PDA

View Full Version : PC:NPC symmetry



Pages : [1] 2

Mastikator
2015-01-25, 10:10 AM
Player NPC symmetry, players and NPCs being given the same stats and following the same rules, an example from a well known system D&D, both PCs and NPCs use the same six ability stats, but both draw from separate class types, PCs use Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric etc, NPCs use Warrior, Specialist, Noble, etc.

In your opinion, how important is PC:NPC symmetry to you when you play or DM?

huttj509
2015-01-25, 11:28 AM
Player NPC symmetry, players and NPCs being given the same stats and following the same rules, an example from a well known system D&D, both PCs and NPCs use the same six ability stats, but both draw from separate class types, PCs use Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric etc, NPCs use Warrior, Specialist, Noble, etc.

In your opinion, how important is PC:NPC symmetry to you when you play or DM?

Depends on system complexity.

The more complex character creation is, the more I want NPCs to be easier to construct. DM's making a lot more of them than the players make PCs.

Also depends on if the differences are up front, or just under the hood. I don't care if my NPCs don't have classes for each level, one at a time, if they end up where they're supposed to be. PCs, however, are much more likely to spend time at each level.

Frozen_Feet
2015-01-25, 11:29 AM
Not very.

Most systems I use inherently break it, giving NPCs vastly simplified stats compared to PCs. Which is fine by me, since it reduces GM workload and makes monsters easier to improvise.

It should be noted, though, that while NPCs in said systems have less stats, they still fall into the same numerical ranges as those of the PCs. There's no inanity like in some videogames where PC hitpoints cap at few hundred but their damage goes up to thousands, while NPCs make paltry damage yet have hitpoints in the thousands, even millions.

chadmeister
2015-01-25, 12:10 PM
It's always an option, and for published characters I want them to have all the stats available so I can do any necessary changes more easily.

But I like the idea that NPCs can be created on the fly with as few stats as possible.

jedipotter
2015-01-25, 04:11 PM
In your opinion, how important is PC:NPC symmetry to you when you play or DM?


I think it's important not to have it. PC and NPC are different and should be under different rules.

First off, a PC is meant to be a long lasting character. An NPC often has a very short existence.

Second, a PC is made to be 'well rounded' in theory. An NPC is often very specialized.

Third, a PC needs to fill one or more vague roles. An NPC often only has one small role.

Knaight
2015-01-25, 04:14 PM
I generally like having a limited degree of symmetry, though there are games that break this that I don't mind. For instance, if the rolls in a game are of an attribute or a skill, I'd generally like NPCs to pull from the same skills and have the same attributes. I couldn't care less regarding how those are assigned, if the NPCs have a different attribute total or whatever, it's fine by me.

mephnick
2015-01-25, 06:08 PM
I care less as the years go by. When I first started DMing 3.5 I thought PC:NPC symmetry was a holy law and would build them the same.

Now that I actually have more important things to do with my time I say "Eh, that demon would work re-fluffed as a spellsword. Done."

No one seems to care.

Jay R
2015-01-25, 06:57 PM
NPCs should be characters that are fun to interact with, at a specific time and in a specific situation. PCs should be characters that are fun to play, at any level at all times in all situations.

Since the purposes are different, the optimal rules are very likely to be different.

Ravens_cry
2015-01-25, 07:32 PM
I tend to like it. Maybe it's a little naive of me, but I think it makes for a more living, believable world when you don't have massive distance between the PC and NPC, Moreover, I find it makes things more believable in a narrative as as well. For example, it's hard to imagine that the baddie fell from goodness and became an agent of evil, and so would we but for our stout courage and the grace of the gods, if their abilities can literally be only gotten as an NPC baddie.

Tengu_temp
2015-01-26, 01:40 AM
One thing I don't like about PC:NPC symmetry is that it encourages the kind of player who demands to know what kind of class/race/feat gave the NPC the abilities it has, or even worse, demands access to the same class/race/feat.

Other than that, I'm fairly neutral towards it. It's nice to have, but it won't make or break a system for me.

Vitruviansquid
2015-01-26, 01:46 AM
It is very important to *not* have PC:NPC symmetry.

If I'm the DM, I want to be very very lazy because DM'ing is a lot of work in most systems. NPC's should be simple, and I shouldn't have to worry about a lot of information that isn't going to actually matter in the game. As a player, I want the game to have lots of fun fiddly bits to play around with for customization, so PC's should be complex and have a lot of mechanical substance to them.

Almarck
2015-01-26, 02:01 AM
I like to have varying levels of NPC complexity and thus symmetry.

Level 1: The Mass. This is the cheap, simple, NPC stats blocks that DMs should need like dozens of. These are simple characters with a little backstory and purpose, enough to be interesting, but only exist for a fleeting moment while in game. Mooks and generic NPCs fall into this category.


Level 2: The Specific. These characters are designed to be complex, utilizing a single class with a specific build, for a specific purpose. NPCs of this type are made more complex because that more complexity adds chaos. Upgraded Monsters, minor bosses, and reusable allies fit in this grouping. Sometimes more powerful than more complex NPCs.


Level 3: The Unique. This is the most complex level of NPC. Reserved specifically for long term NPCs, powerful but not game breaking bosses, rivals, ect. This is where the NPC is meant to be on par with a PC in every way, needing PC classes and items to match. However, the ammount of work they need to create is about the same as building a PC of the appropriate level, so they are used sparingly.

Forrestfire
2015-01-26, 02:41 AM
I think it's important not to have it. PC and NPC are different and should be under different rules.

First off, a PC is meant to be a long lasting character. An NPC often has a very short existence.

Second, a PC is made to be 'well rounded' in theory. An NPC is often very specialized.

Third, a PC needs to fill one or more vague roles. An NPC often only has one small role.

Exactly this. NPCs serve a different narrative purpose than PCs, so building them as PCs is a waste of effort and time. They also oftentimes need things that PCs cannot get (like how, in 4e, Solo monsters got extra hp and actions to make up for the fact that they have four PCs aimed at them), just to make them work in the system. PC:NPC game mechanics makes this awkward, and honestly, I think transparency between them, while a nice idea in theory, is hard enough to design well that I have not seen a system that even came close.

That's not to say that PCs shouldn't be able to do stuff like play as monsters... But even in that situation, those monsters played as PCs would ideally run on different rules than a normal one, because it causes less problems.

Anonymouswizard
2015-01-26, 07:15 AM
I'm with the it depends category. For example, for me the level of NPCs are the following:

Level 1: the background. These are either part of the challenge or just background decoration and as such need two/three stats: skilled roll, unskilled roll, and resist damage.
Level 2: extras. These are the guys who need some separation from the masses but don't require a full sheet. This includes most recurring NPCs and combat encounters. You can probably do with a template with a few variations (e.g. for a Nosferatu Skulk template in a vampire game you could have the variations of: "Sabbat: 11th gen" and "Broker: expression 3").
Level 3: characters. These guys deserve full sheets with PC stats, but not built to PC rules. This is mainly for key villains and allies.
Level 4: doubles. Built exactly the same as PCs, and used only when you want to use enemies equivalent to the PCs.

johnbragg
2015-01-26, 09:00 AM
I tend to like it. Maybe it's a little naive of me, but I think it makes for a more living, believable world when you don't have massive distance between the PC and NPC, Moreover, I find it makes things more believable in a narrative as as well. For example, it's hard to imagine that the baddie fell from goodness and became an agent of evil, and so would we but for our stout courage and the grace of the gods, if their abilities can literally be only gotten as an NPC baddie.

