed settings to see the actual class distribution (I know Eberron has many, many NPCs with levels in regular classes and some even has PrC levels), but even if most of the official, printed settings in 3.X worked that way, it doesn't mean it's status quo.

I know Pathfinder has an entire codex that goes against that school of thought.

Mind you, the Adept is better than some classes printed with PC use in mind.

[Amphetryon]

Then why, pray tell, are they called "NPC Classes?"

[Madeiner]

In my campaign, major NPCs are treated exactly like PCs.
They get good stat generation (some of them even better than PCs), they get their levels in PC classes, they behave like PCs, they are as optimized as the PCs are, they go on their adventures off-screen and sometimes they may temporarily join the PCs (rarely in battle). They may live or die as per story reasons, they may change sides when they deem it useful or necessary. They are as genre-savvy as the PCs are.

Minor NPCs such as the bartender or the church priest you only speak once to, are not even given stat blocks. They are statted as "PCs win" after the PCs are level 6 or so.

[NichG]

Whether or not this should be the case, there are a number of reasons why NPCs/monsters tend to be run as dumber than PCs just because of the way the game is structured.

Consider - each player is playing a character they have probably spent weeks thinking about, many hours designing, growing, testing, etc. The DM most often plays characters who in all likelyhood they didn't have the time to flesh out mechanically (unless its a boss fight or set-piece), they're not nearly as familiar with as the players are with their characters, and furthermore the DM has to run all of them at once whereas each player is just choosing actions for a single character (barring pets/leadership/etc).

And on top of all of this, the DM also has to adjudicate rules stuff while the other players who aren't involved can mull over the situation/their next action.

So stats and intentions aside, its hard for the DM to run things more intelligently than the players if the players are about as good as the DM and aren't being lazy/careless.

Of course there are some things that go to the DM's favor, planning-wise, and those can sometimes create a surprising difficulty spike if the DM doesn't realize the degree of advantage. Being able to know the terrain/scenario a week in advance of the players means a DM might work out some very optimized 'standard operating procedure' for the first round or so, whereas the players have to react on the fly during that first round. The DM (consciously or subconsciously) has awareness of the PCs' abilities ahead of time, and may end up incorporating that information into their planning even if they don't intend to.

In other words, the 'default' bias in NPC behavior is going to be 'dumb but prescient' when compared to the PCs, and the DM generally has to work hard to avoid/move away from that bias.

[Tanuki Tales]

Then why, pray tell, are they called "NPC Classes?"

You'd probably need to ask the original design team.

A holdover from 2nd edition perhaps?

Edit:

@Nich: The line of discussion isn't concerning "why could NPCs be dumber than PCs" but the school of thought that NPCs should be automatically inferior to all PCs from all walks of life because, otherwise, the PC would be an NPC instead. That the very core qualification of a PC is "being better than NPCs and Monsters".

[Silentone98]

same as some others here...

In my campaigns, people are people... rather the players control them or I do, it doesn't matter. You are judged by your actions, the world reacts around you. If you openly kill someone in the middle of the street, you'll be hanged or inprisoned... upon getting out you won't be viewed kindly. This is the same with an NPC or a PC....(although PC's are generally inclined to do something stupid, regardless of intelligence stat...)

I won't compare intelligence stats to decide who is smarter, and thus dictate NPC actions based on PC stats. I'll look at individual intelligence stats to help decide if a monster or NPC would behave in one way or another, but if a high intelligence PC has a player that plays very stupidly... that's on him. If he is incapable of roleplaying a high intelligence character, I am not dumbing down everything else to scale to his level.

Although the players are usually the most powerful characters in the area- they are certainly not the most powerful in the world. Not even close.

I usually drive home this point of "There are others just like you" with the inclusion of an arena and pre-built NPC's and a ranking system. My players seemed to enjoy this in the last campaign I ran- new players haven't encountered this yet.

Summary: PC's are NOT special on virtue of being a PC. They make themselves special thru their own actions and advancement. There will always be a bigger dog to bite back however.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

Well now, that's just ridiculous. Monsters and NPCs can and should be every bit as capable as the individual's purpose demands for credibility. I do tend to believe that PCs ought to have some level of competence unless the game is explicitly some kind of Commoner Heroes adventure, but that doesn't mean NPCs ought to be incompetent. PCs being competent does not make everything competent a PC, just like all beach balls being spherical does not make all spheres beach balls.
Unless you're a wizard, then there's probably a way to use any sphere as a beach ball.
I wouldn't want the high archmage that taught my wizard everything he knows to be a 1st-level Adept with nonelite stat array, for example. And every monster being a derp at least 5 CR below me with no tactics would get boring, fast.

Unless I was your garden variety munchkin, then this would be the best game ever. :smalltongue:

[Chronos]

The assumption was that no player would ever want to play any of those classes (which is probably true, with the possible exception of the Adept), and so the only people with those classes would be NPCs. It doesn't mean that all NPCs will have those classes, though.