Does it matter if, in-universe, they acquired those abilities after their fall from grace?

Ravens_cry
2015-01-26, 09:48 AM
Does it matter if, in-universe, they acquired those abilities after their fall from grace?
What's stopping the characters the players portray from falling from grace?

Segev
2015-01-26, 10:03 AM
I feel that this symmetry is important in so far as it should be possible that, anything an NPC is able to do, a hypothetical PC could be constructed to do, in the same combination. I also feel it's important to determine in your OOC, at-the-table social contract (formally or not) whether or not PCs are forbidden from treating other PCs the way they would NPCs. That is, if a PC would pickpocket the NPC guards to steal their lunches, is it acceptable that he'd do similar to the other PCs? Similarly, if an NPC would earn swift and brutal justice for such a feat of sleight-of-hand, is it acceptable to exact such justice from a fellow PC?

I tend to be of the opinion that you either have a social contract where PCs are sacrosanct from each other, and you ask the other player before doing ANYTHING that might be construed as hostile...or you have symmetry and while anything is fair game, so too is any reprisal. (You can draw the lines elsewhere, but if you draw them at all, it's best to go to the first option, because that way you ensure there's no "bully's haven" of being able to push the others around but leave them no recourse that isn't "over the line.")

From a gameplay perspective, NPCs should be easy to construct. Whether by having a few easily-modified quick-builds, or simply having a really easy stat block to construct for specific purposes, they are masses and need to be easy to handle. MAjor NPCs that are actually becoming important eventually should be built like PCs, but prior to that point, it's overkill.

The symmetry is important only insofar as you do not want to tell a player, "You can never, ever play somebody able to do something like what my NPC is doing." It starts to make NPCs feel like special snowflakes, and that's annoying. If anybody is going to be a special snowflake, it should be the PCs.

goto124
2015-01-26, 10:10 AM
Usually, there's an agreement that the players and PCs work together and respect one another. If the PCs don't, that's a rather unique kind of TTRPG, and if the players don't, it's not going to stay a fun game for terribly long.

This doesn't have to be done with NPCs as much. It'll help to not kill everyone you meet, but there's no reason for any obligation to really respect them.

johnbragg
2015-01-26, 10:16 AM
What's stopping the characters the players portray from falling from grace?

Option A: Nothing. Fall from grace and start working on those Damned Servant levels or whatever

Option B: NPC-dom. You're no longer a hero of the campaign, you're now a villain, and the party is working against you.

goto124
2015-01-26, 10:21 AM
Option A: Nothing. Fall from grace and start working on those damn Servant levels or whatever.

I misread it as this... we need more blackguards.

Frozen_Feet
2015-01-26, 10:55 AM
Segev's post was interesting, because I don't usually think of karmic repercussions as factor PC:NPC symmetry.

To me, symmetry or asymmetry are mostly about how PCs and NPCs are mechanically represented, and very little about their potential role in the emergent narrative. There are obvious cases where the two overlap, like 4th Ed D&D's rules for Minions, or Noitahovi's rules for Faceless Opponents; in both cases, the asymmetry between PC and NPC rules directly reflects the intended narrative position of the NPC.

But when it comes to deciding what would appropriate behaviour for NPCs, the primary considerations are the same as those for PCs: whether the character has interest and inclination to behave in such a way. For in-game decisions, in-game factors take precedence over out-of-game factors. If asymmetry exists, it does so because the PCs are antisocial hobos while the NPCs are law-abiding citizens; not because it would be unfair to the players for their characters to be targets of such behaviour. I find this superior, because it encourages players to pay attention to what actually happens in the game, rather than relying on metagame considerations to save their hides.

When it comes to player-versus-player conflict, I suppose I won't see eye-to-eye with most people on these boards. In short: to me, all of the various "gentlemen's agreements" and conventions like "don't split the party" are obvious tactical artefacts from a certain era, and are not necessary for RPGs to function. Indeed, the way such conventions are treated as sacrosanct is to my sensibilities horribly limiting, both tactically as modern games don't have to follow the mold of squad-level infiltration missions, and narratively as they effectively preclude many stories of tragedy and betrayal.

mephnick
2015-01-26, 11:25 AM
Level 3: The Unique. This is the most complex level of NPC. Reserved specifically for long term NPCs, powerful but not game breaking bosses, rivals, ect. This is where the NPC is meant to be on par with a PC in every way, needing PC classes and items to match. However, the ammount of work they need to create is about the same as building a PC of the appropriate level, so they are used sparingly.

Except there's no guarantee this character won't be exploded within 5 minutes of being introduced, despite the "Important NPC" tag, so I'd rather not spend an hour making a fully fleshed out level 16 character sheet for him. Unless I specifically give him abilities to escape an encounter with the PC's, which with PC:NPC symmetry, means he will have less abilities for other things. Then I'm creating an encounter, not a character.

Or I give him plot armor and hate myself.

Jay R
2015-01-26, 12:20 PM
Consider a possible skill, feat, or ability that would warp any encounter it was used in.

If a one-time NPC has that power, there is a single interesting, unique encounter.
If a PC had it, the entire game - every encounter, every session, the entire campaign - is warped.

Now consider a power that is useful only in a single, rare situation. It only works underwater in complete darkness, ofr example. No PC would want it, but the right NPC would.

Necroticplague
2015-01-26, 02:11 PM
I consider it good for versimilitude, but bad for actually running it. On the one hand, systems with higher degrees of symmetry (like GURPS) have the benefit of seeing something happen means that one can reproduce it. Anyone can be a character. It lends a good feel to the world, as if it actually has consistent rules under its surface. It also means things that give normally NPC-centric abilities (like shapeshifting) are easier to make work under the system.

On the other hand, NPCs serve very different purposes from PCs, so it makes a degree of sense to make there mechanics different, in order to reflect that. However, it means the world feels less real, due to arbitrary division that worlds don't normally have (it would be like if you and your friend operated on different laws of physics for some reason).

Segev
2015-01-26, 02:14 PM
Segev's post was interesting, because I don't usually think of karmic repercussions as factor PC:NPC symmetry.Glad you found it so.


To me, symmetry or asymmetry are mostly about how PCs and NPCs are mechanically represented, and very little about their potential role in the emergent narrative. I'm inclined to agree. My only preference for pure symmetry comes in not restricting capabilities to be exclusive to NPCs.


[In short: to me, all of the various "gentlemen's agreements" and conventions like "don't split the party" are obvious tactical artefacts from a certain era, and are not necessary for RPGs to function. Indeed, the way such conventions are treated as sacrosanct is to my sensibilities horribly limiting, both tactically as modern games don't have to follow the mold of squad-level infiltration missions, and narratively as they effectively preclude many stories of tragedy and betrayal.I actually am fine with any of these things...as long as they're agreed to OOC. The reason why I find the "gentlemen's agreements" valid and necessary is that some players just don't want to deal with intra-party conflict. They don't WANT to kill Bill's sneak-thief for taking their stuff, even though that would be totally in character for Alice's hair-trigger-temper barbarian who made her spot check. Worse, if Alice chooses to restrain her character to avoid killing Bill's, but Bill isnt' restraining his, Alice winds up with a character who is, essentially, being bullied. Which Alice may also not want.