[Madeiner]

Summary: PC's are NOT special on virtue of being a PC. They make themselves special thru their own actions and advancement. There will always be a bigger dog to bite back however.

Totally agree.

The only difference between PCs and NPCs is where the current spotlight at your table is pointing.
Spotlight as in, PCs get to do cool things on air; everybody else gets to do them off-screen.

[Silentone98]

Totally agree.

The only difference between PCs and NPCs is where the current spotlight at your table is pointing.
Spotlight as in, PCs get to do cool things on air; everybody else gets to do them off-screen.

yes,... but spotlight is an entirely different topic.

[cosmicAstrogazr]

My NPCs tend to have a rough hierarchy:


Cannon Fodder - No statblock or generic Commoner 1 at best.
Minion - 1-3 levels in an NPC (except Adept) or Tier 5 class.
NPC - a decent number of levels in an NPC class, or a couple levels in a Tier 3ish class; maybe even a (non-optimised) level or two of something more powerful. This is where they start to potentially be an actual help or hindrance to the party. For instance, a friendly healbot cleric, a local lord, magistrate, the ranger they hire to help them track something, that kind of thing.
PC-like - These are the signigicant individuals in the land; major allies and villains, the Mage King of Blahdeblah, the head of the Guild of Awesome ****, you know, the guy you go to to learn all the cool tricks in that shiny PrC. They get built like any PC, and optimised similarly.
Plot Device: Gods and epic level NPCs, basically. They may have a stat-block, but it's essentially meaningless until the PCs are in a similar area power-wise, and unless they're exceptionally stupid, they'll never encounter anyone on this tier with hostile intent.


The way I see it, essentially, is that the vast majority of people (adjusted for race) in the world will be weaker than the PCs, some people will be around the same level of power, and yet others will be more powerful, maybe even vastly more powerful.

[Silentone98]

and unless they're exceptionally stupid, they'll never encounter anyone on this tier with hostile intent.


I introduce my villians early.... this has resulted in at least one kick to the balls and followed by total party wipe. (campaign didn't end, just imprisoned PC's lol)

btw... love the list. Good stuff

[NichG]

@Nich: The line of discussion isn't concerning "why could NPCs be dumber than PCs" but the school of thought that NPCs should be automatically inferior to all PCs from all walks of life because, otherwise, the PC would be an NPC instead. That the very core qualification of a PC is "being better than NPCs and Monsters".

The question of where that school of thought comes from, though, is relevant to the line of discussion.

If players are used to their enemies using dumb tactics, being weaker than them, etc, then that creates a culture where that is the expectation. When players are confronted with a stark change from their expectations, you get friction and arguments that 'it must be this way' or 'it must be that way'.

Consistency is the most important thing. The PCs can be universally better than, worse than, or equal to NPCs and the campaign can be functional and entertaining, so long as the players understand it to be the case and are used to operating under that constraint. Take a campaign where the PCs have always been smarter than their enemies and have the enemies suddenly start behaving like Tucker's Kobolds and you'll have a TPK and a lot of feelings of betrayal.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't feel like PCs should get free plot-armor or anything like that. It makes me feel like I'm cheating when there's an obvious GM-handout (i.e. You died, so there's a druid standing outside the dungeon who rezzes you for free not hours after you killed his Animal Companion in cold blood).

Also, I prefer the GM to play enemies as appropriate. An ooze or zombie shouldn't think to flank, but hunters such as wolves have a decent grasp of hunting strategy, and sentient creatures are as good as their training.

[Silentone98]

...
If players are used to their enemies using dumb tactics, being weaker than them, etc, then that creates a culture where that is the expectation. When players are confronted with a stark change from their expectations, you get friction and arguments that 'it must be this way' or 'it must be that way'.

Consistency is the most important thing.

Consistency is very important...
as well as remembering that all individuals within a species are not the same, and only consistent within a range... one tribe of goblins could lack any sort of tactical strategy and have survived thru shear dumb luck and excessive breeding- whereas another could have a very organized and reliable military level strategist.

expectations be damned... if your not expecting the unexpected, your doing it wrong.... or playing a rather laid back game.

I can understand a players shock at such a change... but this is far from an unlikely scenario.

[cosmicAstrogazr]

I introduce my villians early.... this has resulted in at least one kick to the balls and followed by total party wipe. (campaign didn't end, just imprisoned PC's lol)

btw... love the list. Good stuff

Thanks. :smallsmile: ...yeah, in my current game, the party managed to mildly irritate one of the Plot Device NPCs, and got themselves into a 'fetch quest or be dinner' situation. It's been pretty entertaining for all of us so far, so.

[prufock]

Then why, pray tell, are they called "NPC Classes?"

Because those classes aren't supposed to be taken by PCs.