Similar themes apply when there are PCs in the party who engage in anti-social behavior that gets the party in legal, moral, or ethical trouble, but refuse to be restrained nor constrained by anything short of violence or being kicked out. Now, lack of a gentlemen's agreement resolves this: they can be killed or kicked out or otherwise physically constrained. But it's generally better to come to some level of agreement on what kind of game you want to play, and make characters who can play it. If you're okay with intra-party conflict and with the consequence that sometimes players' characters screw over the goals of other players' characters, that's fine! But you have to be okay with that. OTherwise, you need to work out how you ARE going to permit PC actions to go in this game.

As for "don't split the party," that's part tactical consideration, part "don't put yourself out of the action" (as splitting the party means splitting the GM's attention means those not in the "on screen" group are not doing anything in real time), and part "be nice to the GM," as splitting the party divides their attention and makes it harder for them to keep everybody involved and having fun (which is one of their more stressful duties ANYWAY).


Consider a possible skill, feat, or ability that would warp any encounter it was used in.

If a one-time NPC has that power, there is a single interesting, unique encounter.
If a PC had it, the entire game - every encounter, every session, the entire campaign - is warped.I'm unconvinced. Such game-breakers...why are they NOT used to the effect that PCs would use it? How did the PCs defeat it if it's so game-breaking in their hands?



Now consider a power that is useful only in a single, rare situation. It only works underwater in complete darkness, ofr example. No PC would want it, but the right NPC would.I see nothing wrong with this. A PC taking it would perhaps be foolish, but should not be forbidden. Especially since clever PCs often find ways to render these sorts of advantages useful anyway, up to and including creating the environment in which they can use it.

johnbragg
2015-01-26, 02:37 PM
I consider it good for versimilitude, but bad for actually running it. On the one hand, systems with higher degrees of symmetry (like GURPS) have the benefit of seeing something happen means that one can reproduce it. Anyone can be a character. It lends a good feel to the world, as if it actually has consistent rules under its surface. It also means things that give normally NPC-centric abilities (like shapeshifting) are easier to make work under the system.

On the other hand, NPCs serve very different purposes from PCs, so it makes a degree of sense to make there mechanics different, in order to reflect that. However, it means the world feels less real, due to arbitrary division that worlds don't normally have (it would be like if you and your friend operated on different laws of physics for some reason).

I have an idea for running an E6 campaign someday where Big Bads do operate on different physics--instead of feats, some Big Bads take abilities outside the usual vanilla 3.5 realm--incarnum and psionics, acquired templates, 5e-style lair effects--that would only be available to PCs if they cut themselves off from society and became the next generation's Big Bads


Consider a possible skill, feat, or ability that would warp any encounter it was used in.
If a one-time NPC has that power, there is a single interesting, unique encounter.
If a PC had it, the entire game - every encounter, every session, the entire campaign - is warped.
I'm unconvinced. Such game-breakers...why are they NOT used to the effect that PCs would use it? How did the PCs defeat it if it's so game-breaking in their hands?

One option is to connect them to a specific geography. The Feylord has warped reality in his desmesne so that, when he is present, space and time dilate so that you get d6x5 ft movement. You could write a system for the PCs to create a similar effect, but it would require the PC to sit around his tower most of the time instead of adventuring.

Segev
2015-01-26, 02:55 PM
One option is to connect them to a specific geography. The Feylord has warped reality in his desmesne so that, when he is present, space and time dilate so that you get d6x5 ft movement. You could write a system for the PCs to create a similar effect, but it would require the PC to sit around his tower most of the time instead of adventuring.

See, that I have no problem with. "You could do this, but it is limited by this other thing that also limited the guy you saw using it. He just was in his element."

Jay R
2015-01-26, 03:12 PM
I'm unconvinced. Such game-breakers...why are they NOT used to the effect that PCs would use it? How did the PCs defeat it if it's so game-breaking in their hands?

Because only one person had it, and the PCs just killed him, of course.

Tell me, do you give your players breath weapons, or ban dragons as monsters?

jedipotter
2015-01-26, 03:54 PM
I feel that this symmetry is important in so far as it should be possible that, anything an NPC is able to do, a hypothetical PC could be constructed to do, in the same combination.

The symmetry is important only insofar as you do not want to tell a player, "You can never, ever play somebody able to do something like what my NPC is doing." It starts to make NPCs feel like special snowflakes, and that's annoying. If anybody is going to be a special snowflake, it should be the PCs.

This is not the right view. PCs and NPCs are not the same. A NPC can not be a special snowflake as there is not a player behind the character with an obsessive emotional attachment.

And it's a bit pointless to say ''oh hypothetically'' a PC could do anything a NPC can do.....when it's true, but not exactly possible. It's like having a Void Gnome class, that has lots of requirements that a PC would never do. Well, you just ''randomly'' set that up as an NPC only class. The same way you can make an NPC class that has a single good ability, but a bunch of worthless ones....no PC would want to waste the time taking that.

There are a lot of things a DM might want to have in the game, like say dragon riders, but not as something the PC's can do. The DM just does not want the troubles of a 1st level PC having an adult gold dragon.

And with default D&D, you get the ''interpretation'' arms race where everyone reads, does not read or whatever each line of type.

Honest Tiefling
2015-01-26, 03:54 PM
Eh, call me a bad DM, but I don't really like it. I love using possessed or corrupted NPCs, and guess what, you don't eat those abilities because they'll eat your brain, hypothetical player character. Of course, the villains employing this don't usually act all that sane in the first place, so there you go.

I also prefer it when there forbidden and unknown lore or knowledge. Sometimes the PCs get to it first. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes that's a part of the challenge. And sometimes its hard to use to the effect they want.

I will also admit, I am guilty of making overpowered NPCs that were not tactical geniuses for the players to fight. I find it works to drop some extra wealth on the party when they finally beat the NPC if such is lacking or just as a nice reward for beating it.

Mr.Moron
2015-01-26, 05:12 PM
The symmetry is important only insofar as you do not want to tell a player, "You can never, ever play somebody able to do something like what my NPC is doing." It starts to make NPCs feel like special snowflakes, and that's annoying. If anybody is going to be a special snowflake, it should be the PCs

How far does this go exactly?

Does this extend to social standing? If the players meet the King (an NPC) must they be allowed to potentially become King?

Does this extend to type? If an NPC is say the last member of long-lost race, must the option exist for the setting to have really missed one, such that PCs of that race be generated?

Does this extend to scope of existence? If god appears in an NPC capacity of some kind, must PCs be able to ascend to godhood?

Does this extend to specific acts? If an NPC hunts the Great Yellow Bonjo-Bonjo bird to extinction and makes a point of bragging about, must their actually be some GYBBs left for the player to really finish off? Does the answer change of the NPC did this years before the PCs come to the island, or if he does it while they are there but tied up with other business?

icefractal
2015-01-26, 08:39 PM
I don't think they need to be built the same way - and unless the DM has a hell of a lot of free time, they probably shouldn't.

However, I like there to be symmetry in terms of qualitative capabilities, or a specific reason why that's not the case. So for example, if we're playing D&D 3.x, and there's some guy who can take more than one turn a round:
* If it's "because he's a solo fight" ... no, not cool.
* If there's a reason, like he's a demigod, or has been accelerated by some very powerful effect, or is actually having his body telekinetically moved around by several hidden allies ... then sure, why not?
* If he's extremely skilled in some class/feat-chain/whatever that lets him do this, and that skill is possible (not necessarily easy) for the PCs to learn ... then sure, that's fine too.

goto124
2015-01-26, 08:42 PM
"He's a solo fight" IS a (or even THE) reason to make him tougher. More than 1 round per turn is a bit much though, but that's another issue.