[Pex]

Of course there will exists NPCs who are quite competent and even more powerful than the PCs. However, the world actually does revolve around the PCs. As soon as the DM thinks NPCs are equally or even more important that is when he needs to step away from the chair. It's the DM's campaign, but it's everyone's game.

[Blackhawk748]

My NPCs tend to have a rough hierarchy:


Cannon Fodder - No statblock or generic Commoner 1 at best.
Minion - 1-3 levels in an NPC (except Adept) or Tier 5 class.
NPC - a decent number of levels in an NPC class, or a couple levels in a Tier 3ish class; maybe even a (non-optimised) level or two of something more powerful. This is where they start to potentially be an actual help or hindrance to the party. For instance, a friendly healbot cleric, a local lord, magistrate, the ranger they hire to help them track something, that kind of thing.
PC-like - These are the signigicant individuals in the land; major allies and villains, the Mage King of Blahdeblah, the head of the Guild of Awesome ****, you know, the guy you go to to learn all the cool tricks in that shiny PrC. They get built like any PC, and optimised similarly.
Plot Device: Gods and epic level NPCs, basically. They may have a stat-block, but it's essentially meaningless until the PCs are in a similar area power-wise, and unless they're exceptionally stupid, they'll never encounter anyone on this tier with hostile intent.


The way I see it, essentially, is that the vast majority of people (adjusted for race) in the world will be weaker than the PCs, some people will be around the same level of power, and yet others will be more powerful, maybe even vastly more powerful.

This is pretty much the scale i follow too, though i sadly have the tendency to only have Villains be on the same power level as the PCs, though that is entirely my fault and its something i have been attempting to rectify, with mixed success.

[Tanuki Tales]

Of course there will exists NPCs who are quite competent and even more powerful than the PCs. However, the world actually does revolve around the PCs. As soon as the DM thinks NPCs are equally or even more important that is when he needs to step away from the chair. It's the DM's campaign, but it's everyone's game.

I don't agree with that line of thinking being touted as the generalist approach.

If that's how your table operates, that's fine and dandy. But it shouldn't be held as status quo for games at all tables.

[Blackhawk748]

While i agree that it shouldnt, i do think that is the status quo. At least it has been with the several groups ive played with over the years

[Phelix-Mu]

Of course there will exists NPCs who are quite competent and even more powerful than the PCs. However, the world actually does revolve around the PCs. As soon as the DM thinks NPCs are equally or even more important that is when he needs to step away from the chair. It's the DM's campaign, but it's everyone's game.

Maybe it's down to play style, but it's not my job as Dm to make the PCs important. And the game doesn't even require that they be so. If the players want to goof around and open an accounting agency or something, that's great, I can work with that; the world might end due to whatever at some point, but until then, we have fun with the accounting agency. I don't feel a need to have the world revolve around the PCs; if they want to be part of the big story, then they have to jump through hoops and walk the walk the same as anyone else.

Otherwise, life goes on.

[Tanuki Tales]

While i agree that it shouldnt, i do think that is the status quo. At least it has been with the several groups ive played with over the years

It's never been the status quo at any of the tables I've gamed at over the years.

But both of us are presenting anecdotal evidence. :smalltongue:

[Blackhawk748]

A very valid point, as ive only gamed with about 5 different groups, one of which i taught lol

[cosmicAstrogazr]

This is pretty much the scale i follow too, though i sadly have the tendency to only have Villains be on the same power level as the PCs, though that is entirely my fault and its something i have been attempting to rectify, with mixed success.

This is a pretty easy fix, as long as you're willing to wing it a bit, and don't mind being a little arbitrary. I'd be happy to help, or offer advice, if you want. :smallsmile:

[Blackhawk748]

Thanks, but its more of getting my group used to no longer being "big fish in a little pond" and just being "fish in the sea" who need to watch out for the "Kracken"

[AlchemicalMyst]

Bottom line is that it's a GM's job to create an interesting, fun, and challenging story for his players to play out. PCs stand out not because they are PCs. They stand out because they are Adventurers!

That's what I notice a lot of people forget. NPC (aka nonheroic) classes are there for the majority population. The common townsfolk, nobles, kings even, etc. 'Heroic classes' are there for those who rise above and seek fame, fortune, or what have you which is why they are reserved for the more elite baddies in order to challenge the players, as they should be.

Players will always be adventurers but most NPCs they encounter are not and will never be, and thus the existence of NPC classes (it's not a left over from previous editions). That is the difference. You can go ahead and flesh your world out with every NPC having heroic classes but it's going to take away from the sense of importance your players should have (afterall you're running this for them in the first place). Also it begs the question, "If there are countless powerful adventurers running around, what's the point of the players' party?" that gets asked every campaign I see like that.