PairO'Dice Lost
2015-01-27, 03:15 AM
I'm in favor of complete symmetry of mechanics. If NPCs can become kings, perform dark rituals of ascension, shoot an arrow thirty miles, or anything else, then a PC can potentially do the same. Homebrewed material might have prerequisites like "Must study with this really obscure tribe of elves" or "Must conduct a month-long ritual with the Talisman of Al-Akbar as a focus" or the like, but if the PCs are able to find out about the requirements (which they can do in any game with research/knowledge subsystems) and are willing to do that, then they can learn the super-move or pull off the dark ritual. Also, I never make requirements so niche that only the BBEG could plausibly pick something up, as in jedipotter's Void Gnome example, partly because that makes little sense in-setting--the PrC or spell or other plot device had to have been figured out by someone, after all--and partly because if you're going out of your way to make it impossible for the PCs to take you might as well just handwave it and I don't like doing that.

PCs and BBEGs are not special snowflakes, and should not be set apart by using a different physics engine from the rest of the world. And this lack-of-special-snowflake-ness extends to symmetry of plot as well, so the PCs don't get to override setting details simply by virtue of being PCs, as in Mr.Moron's examples--a PC could be the last member of a long-lost race, but not the last member of the same long-lost race whose last member has already been established, and they couldn't commit genocide against the already-nonexistent Yellow Bonjo-Bonjo bird but could certainly try to wipe out the Red-Tailed Pseudodragons if one looked at them funny.

I hold this view for a few reasons, the first of which is the abovementioned PCs-are-just-like-NPCs thing. PCs should be hailed as heroes due to the actions they take and should destroy the Evil Altar of Evil instead of using it because they're not morally bankrupt, not because they have "Designated Protagonist" tags above their heads and the Altar has the "Prerequisite: Can only be used by Designated Villains" tag. I find that sort of thing to be just as irritating as other forms of railroading and plot armor; if you're a good guy just because the game doesn't allow you to be a bad guy, then (A) that's sort of defeating the purpose of playing an open-ended game like an RPG and (B) that makes your "choice" to be good meaningless.

Secondly, NPCs can serve a lot of different roles in the story: an ogre chieftain can be an enemy fighting the PCs or a (possibly mind-controlled) ally fighting monsters with the PCs, he could be a terrifying boss-level threat for low-level characters or Minion #37 to be mowed down by high-level characters, he could pick up the +5 sword of awesome or be disarmed and have to fight with his fists. Any game that asks you to re-stat a monster when he changes sides, says to use a different stat block for the same creature every few PC levels, or breaks down when a monster uses different equipment is not a robust enough system for me. (And before anyone thinks that's just a dig at D&D 4e--which does fail on all those points--it applies to AD&D as well, where monsters don't have ability scores and trying to put a belt of storm giant strength on a salamander gives you a Divide By Cucumber error, though at least AD&D monsters only break down in corner cases and have the numerical ranges to be used on both Team Monster or Team PC fairly easily.)


To those who say that PC-NPC symmetry is a problem because it means spending too much time on generating NPCs, I say instead that that just highlights a problem with the PC generation process and the game's mechanical complexity in general. Back in AD&D people could roll up PCs in a few minutes, even mid-level wizards and other relatively complex characters, and that changed in 3e not because they introduced character symmetry but because skill point accounting is a pain, monsters have too many types, PrCs are given pointless prerequisites to prevent entering them "too soon," characters need a certain checklist of items to compete at mid-high levels (and spend their hundreds of thousands of gold pieces 1 gp and 5 gp at a time), and so forth. If one streamlines the NPC creation process by only giving them maxed-out class skills, choose simpler or randomly-generated equipment, and the like the process goes by quite quickly; if one makes houserules to fix mechanical issues (which practically every group does anyway) like removing the cross-class point costs, making Int increases retroactive, reducing PrC prerequisites to "Level: 5th" and one additional easy-to-meet thematic requirement, remove Big Six items and go by item levels rather than WBL, and stuff like that it becomes quicker and easier still.

TheCountAlucard
2015-01-27, 08:04 AM
This is not the right view. PCs and NPCs are not the same. A NPC can not be a special snowflake as there is not a player behind the character with an obsessive emotional attachment.The DM is a player, and like all players, is capable of emotional attachment.

goto124
2015-01-27, 08:39 AM
I'll leave it to someone else to explain the dangers of a DM getting attached to a character.

For PC and NPC symmetry to work, the system must be catered to it, such that character creation is sufficiently streamlined, for example. How many systems actually have this?

Also, symmetry like this is for 'versimilltude', and after reading the arguments... I get the feeling it would take a very experienced player to notice the difference and to be actually somewhat upset about it. Perhaps it's my gamist attitude (non-symmetry would be required in computer games obviously), but stuff like handwaving doesn't sound bad in and of itself.

mephnick
2015-01-27, 09:00 AM
My players were well versed enough in 3.5 to say "oh he casted ______, he's obviously a level X _______ with so and so abilities, around ______ HP. We'll likely need to roll ___ to pass his DC's. Here's how we should deal with this."

I absolutely hated it as a DM.

So now I just make stuff up and tell them to roll knowledge or go kick rocks.

Vitruviansquid
2015-01-27, 09:43 AM
90% of DM'ing is just smoke and mirrors, anyways.

If all the PC's are blind, I don't see why the DM has to build his setting with color, if you get my drift.

NichG
2015-01-27, 10:08 AM
I strongly agree with 'they must be asymmetric'. The roles of PCs versus NPCs in the game are very different. That said, NPCs, the world, and the PCs should all be mutually consistent with one another in that there should be patterns which the players can make use of.

I think a lot of what people want from symmetry, is really more about consistency. The idea is, if NPCs use the same rules as PCs, then as a player you can reason about an NPC's abilities by observing them. If you see them using Teleport, you know they're at least a certain level, maybe have access to other 5th level spells, etc, etc. When you have PC/NPC asymmetry, that 'easy' consistency goes away. Instead, the DM has to intentionally create patterns in NPCs and also has to communicate enough information to the players so that those patterns can be figured out early enough for them to see re-use.

It's pretty easy to put that consistency back into the game even for an asymmetric system. For example, lets say that for gameplay reasons you want some NPC to have a 10x hitpoint multiplier and three actions a round (they're supposed to be a boss fight for the party, and for various reasons you don't want to just dump a bunch of minions onto the field). Okay, that's fine, but if you make them look like any other human and really be indistinguishable, then there's no pattern for the players to latch onto.

On the other hand, create some sort of force in the setting that possesses a character and makes them super-buff for a short period of time 'at great cost' (they can do it three times and then it kills them, lets say), and which has certain cues that can be used to detect it and now it feels like there's a pattern. Everyone who has glowing veins of energy twitching beneath their skin is 'one of those guys' and is going to potentially have a massive hitpoint pool and will move scarily fast. Maybe the PCs can never be 'one of those guys' (the force is opposed to them and would just possess them/kill them if given a chance, or its just a really bad deal for PC because of the side-effects), but there's a rationale of some sort behind why the random guy suddenly has tons of hitpoints and actions, and that rationale gets re-used so it can be used as a basis for the players to reason.