Edit:
Just to make my view clear, I think there should be plenty of heroic NPCs throughout a campaign's run. However, I've been part of or have been witness to just a few too many campaigns where at least 9/10 of all NPCs encountered were adventurers instead of true NPCs. It makes for an extremely repetitive and lackluster, not to mention immersion breaking, story when every street rat mugger is a graceful acrobatic rogue, every town guard is a well trained prized fighter, and anyone with even a hint of magic is a powerful [insert caster class here] who claims to be all powerful.

Really those kind of campaigns are more often than not ran with the "GM vs PCs" mentality that ruins the fun of the game. If the NPCs outshine the players, it's usually a bad sign at any table.

[Tanuki Tales]

"Heroic Class" isn't a game term, so...yeah.

[Silentone98]

Just to make my view clear, I think there should be plenty of heroic NPCs throughout a campaign's run. However, I've been part of or have been witness to just a few too many campaigns where at least 9/10 of all NPCs encountered were adventurers instead of true NPCs. It makes for an extremely repetitive and lackluster, not to mention immersion breaking, story when every street rat mugger is a graceful acrobatic rogue, every town guard is a well trained prized fighter, and anyone with even a hint of magic is a powerful [insert caster class here] who claims to be all powerful.

Really those kind of campaigns are more often than not ran with the "GM vs PCs" mentality that ruins the fun of the game. If the NPCs outshine the players, it's usually a bad sign at any table.

O.o if every peasant was a hero, that's a problem.... I don't think that's as common as you portray, although I ran into the same issue of DM's overpowering their NPC's so I can relate.


The issue here as I understand it was more along the lines of PC's feeling entitled to being top dog without exception. This actually has little or nothing to do with spotlight, or rather or not the world revolves around the PC's as some other posters have commented.
It has everything to do with the difficulties the PC's might come to encounter when interacting with this world and the NPC's in it.
Because, they are people in this world they are not always top dog(unless the DM's world was meant to be so)
because they have difficulties to overcome, they 'might' one day be top dog or close enough as to the difference to not be apparent.

I could elaborate on this... but to keep it short: The above isn't even necessarily a rule or what a person should expect, the DM himself needs to establish that. But I am pretty confident, PC's shouldnt expect automatically for themselves to be considered "superior to every NPC they meet".. maybe just most, :-p

[AlchemicalMyst]

"Heroic Class" isn't a game term, so...yeah.
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I had to meet some kind of uniform to post on your topic. If you note my use of emphasis, I'm marking it as a terminology...

I can't say "Base Classes" because what about Prestige? I can't say "Core Classes" because of all the other material outside of the accepted core not to mention technically NPC classes are "Core" so I opted to go with "Heroic Classes" which is a term used in many class RPGs, especially those made by WoTC.

You know, kind of like saying GM instead of DM even though this is a D&D discussion...

If you're going to ignore my entire post because I used a widely accepted term that you just happen to nitpick I don't see any reason to post further. I tried to give my input on a topic you obviously care about enough to post yet get a very pretentious and dare I say childish response.

[AlchemicalMyst]

I much prefer SilentOne's response. Well-thought out, to the point, and furthers open and peaceful discussion.

O.o if every peasant was a hero, that's a problem.... I don't think that's as common as you portray, although I ran into the same issue of DM's overpowering their NPC's so I can relate. On forums, not just this one, I've noticed a frightening amount. Not to mention those I'm seen personally. Enough to be common in my mind though I suppose probably not as bad in reality. I worry still.



The issue here as I understand it was more along the lines of PC's feeling entitled to being top dog without exception. This actually has little or nothing to do with spotlight, or rather or not the world revolves around the PC's as some other posters have commented.
It has everything to do with the difficulties the PC's might come to encounter when interacting with this world and the NPC's in it.
Because, they are people in this world they are not always top dog(unless the DM's world was meant to be so)
because they have difficulties to overcome, they 'might' one day be top dog or close enough as to the difference to not be apparent.
I completely agree, which is why I added that Edit to my previous post. Although when it comes down to it, the players ARE supposed to be top dog in the end. Should they have to struggle? Of course. Should there be the risk of failure? Yes, that's the nailbiting situations we all love! However, I notice too many players, nowadays especially, who feel very little attachment to characters because they expect to die at least once or twice in the span of the campaign. PC death should be a rare, tragic, and engaging event. No one should feel like the Bard from Dorkness Rising! HAHA

Anyways that gets a little away from the topic as I read it, I was just stating what the difference is between the average NPC and the average PC, which for the most part is... the PC should, on average, be above the NPC. The challenges should come from the tactics of the NPCs and the environment quite a bit more than pure class levels. That's why majority of any DM material relates to such.


I could elaborate on this... but to keep it short: The above isn't even necessarily a rule or what a person should expect, the DM himself needs to establish that. But I am pretty confident, PC's shouldnt expect automatically for themselves to be considered "superior to every NPC they meet".. maybe just most, :-p I don't think so either. NPCs always being weak and cannon fodder is just as bad if not worse than, IMHO, NPCs who always squash the party.

Players should always feel like the main driving force of a story, but no story is complete without hardships.

TL;DR:
"There's always a bigger fish."
GMs: Don't always have it bee the NPCs.
Players: Don't assume it's you.

[Tanuki Tales]

-Snip-

Your post was dripping in biased tones that exulted the importance of Player characters compared to Non-Player characters, even going to the length of insinuating that base classes are only meant for them as they're "heroes", while NPCs are not as such.

And you're the first person I've seen call base classes, "Heroic Classes".

[AlchemicalMyst]

Your post was dripping in biased tones that exulted the importance of Player characters compared to Non-Player characters, even going to the length of insinuating that base classes are only meant for them as they're "heroes", while NPCs are not as such.

And you're the first person I've seen call base classes, "Heroic Classes".Then you should reread it. I stated that COMMON NPCs should have NPC levels. What I then stated, which is probably what you misunderstood, is that very few NPCs should be adventurers (aka what I referred to as Heroic Classes). Guards, merchants, common criminals, etc should use NPC levels. That's what they're for. Military leaders, elite parties, BBEG, crimelords, etc should use the standard classes.

This is not just my opinion, this is how it is advised in literally every single game I will list below and more. Even the DMG, every GM should read it by the way, goes to say:
"The Player's Handbook extensively describes adventurers. But what about the rest of the world? Surely, not everyone's a fighter, rogue, or wizard...They represent the rest of the people in the world around the PCs who don't train to go on adventures and explore dungeons." ("NPC Classes" DMG 107)

Again I must clarify, NPC classes and Heroic Classes differ because Heroic Classes represent ADVENTURERS. NPCs can and should be an adventurer from time to time. However, majority of the time, they should not be.

Also, as for my terminology, I've played Victoriana, D20 Past/Modern/Future, AD&D and forward, Star Wars (Revised and Saga), WoD, NWoD, Exalted, Scion, Shadowrun, DH40k, Rogue Trader, and countless others. Just like I use the term GM for those games (instead of Storyteller, GM, DM, etc) I use the terms Heroic and Nonheroic for differentiating between a class/path/role/caste/whatever mainly for PCs and ones mainly for NPCs. It's just easier and you're the first person I've ever encountered who has ever had a problem with it. I apologize that I didn't spell it out for you. I thought I was quite clear on what I was referring to in my post without needing to go into such a lengthy explanation.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I had to meet some kind of uniform to post on your topic. If you note my use of emphasis, I'm marking it as a terminology...

I can't say "Base Classes" because what about Prestige? I can't say "Core Classes" because of all the other material outside of the accepted core not to mention technically NPC classes are "Core" so I opted to go with "Heroic Classes" which is a term used in many class RPGs, especially those made by WoTC.

You know, kind of like saying GM instead of DM even though this is a D&D discussion...

If you're going to ignore my entire post because I used a widely accepted term that you just happen to nitpick I don't see any reason to post further. I tried to give my input on a topic you obviously care about enough to post yet get a very pretentious and dare I say childish response.

She still was being a bit pedantic, but I wanted to bring to your attention that the widely accepted term is "PC class". That generally covers everything that players are expected to play, which also happen to be the ones which would most likely be used by "heroic" NPCs.

@Tanuki: Might you be being a little harsh? I don't think any of the posts on this thread have been any different in bias level than his own. He was expressing an opinion, same as everyone else here, and... Well, expecting opinions to be completely unbiased is sort of like asking for hot ice cream without any dairy. Some people have attempted things like it, but it really shouldn't go by the same name any more.

(This in no way reflects my own views of the opinions discussed, funnily enough)

[Pex]

If the DM doesn't think the PCs are the center of the universe then he should stop playing and write the novel he wants already and not waste the players' time. Without the PCs there is no game.

[Tanuki Tales]

She still was being a bit pedantic, but I wanted to bring to your attention that the widely accepted term is "PC class". That generally covers everything that players are expected to play, which also happen to be the ones which would most likely be used by "heroic" NPCs.

First off, I'm a guy.

Second off, I was not being pedantic. His choice of calling base classes "heroic classes" and then going to point out that only PCs will, for the most part, be "adventurers", have levels in these "heroic classes" and should be the most important thing in the setting shows very specific connotations and insinuations on his part when it comes to PCs and NPCs.

So my umbrage with his word choice has nothing to do with excessive concern for some kind of gaming formality; I took issue with the very heart of his post.


@Tanuki: Might you be being a little harsh? I don't think any of the posts on this thread have been any different in bias level than his own. He was expressing an opinion, same as everyone else here, and... Well, expecting opinions to be completely unbiased is sort of like asking for hot ice cream without any dairy. Some people have attempted things like it, but it really shouldn't go by the same name any more.