So instead of 'everything uses the same mechanics', Things like "orange energies indicate the most dangerous/plotty faction" or "when it has falling stars in its eyes then get ready for existential failure" or "when something twists and shapes the terrain around it, look out for infectious diseases of the soul", etc become the recurring patterns that players can use to make sense of the DM's world.

mephnick
2015-01-27, 10:40 AM
Yeah, it's easy enough to be like "This thing is glowing black like that other thing you fought. It's probably powered by the Old God as well, get prepped for Lair Actions, bro."

Then the players know that normally they wouldn't be allowed to fight like this guy, and there's a reason for it, but I guess they could conceivably RP their way into it if they pay attention..

Segev
2015-01-27, 11:02 AM
Because only one person had it, and the PCs just killed him, of course.

Tell me, do you give your players breath weapons, or ban dragons as monsters?I would be willing to allow players to have breath weapons, if they devoted appropriate character-building resources to it. In fact, dragons tend to be over-costed for their ECL, so I'd have little problem with a PC having a breath weapon from being one.


This is not the right view. PCs and NPCs are not the same. A NPC can not be a special snowflake as there is not a player behind the character with an obsessive emotional attachment.Somebody else already put this well, but I'll reitterate: the DM's special snowflake NPC is still a special snowflake belonging to a player. The player who has the most power to break or change the rules on a whim to make sure their special snowflake is special "enough."


And it's a bit pointless to say ''oh hypothetically'' a PC could do anything a NPC can do.....when it's true, but not exactly possible. It's like having a Void Gnome class, that has lots of requirements that a PC would never do. Well, you just ''randomly'' set that up as an NPC only class. The same way you can make an NPC class that has a single good ability, but a bunch of worthless ones....no PC would want to waste the time taking that.If you say "must be an NPC," you're making it literally impossible. "It's my toy and you can't have it." If you say, instead, "these are the requirements; you can try to meet them, but it's unlikely the circumstances that made it worth it to this NPC will make it worth it to your PCs."

That becomes either a choice for the players, or a role-playing challenge if they choose to try to find a way to make it work for them.


There are a lot of things a DM might want to have in the game, like say dragon riders, but not as something the PC's can do. The DM just does not want the troubles of a 1st level PC having an adult gold dragon.And just because you see a level 20 wizard casting Wish doesn't mean your first level PC fighter should be able to do so. But you SHOULD be able to make a character who, by 20th level, be able to cast Wish.


Eh, call me a bad DM, but I don't really like it. I love using possessed or corrupted NPCs, and guess what, you don't eat those abilities because they'll eat your brain, hypothetical player character. Of course, the villains employing this don't usually act all that sane in the first place, so there you go. Sure, you can get them. You just stop being viable as a PC. I tend not to like this, either, as I feel it's a cop-out, but it's better than the "because special rules apply only to NPCs" version of asymmetry. At least the reasoning is symmetric: all characters corrupted by this power go mad and are controlled by the GM. Sure, your PC can gain it...but he becomes controlled by the GM in the process. (I prefer more in-depth systems for dealing with corruption, but that's a whole nother thread.)


I also prefer it when there forbidden and unknown lore or knowledge. Sometimes the PCs get to it first. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes that's a part of the challenge. And sometimes its hard to use to the effect they want.Just because it's forbidden doesn't mean the PCs shouldn't be able to try to use it. At least as able as an NPC would be. It being hard to make effective? That's fine.


How far does this go exactly?

Does this extend to social standing? If the players meet the King (an NPC) must they be allowed to potentially become King?Not quite relevant, but yes, there should be at least as much possibility of them becoming king as there is for any other character of their race/class/social status, and there should rarely be restrictions that prevent characters being created with the capability.

There are caveats; I think I'll get to them by the end of this post.


Does this extend to type? If an NPC is say the last member of long-lost race, must the option exist for the setting to have really missed one, such that PCs of that race be generated? Probably not. But it definitely skirts the line. There can be valid reasons for forbidding it, but if being "the last of this one race" is a part of a package deal of "so they get all of these powers and ablities that no PC ever can have," it starts to smack of things with which I take issue.


Does this extend to scope of existence? If god appears in an NPC capacity of some kind, must PCs be able to ascend to godhood?And here we really get to the caveats: If you're running a game with certain restrictions, it is okay that there be things within those restrictions that cannot do "anything" that anybody in the game does. However, the more of these "nope, you can't do that, because you're not cool enough" NPCs show up, the more it hits on the problem with asymmetry.

And, if it's possible in-setting to ascend to become a god, PCs should have the ability to try as much as anybody else.

There are obviously gradiations to all of this; the slippery-slope argument against PC-type restrictions is "slave pit rules." I've seen DMs restrict character creation to very narrow levels of power and proceed to dump NPCs on the party that vastly out-classed them. I find that no better than (and often worse) a DM who makes everything the party comes across 10 levels higher in D&D.


Does this extend to specific acts? If an NPC hunts the Great Yellow Bonjo-Bonjo bird to extinction and makes a point of bragging about, must their actually be some GYBBs left for the player to really finish off? Does the answer change of the NPC did this years before the PCs come to the island, or if he does it while they are there but tied up with other business?No, but the ability to hunt rare and/or dangerous game to extinction should remain a feasibility.


The key point is that there shouldn't be end results that are beyond the reach of PCs but which NPCs can achieve, as a general rule. Barring level restrictions and character-building resource limitations, there shouldn't be things that players CANNOT do, outside of specialized games with defined limits due to the nature of the game.

e.g. "You're playing recruits in the Demi-Human Adventurer's Society, so you need to play one of the PHB races that isn't half-orc," is fine. But turning around and making the cool things all require orc blood...that's not so much.

jedipotter
2015-01-27, 04:47 PM
The DM is a player, and like all players, is capable of emotional attachment.

DM is not a Player. Dungeon Master and Player are Different words. And they have different roles.



Somebody else already put this well, but I'll reitterate: the DM's special snowflake NPC is still a special snowflake belonging to a player. The player who has the most power to break or change the rules on a whim to make sure their special snowflake is special "enough."

A DM has between 1-100 Characters per game, a player has one(maybe two or three if they play mounts, pets, or whatever). So with only one character, the player treats them special. It's the only character they have. And, a player has to follow the DM's rulings. And the DM controls the game world. A DM can have a spacial character, but it's not the same when the DM can make any call they wish and control the game world.

Take player Sally. She has character Zora, the only thing she can control is her character. Zora gets into a fight and dies. Sally can not do anything about that. Take DM Eric. He has 50 NPCs or so that he runs, and he really likes Zippo the Evil Gnome. Then zippo gets killed in a fight. No problem, as the DM is all powerful, he can just say ''Zippo's brother Harpo was hidding nearby, and brings his brother back to life''.



If you say "must be an NPC," you're making it literally impossible. "It's my toy and you can't have it." If you say, instead, "these are the requirements; you can try to meet them, but it's unlikely the circumstances that made it worth it to this NPC will make it worth it to your PCs."

I guess it sounds better to have a list of hard requirements, then to just say ''no'', but your still ''just saying no''.

For a good example, giving a NPC a spell like ability to cast a spell at will does not matter much. Even with that ability, the NPC will only be alive a couple minutes. But you can't give the game ability to the PC's without unbalancing the game.

The good, game breaking stuff must be NPC Only.

icefractal
2015-01-27, 06:11 PM
"He's a solo fight" IS a (or even THE) reason to make him tougher. More than 1 round per turn is a bit much though, but that's another issue.The ultimate reason, but to my mind, there's a difference between:
A) He's a solo fight -> So he has multiple turns and X other abilities.
B) He's a solo fight -> So he's bound several powerful demons to himself -> So he has multiple turns and X other abilities.

The end result might mechanically be the same, but acknowledging that this is an atypical ability, and having a reason why it's possible (and which might suggest ways to counter it, or try to replicate it), makes a lot of difference.

Telok
2015-01-27, 06:54 PM
For me it absolutely depends on the game system. In Shadowrun I am absolutely not going to stat up NPCs the way you build PCs. In Call of Cthulhu and Traveller the characters are simple enough that it isn't a problem. In Paranoia I do what is the most humorous. A dark, violent, humor with puns, double entendre, and heat-seeking chainsaw rockets.

Make the NPCs to fit the story and the system. If you need faceless mooks to be squashed in combat then you can skimp on the details. If the PC's love interest gets afflicted with lycanthropy then I'd better have all the stuff I need to make that work in the system I'm running because I'm not stopping the game for twenty minutes to stat the NPC out but I absolutely need for that NPC to still adhere to the rules without a lot of hand waving and guesswork.

kyoryu
2015-01-27, 07:01 PM
It's pretty unimportant to me.

In terms of system interaction, it *can* be useful, but there's typically a long-term view with PCs that doesn't exist with most NPCs (doubly so in a more hack-n-slash campaign, where most NPCs will die after their encounter, never to be seen again). I mean, the impact of loss of Humanity on an NPC vampire is basically nil.

In terms of making "valid builds", it's not important at all to me. When making GURPS NPCs, for instance, I'd never worry about point totals.

goto124
2015-01-27, 07:48 PM
"but yes, there should be at least as much possibility of them becoming king as there is for any other character of their race/class/social status"

So, the DM has to take another 3 months to come up with a nobilty/royality system that didn't exist at first? To figure out how the finer point of diplomancy and running a country?

There is a limit to which a DM can flesh out the world.

nedz
2015-01-27, 08:14 PM
Verisimilitude, in a my setting, requires this symmetry — or at least it's appearance. Player's should be free to play a level 1 commoner if they wish — it just ain't very common.

In other settings Verisimilitude may mean something else.

I don't think that there are any hard answers here because it depends upon what you are trying to do with your game.

For instance: if you were running a super-heroes type game, then such symmetry would break Verisimilitude since everyone would be a super-hero. Now this is an extreme example but it makes the point.

Honest Tiefling
2015-01-27, 08:43 PM
"but yes, there should be at least as much possibility of them becoming king as there is for any other character of their race/class/social status"

So, the DM has to take another 3 months to come up with a nobilty/royality system that didn't exist at first? To figure out how the finer point of diplomancy and running a country?

There is a limit to which a DM can flesh out the world.

I would think the scope of such a task would stall long enough for the DM to figure out something. Most games don't have ways to instantly summon an army, after all.

CarpeGuitarrem
2015-01-27, 08:50 PM
It can be nice to have the option, but it's hardly necessary.

I've run a lot of Dungeon World lately, and since the GM and players interact entirely differently with the rules, my NPCs don't have most of the stats that PCs do. Rather, I note if they have any special capabilities, how much HP they have, and how much armor they have. That's primarily because of how the game operates, of course.

4th Edition's use of monster statblocks was handy, because it meant you didn't have to spend time in character creation for all of your NPCs.

I like to play Burning Wheel, and there--you use standard character creation as you need to. It generally creates more interesting and deeper characters, but it's simple enough to start by assigning a few stats to characters based on general guidelines. I've done that, and then gone back and given a full character burn to NPCs who became more important.

Ultimately, it's a game, and games have particular ways of doing things. They're not always egalitarian.

AirApparent
2015-01-27, 09:10 PM
Coming from 3.5, one of my biggest gripes about 4 was the complete disconnect between what a player can do and what NPC's could do.
There was not one ability in the monster manual that could have been done by a PC. They were all unique to not only to NPC's, but also many times unique to that particular monster.

It may be my bias as a player, but I feel that PC's and NPC's exist in the same world and therefore should work within the same ruleset. Granted there may be some special cases (the way 5 handles solo monsters comes to mind, and I don't mind that too much), but if the goblin war-shaman gets an ability that lets him make necrotic ooze bubble up from the ground, a player should be able to make a goblin war-shaman that can do the same thing. That kind of thing didn't seem to happen in 4e.

I will admit the reduction of NPC stats to what's required is perfectly fine though. If the aforementioned war-shaman only exists in one battle, we don't need to hear about his ability to help his allies heal in downtime or his crafting abilities, for example.

TheCountAlucard
2015-01-27, 09:17 PM
DM is not a Player.Insist all you like, but that won't change facts.


Dungeon Master and Player are Different words.So are "quarterback" and "linebacker." Both are football players.

And they have different roles.Yet they're still playing the same game; the quarterback's just calling the plays, as it were. He's still a player.

Let's not put on airs, shall we?

Milo v3
2015-01-27, 09:29 PM
I prefer symmetry in most cases because it helps the world make more sense, if an NPC in the setting can do x as long as they meet y prerequisites, then a PC who meets y prerequisites in the setting should be able to do x.

The only exemption I can think of is monsters, I didn't exactly like how Legend stats up all monsters through the players Class system.

Knaight
2015-01-27, 09:35 PM
Coming from 3.5, one of my biggest gripes about 4 was the complete disconnect between what a player can do and what NPC's could do.
There was not one ability in the monster manual that could have been done by a PC. They were all unique to not only to NPC's, but also many times unique to that particular monster.

It may be my bias as a player, but I feel that PC's and NPC's exist in the same world and therefore should work within the same ruleset. Granted there may be some special cases (the way 5 handles solo monsters comes to mind, and I don't mind that too much), but if the goblin war-shaman gets an ability that lets him make necrotic ooze bubble up from the ground, a player should be able to make a goblin war-shaman that can do the same thing. That kind of thing didn't seem to happen in 4e.

The absolute end result isn't the only thing there though. A game in which every ability was PC accessible, but the way the NPCs were built different wouldn't be symmetrical. Then you get into unique things. For instance, I GMed a game where a recurring antagonist was essentially an undead composite spirit of a handful of very notable people. They had some unique abilities that weren't PC accessible. Some of the PCs in this same game had little magical talents or similar that were unique. NPCs couldn't access those, including NPCs that are just generally more powerful than them. At no point was this ever an issue.

jedipotter
2015-01-27, 09:49 PM
Insist all you like, but that won't change facts.

Five people gather to play D&D, four players and one DM. Seems like a simple fact. You would not have ''five players'' for a D&D game and no DM. The rules even make it clear that players and DM's are different. That is a lot of facts.



So are "quarterback" and "linebacker." Both are football players.
Yet they're still playing the same game; the quarterback's just calling the plays, as it were. He's still a player.

Ok, how about the coach? Is the coach a player? Though the football example is pointless.


I prefer symmetry in most cases because it helps the world make more sense, if an NPC in the setting can do x as long as they meet y prerequisites, then a PC who meets y prerequisites in the setting should be able to do x.