I'll agree that the level of Pro-PC>NPC bias in his post is no greater than what has already been shown thus far in the thread. But I think you're misrepresenting my issue with his stance if you're going to handwave the point of contention between him and me away with a simple "everyone's biased in someway" Aesop.

Edit:

@Pex: Now that's an over-exaggeration. Player characters don't need to be super special snowflake stars on which the celestial bodies of the campaign revolve around. Games are entirely capable of being fulfilling, worthwhile escapist exercises without fitting into what you're toting as the One True Way.

[AlchemicalMyst]

She still was being a bit pedantic, but I wanted to bring to your attention that the widely accepted term is "PC class". That generally covers everything that players are expected to play, which also happen to be the ones which would most likely be used by "heroic" NPCs.
For D&D alone, yes. But for those of us who play a lot of other RPGs (not saying you don't; but as a rule of thumb) Heroic sees more light in discussion than PC Class, especially since the term Nonheroic and Heroic are used in most other RPGs I've seen. Including a lot of WoTC material (as stated previously).


First off, I'm a guy.

Second off, I was not being pedantic. His choice of calling base classes "heroic classes" and then going to point out that only PCs will, for the most part, be "adventurers", have levels in these "heroic classes" and should be the most important thing in the setting shows very specific connotations and insinuations on his part when it comes to PCs and NPCs.

So my umbrage with his word choice has nothing to do with excessive concern for some kind of gaming formality; I took issue with the very heart of his post.

As I said before, I recommend you actually read my post. There's a reply above you seem to have skipped in which I explain your misinterpretations further.


@Pex: Now that's an over-exaggeration. Player characters don't need to be super special snowflake stars on which the celestial bodies of the campaign revolve around. Games are entirely capable of being fulfilling, worthwhile escapist exercises without fitting into what you're toting as the One True Way. The whole point of a tabletop is for the characters to take part in a story. The story you tell needs to revolve around the players. That's what a good GM does.

Does the entire world have to? Heck no. But your story, however large or small needs to focus on the players. The players may be playing a campaign where they are just trying to scrape by and play Tavern Tycoon, but your story then needs to then focus on the Tavern.

Too many GMs get a narcissistic "It's my story, now sit and listen," kind of viewpoint. GMs need to have the mentality of, "It's your story, now get ready to be part of it."

EDIT:
As you only seem to want a specific response instead of an honest answer to your posts I'll take my leave. Enjoy. Good luck to your players.

[Tanuki Tales]

Does the entire world have to? Heck no. But your story, however large or small needs to focus on the players. The players may be playing a campaign where they are just trying to scrape by and play Tavern Tycoon, but your story then needs to then focus on the Tavern.

There's a world of difference between the story being about the escapades of the players and their characters and statements that Pex has made so far.



Too many GMs get a narcissistic "It's my story, now sit and listen," kind of viewpoint. GMs need to have the mentality of, "It's your story, now get ready to be part of it."

And too many players get the equally narcissistic "The campaign world revolves around me and how dare you suggest otherwise" view point.

But at least we can agree that a happy medium between both extremes is paramount.

[Silentone98]

argue'ing over the terminology of something so easily identifiable/understood using either term, is kinda silly...


as to Pex, I'm not quite sure how to state it:
Your world does not have to revolve around the PC's in order for the spotlight to be on them....
and furthermore- it has nothing to do with the OP's topic he presented.

Neither spotlight nor who the world revolves around reflects on PC's expecting to be "superior to every single person*" they come across.
Unless of course.... the campaign was entirely meant to present the PC's as top dog from the start.... and theres nothing to stop them from advancing their power to that level eventually either.

*Edit

[3WhiteFox3]

As one of the PCs>NPC advocates that TanukiTales is probably talking about, I'd like to help clarify my position and the context of my posts in the Intelligent Monsters thread.

First, I was introduced to roleplaying mainly by reading optimization forums such as these, I consider myself an optimizer who enjoys a good challenge. What I mean is that I don't want the PCs to be given constant freebies. For me, most of the challenge comes from making a fun, competent and awesome character that I want to roleplay as best I can. The game should require challenges that help to prove that my character is a hero (not necessarily an undefeated one) who can handle both defeat and victory.

I say the above, because it's how I think about the game. I want to make a protagonist in a group of protagonists. And as heroes, the PCs story is by it's very definition greater than the supporting characters, minor characters and villains (the NPCs). After all, once you kill the goblins, their role is depleted and unnecessary, their entire narrative purpose was to be an obstacle for the players to overcome. As with any good story, an RPG should also carry failure (intentionally or unintentionally on the DM's part); in my opinion, however, failure should never be assumed to be the default, it's only purpose is as motivation and character development.

I've met many DMs who take an adversarial stance against the players and that seem to set the PCs up for failure and seem to care more about their precious 'challenging encounters' than actually letting the players have fun and tell their story. So, as a player and a DM I tend to go with the assumption that NPCs should, by their very nature be lesser to PCs. The PCs should have the spotlight, at least most of the time.