It just feels so false to me. One way is to say ''this is for NPCs only'' and the players just accept that. The second way is where the players complain they should be able to do anything, and the DM just caves in and says ok.

The third way is the false way: make some requirement. So, this sort of makes the player happy, as they could, in theory meet the requirement. And it's not saying ''no'' to the players. But in reality, the requirement can just be crafted so the players won't want to play the cost, will have a hard time doing it or otherwise stop them from wanting to do it. It is exactly like ''just saying No'', but it's false.

Milo v3
2015-01-27, 09:55 PM
It just feels so false to me. One way is to say ''this is for NPCs only'' and the players just accept that. The second way is where the players complain they should be able to do anything, and the DM just caves in and says ok.

The third way is the false way: make some requirement. So, this sort of makes the player happy, as they could, in theory meet the requirement. And it's not saying ''no'' to the players. But in reality, the requirement can just be crafted so the players won't want to play the cost, will have a hard time doing it or otherwise stop them from wanting to do it. It is exactly like ''just saying No'', but it's false.

Third isn't the false way... It is a way. because the players can pay that cost, and then get the ability. :smallconfused:

Also, how do you explain "NPC only" in the setting?

Vertharrad
2015-01-27, 09:58 PM
What's good for the goose...jedi is good for the gander. Goose(GM) meet Gander(Player).

Flickerdart
2015-01-27, 10:05 PM
If one streamlines the NPC creation process by only giving them maxed-out class skills, choose simpler or randomly-generated equipment, and the like the process goes by quite quickly
This is what I do with my bad guys, among other things - they use the same building blocks but different mortar than the PCs. So an NPC won't have access to an ability the PCs can't get, but he might have fudged entry a little bit and gotten into a PrC without the requisite number of hit dice or skill ranks (which I usually just abstract into being good at 2 out of 5 skill groups).

For me, it's not a problem if an enemy with Ability X can only be encountered at a high level due to Ability X being gained at level 8 of a particular PrC. If enemies had the same capabilities at every level, and only their numbers went up, it would be hideously boring for both me and the players.

jedipotter
2015-01-27, 10:44 PM
Third isn't the false way... It is a way. because the players can pay that cost, and then get the ability. :smallconfused:

Also, how do you explain "NPC only" in the setting?

It's false as the DM can always change things or just out right make them anyway they want. For example a DM can make a Prestige Class with a powerful ability, and set the requirements at ''must be of this race'', ''must follow this code'' and have a high feat tax. All of that turns away the players.

You don't need to explain the ''NPC only'' in the setting.....you only need explain it in the game.


What's good for the goose...jedi is good for the gander. Goose(GM) meet Gander(Player).

Only from the side that says ''everyone must, theoretically, be allowed to do everything.''

Really, it's no different then using this little bit from the Rules: Custom Stuff:

DM has NPC wizard make the ''Fireflame spell''. They are the only wizard in the world with that spell. Oh, sure ''in theory'' the PC's could kill the wizard and steal his spellbook, but other then that....the PC's can never know about or use that spell.

So how is that any different? It's not...

Vertharrad
2015-01-27, 11:05 PM
Only from the side that says ''everyone must, theoretically, be allowed to do everything.''

Irrelevant. Your ignoring what you don't want o acknowledge.


Really, it's no different then using this little bit from the Rules: Custom Stuff:

DM has NPC wizard make the ''Fireflame spell''. They are the only wizard in the world with that spell. Oh, sure ''in theory'' the PC's could kill the wizard and steal his spellbook, but other then that....the PC's can never know about or use that spell.

So how is that any different? It's not...

...And the PC's can do the same thing said NPC wizard did, make a spell by way of research and effort...which proves my point exactly. The NPC's can find ways to get said spell and we have the same thing being done by PC's and NPC's.

Knaight
2015-01-27, 11:16 PM
...And the PC's can do the same thing said NPC wizard did, make a spell by way of research and effort...which proves my point exactly. The NPC's can find ways to get said spell and we have the same thing being done by PC's and NPC's.

Sometimes the PCs have access to what the NPCs do, sometimes they don't. If the campaign is set up so the PCs are something like resistance fighters, they probably aren't going to have the various "call in the big guns" options. They probably won't even have much in the way of big guns. That's really not a problem.

Flickerdart
2015-01-27, 11:18 PM
Sometimes the PCs have access to what the NPCs do, sometimes they don't. If the campaign is set up so the PCs are something like resistance fighters, they probably aren't going to have the various "call in the big guns" options. They probably won't even have much in the way of big guns. That's really not a problem.
I think the distinction there is that the PCs should have access to the same things on a system level. Like, if they're level 12 guys, and they're fighting a level 15 guy with a feat that requires 18 skill ranks, it's fine that they don't have access to this feat in this specific situation. Same if they're all mundanes fighting a spellcaster - they can't do what he does now, but in another campaign they could.

Milo v3
2015-01-27, 11:36 PM
It's false as the DM can always change things or just out right make them anyway they want. For example a DM can make a Prestige Class with a powerful ability, and set the requirements at ''must be of this race'', ''must follow this code'' and have a high feat tax. All of that turns away the players.
Maybe they turn away your players, but just putting an ability in a prestige class doesn't exactly deter people in my experience :smallsigh:


You don't need to explain the ''NPC only'' in the setting.....you only need explain it in the game.
I disagree. NPC Only doesn't make sense at all in a setting, as in the setting people aren't magically PC's or NPC's, there both just Characters. Thus, because it doesn't make sense, an explanation is required if it is properly investigated.


Only from the side that says ''everyone must, theoretically, be allowed to do everything.''
Everyone doesn't have to able to do anything. :smallsigh:


DM has NPC wizard make the ''Fireflame spell''. They are the only wizard in the world with that spell. Oh, sure ''in theory'' the PC's could kill the wizard and steal his spellbook, but other then that....the PC's can never know about or use that spell.

So how is that any different? It's not...
Why couldn't the characters know about or use the spell? If they do the exact same research or whatever the Only Wizard did, then they should get the exact same result.

Knaight
2015-01-27, 11:44 PM
I disagree. NPC Only doesn't make sense at all in a setting, as in the setting people aren't magically PC's or NPC's, there both just Characters. Thus, because it doesn't make sense, an explanation is required if it is properly investigated.

All it takes for it to make sense in a setting is for the PCs to only represent a certain subset of the characters. For instance, in Chronica Feudalis PCs all have 3 wounds* (variability in durability is represented by how hard it is to get them). Some NPCs have 3, some 2, some only 1. Being extraordinarily flimsy is an NPC exclusive ability. It makes perfect sense here, as those characters aren't among the set that become PCs.

*Basically HP.

Milo v3
2015-01-27, 11:49 PM
All it takes for it to make sense in a setting is for the PCs to only represent a certain subset of the characters. For instance, in Chronica Feudalis PCs all have 3 wounds* (variability in durability is represented by how hard it is to get them). Some NPCs have 3, some 2, some only 1. Being extraordinarily flimsy is an NPC exclusive ability. It makes perfect sense here, as those characters aren't among the set that become PCs.

*Basically HP.

Considering you said "some NPCs have 3" that means that the symmetry is being met. It just happens that these player characters are in the same type of circumstances that leads to an NPC having 3 wounds. Cause and effect have occurred at some stage, thus is plausible.