That's not to say that the PCs should be the only important people in a story or in a world (having superiors is a part of many great stories). IMO, at the end of the day, the PCs should have the most active role in the story and not just react to the story as told by the DM, his perfectly played encounters (tactically), and his host of NPCs that are way cooler than the PCs and only exist for the PCs to fail against or run away from. (I'm not accusing anyone on these forums of playing this way, these are actual experiences that I've had to suffer through.)

Generic Disclaimer: There are many different play styles, mine is not objectively better or worse than another. I'm not arguing that my way is the only way or that it's even the best way. It's only the fact that when I've had the most fun, my character was a protagonist in an epic story about the PCs.

P.S. As to the argument about older D&D editions being more about PC supremacy... I don't know, I was introduced to RPGs by 3.5. However, my logic is that the PCs should have more spotlight and attention than NPCs, they are actually being played by individual people with investment (possibly major investment) in the story. NPCs are different, they exist to flesh out the world as scene dressing, side characters or villains as necessary. That's the divide between them, PCs are what drive the story and that the story revolves around. NPCs are the necessary characters that aren't the heroes, but important in each of their own roles.

EDIT: @Tanuki, there should definitely be a happy medium between the narcissistic GM and the narcissistic players. I'm not sure I agree with your definition of narcissism; doesn't the story revolve around the heroes by the very definition of protagonist? I don't mean that players should just get there way no matter what, but that the story to some degree must revolve around something... If not the players, then what? The DM? Why?

[Psyren]

You'd probably need to ask the original design team.

A holdover from 2nd edition perhaps?

Edit:

@Nich: The line of discussion isn't concerning "why could NPCs be dumber than PCs" but the school of thought that NPCs should be automatically inferior to all PCs from all walks of life because, otherwise, the PC would be an NPC instead. That the very core qualification of a PC is "being better than NPCs and Monsters".

I think PCs have higher potential - at least for the duration of the main plotline, and possibly beyond depending on their aspirations/ambition. They won't necessarily be the strongest guys on the block at any given point in time, but they were chosen for their role because of their ability to get there. They are the game-changers that shake up the setting's established status quo. They are the Fateless, the Nephalem, the Dohvakiin, the Nerevarine, the Champions of Kirkwall, the Shepard(s). Ultimately, the tale is about them.

[Tanuki Tales]

argue'ing over the terminology of something so easily identifiable/understood using either term, is kinda silly...


I will still stand by that the terms "Base Class" and "Prestige Class" are far more neutral in use than a term like "Heroic Class". There are just implications to the use of that terminology, especially in context to the topic of this discussion.

[Silentone98]

I will still stand by that the terms "Base Class" and "Prestige Class" are far more neutral in use than a term like "Heroic Class". There are just implications to the use of that terminology, especially in context to the topic of this discussion.

I agree..... and its still silly.. lol

[Tanuki Tales]

-Snip-

With this added context, I can see what you were trying to actually say. But this seems to boil down to being more of a point of contention concerning warring player and GM entitlement and the negative impact those two states of mind have on a collective gaming environment, than whether or not the player's characters are either inherently superior or lesser than non-player characters and how that lends to producing an engaging, challenging story for them to take part in and enjoy.


Generic Disclaimer: There are many different play styles, mine is not objectively better or worse than another. I'm not arguing that my way is the only way or that it's even the best way. It's only the fact that when I've had the most fun, my character was a protagonist in an epic story about the PCs.

I don't believe the two need to be mutually exclusive.


P.S. As to the argument about older D&D editions being more about PC supremacy... I don't know, I was introduced to RPGs by 3.5.

You had made a comment concerning what a PC had to do to go from being level 0 (and an NPC) and reaching level 1, which I construed as meaning you were aware of how older editions worked.


EDIT: @Tanuki, there should definitely be a happy medium between the narcissistic GM and the narcissistic players. I'm not sure I agree with your definition of narcissism; doesn't the story revolve around the heroes by the very definition of protagonist? I don't mean that players should just get there way no matter what, but that the story to some degree must revolve around something... If not the players, then what? The DM? Why?

I actually specifically said the "campaign world". As in the mindset that all Player Characters should be treated like they're Elminster.


I think PCs have higher potential - at least for the duration of the main plotline, and possibly beyond depending on their aspirations/ambition. They won't necessarily be the strongest guys on the block at any given point in time, but they were chosen for their role because of their ability to get there. They are the game-changers that shake up the setting's established status quo. They are the Fateless, the Nephalem, the Dohvakiin, the Nerevarine, the Champions of Kirkwall, the Shepard(s). Ultimately, the tale is about them.


Which is what I more or less said in the opening post. The players' characters are the central players of their ballad and gain certain considerations, as well as greater narrative attention and treatment, because the whole point of the game is for everyone to have fun.

My issue was that this translates into NPCs and Monsters being inherently inferior in all regards to the PCs, instead of their inferiority coming from their lesser narrative importance.

[TuggyNE]

I will still stand by that the terms "Base Class" and "Prestige Class" are far more neutral in use than a term like "Heroic Class". There are just implications to the use of that terminology, especially in context to the topic of this discussion.

Not sure what's wrong with just labeling all non-NPC classes (base, standard, and prestige) as "PC classes". :smallconfused: Did I miss something?

[Tanuki Tales]

Not sure what's wrong with just labeling all non-NPC classes (base, standard, and prestige) as "PC classes". :smallconfused: Did I miss something?

Alchemical's initial post labeled "PC Classes" as "Heroic Classes" and went on to insinuate that NPCs rarely should have levels in them. As well as a lot of language concerning how PCs are the ones who go out and seek fame and fortune and glory because of these "Heroic Class" levels.

Edit: And that by giving more than elite, specifically important NPCs "Heroic Class" levels would ruin the agency of the players.

[AlchemicalMyst]

Alchemical's initial post labeled "PC Classes" as "Heroic Classes" and went on to insinuate that NPCs rarely should have levels in them. As well as a lot of language concerning how PCs are the ones who go out and seek fame and fortune and glory because of these "Heroic Class" levels.

Edit: And that by giving more than elite, specifically important NPCs "Heroic Class" levels would ruin the agency of the players.
Okay I stepped out of the discussion but I won't sit by while someone insults me by butchering what I said because they couldn't be bothered to read it all.

Call it "Fluffy Bunny Levels" for all it's worth, the actual terminology used has nothing to do with who and what may take them. I just stated my opinion along with quoting the DMG's stance. Since you cannot be bothered to read it I'll post it again.

"The Player's Handbook extensively describes adventurers. But what about the rest of the world? Surely, not everyone's a fighter, rogue, or wizard...They represent the rest of the people in the world around the PCs who don't train to go on adventures and explore dungeons." ("NPC Classes" DMG 107)

Can't miss it now. :smallamused:

The fact that you don't agree is fine, this whole topic is purely opinion based, but don't try and inform others of my opinion when you were to busy nitpicking a single term (agreed with or not) and ignoring my main post explaining what I meant exactly to you, to be well informed on it.

Edit:
If you think that every city guard should be a fighter, every pickpocket should be a rogue, and every squire should be a bard/wizard then I can see why you're so confused on the whole NPC/PC divide as in that case everyone's an adventurer in your world. There's a reason the DMG says what it says.

If you don't think that, we are then on the exact same page and you're letting the term "heroic" get in the way of my point. Which, is just as equally silly and counterproductive to any discussion.

Edit 2:
To avoid further temptation to clarify any misquotations of myself I'm making use of a very handy list and as such can no longer agree with or refute anything Tanuki says from this point on.

[Phelix-Mu]

I think PCs have higher potential - at least for the duration of the main plotline, and possibly beyond depending on their aspirations/ambition. They won't necessarily be the strongest guys on the block at any given point in time, but they were chosen for their role because of their ability to get there. They are the game-changers that shake up the setting's established status quo. They are the Fateless, the Nephalem, the Dohvakiin, the Nerevarine, the Champions of Kirkwall, the Shepard(s). Ultimately, the tale is about them.

Not to pick on Psyren, but I generally feel that implication that there is weight on the DM to make the story work for the players and their characters is overemphasized. There is clearly give and take, but the DM's role is neither to drop a ton of overwrought plot on the characters, nor to have a bunch of cardboard cutouts dance around on the stage while the PCs save the day. PCs can certainly endeavor to save the day, or they can just chuck it and do whatever. I want the game to be fun, so I can accommodate a range of behavior and make some plot that will be fun. But the world at large doesn't stop evolving or changing just because the pcs decide to sit around and do x or y. We may not talk much about the bigger world, and it might not even be relevant. But, in theory, it's still there.

Even if the players are playing Tavern Tycoon, there's still an archmage over there at the Wizard's College. He won't necessarily figure into things, of course, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. He has to exist, in my opinion, because I need to be ready in case one of my totally insane players decides that his tavern needs a wizard from the wizard college.

Moreover, as much as I like to play in a sandbox, some players like the convenience of plot that draws them in and makes the directions things are going obvious. It's just a matter of preference, and one way isn't better than others.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

It's just a matter of preference, and one way isn't better than others.

I know I'm taking this out of context and from what I've gathered Phelix-Mu himself may (or may not) disagree with me, but I rather took an appreciation to this last sentence of his post because I think it summarily answers the main question of the thread itself.

Not that I don't have my own preferences so it's not a catch-all answer to such an open question. But I think everybody would appreciate in the long run if this grand idea were kept in mind so we could keep arguments like the one earlier on this page to a minimum. After all, a peaceful environment is much more likely to be an educational one.