Flickerdart
2015-01-27, 11:53 PM
All it takes for it to make sense in a setting is for the PCs to only represent a certain subset of the characters. For instance, in Chronica Feudalis PCs all have 3 wounds* (variability in durability is represented by how hard it is to get them). Some NPCs have 3, some 2, some only 1. Being extraordinarily flimsy is an NPC exclusive ability. It makes perfect sense here, as those characters aren't among the set that become PCs.

*Basically HP.
Being weaker is not a capability. Any PC wishing to have 1 wound need only knife themselves in the chest twice.

Knaight
2015-01-28, 12:04 AM
Being weaker is not a capability. Any PC wishing to have 1 wound need only knife themselves in the chest twice.

It is an asymmetry, and that wouldn't even take care of all of it - there are similar facets to other subsystems, and that NPC is also at a huge disadvantage in them. They'll get swept out of a parley easily enough, they'll be easily found when they're hidden or hidden from, etc. The system represents the narrative weight of the character, and having lousy narrative weight is NPC exclusive. PCs have maximum narrative weight by default. That's a pronounced asymmetry there, and it's not one that people tend to mind.

jedipotter
2015-01-28, 12:14 AM
Maybe they turn away your players, but just putting an ability in a prestige class doesn't exactly deter people in my experience :smallsigh:

You just need the right deterrent.



I disagree. NPC Only doesn't make sense at all in a setting, as in the setting people aren't magically PC's or NPC's, there both just Characters. Thus, because it doesn't make sense, an explanation is required if it is properly investigated.

If an NPC has something special, that is a game thing. There are no PC, NPC or even characters in the setting. Everyone in the setting is just a person. And people in a setting don't need an explanation. It's the player throwing a tempter tantrum at the table ''because he wants to have a character with pixie wings'' that needs the explanation.



Everyone doesn't have to able to do anything. :smallsigh:

That is what the other side is saying....if any character can do anything then any other character can do that too.



Why couldn't the characters know about or use the spell? If they do the exact same research or whatever the Only Wizard did, then they should get the exact same result.

If a wizard NPC makes a spell, why would the PCs know about it? Would you think the spell is added to the silly ''endless list of spells that every single spellcaster knows''? Why?

And that is where the False ''in theory'' comes in. Yep, right, sure...a PC can sit down and research a spell any time they want too. If they see someone cast a spell that makes ''claws of fire'' , they are free to make a spell that does that. But they in on way get to copy the effects of the spell, detail for detail. But, sure, they could make a close copy.....in theory.

Milo v3
2015-01-28, 12:33 AM
You just need the right deterrent.
And yet people can still pick that option.


If an NPC has something special, that is a game thing. There are no PC, NPC or even characters in the setting. Everyone in the setting is just a person. And people in a setting don't need an explanation. It's the player throwing a tempter tantrum at the table ''because he wants to have a character with pixie wings'' that needs the explanation.
Your experience with players must suck if that what you think players Have to be doing if there character wants an explanation @_@
Also, people in the setting do want explanations, not all people, but a hell of a lot of them. Otherwise there would be no scientists, spies, researchers or any proper knowledge what's so ever.


That is what the other side is saying....if any character can do anything then any other character can do that too.
Nope. It's that, if x + y = z. Then if a player does x + y, it should = z. But if for some reason, mystic ritual z required the person to be a centaur as x, and the player isn't a centaur because... most player characters aren't centaurs, then they don't meet x and they should deal with the fact that q + y might not = z rather than having a hissy fit about it.


If a wizard NPC makes a spell, why would the PCs know about it? Would you think the spell is added to the silly ''endless list of spells that every single spellcaster knows''? Why?
Well, it is that way with a lot of divine casters actually. :smallbiggrin:

But anyone can identify a spell with a good enough skill check, might not know the name that that specific spellcaster gave his custom spell, but it would be identified regardless.

NichG
2015-01-28, 12:47 AM
This really is a metagame issue, not an in-setting issue. Whether NPC-only makes sense in setting is purely up to how the DM implements it and how the setting is structured.

Here's two examples for how NPC-Only can make perfect sense in-character:

The genre is super-heroes. Every single character's abilities are unique. The super-heroes don't go to an in-setting place to select their abilities through education and training, they randomly get whatever the world and their unique circumstances give them. Why can't Batman choose to have super-strength, or why can't Superman cast spells? Because that's just not in their power-sets. The villains also get their particular unique powers. Everyone is unique, and therefore there's no in-setting expectation of shared rules. Out of character you might build a system with shared rules (allowing PCs and NPCs to pick their powers by expending points), but you might just as easily build that system with a separate power-list for PCs and for villains.

More prosaically, lets take D&D. Only if a character is a true dragon can they take true-dragon-only feats and spells. If the campaign has a rule 'PCs must be human', then any true-dragon-only stuff is strictly available only to NPCs. There's no in-setting strangeness, because obviously humans and elves and so on are different from dragons. The rule did not change the in-game reality, it changed what aspects of the in-game reality the players are permitted to run. In character, all it does is draw a logical connection between 'dragon-ness' and a specific subset of mechanics and abilities.

jedipotter
2015-01-28, 12:49 AM
And yet people can still pick that option.

If the vague and false ''in theory'' is good enough for you to say, in theory, that anyone can pick the option, then guess that is good enough to qualify.



Your experience with players must suck if that what you think players Have to be doing if there character wants an explanation @_@
Also, people in the setting do want explanations, not all people, but a hell of a lot of them. Otherwise there would be no scientists, spies, researchers or any proper knowledge what's so ever.

Players don't ''need'' explanations. They just want them. And well adjusted players can accept that ''somethings are unknown and will remain a mystery''.

People in the setting might ''want'' and explanation, but they can also live with no knowing. And like the well adjusted players they can accept that ''somethings are unknown and will remain a mystery''.



Nope. It's that, if x + y = z. Then if a player does x + y, it should = z. But if for some reason, mystic ritual z required the person to be a centaur as x, and the player isn't a centaur because... most player characters aren't centaurs, then they don't meet x and they should deal with the fact that q + y might not = z rather than having a hissy fit about it.

Right, you say a player must be given some crazy reason on a shoestring to make them happy. See X+y only equals Z, only IF PTQ is in the Seventh House of the Seventh Mounth and the Moon is full. Then the player is happy, as they know ''in theory'' they could have a character do that...maybe, some day, over the rainbow on big rock candy mountain. Maybe.



Well, it is that way with a lot of divine casters actually. :smallbiggrin:

But anyone can identify a spell with a good enough skill check, might not know the name that that specific spellcaster gave his custom spell, but it would be identified regardless.

Not exactly for the divine casters. The Rules say ''you get access to the spells on the indicated spell list''. It never says ''you know every spell that exists''.

You can not ''identify'' a Custom spell. Custom spells are special. The skill check only works for ''known spells''.

Milo v3
2015-01-28, 12:59 AM
Players don't ''need'' explanations. They just want them. And well adjusted players can accept that ''somethings are unknown and will remain a mystery''.
People don't "need" most things. And people can want things and still be well adjusted and accept something are unknown....


Right, you say a player must be given some crazy reason on a shoestring to make them happy. See X+y only equals Z, only IF PTQ is in the Seventh House of the Seventh Mounth and the Moon is full. Then the player is happy, as they know ''in theory'' they could have a character do that...maybe, some day, over the rainbow on big rock candy mountain. Maybe.
You keep saying things like they are being unreasonable. In my experience it isn't some player whining about "how did this guy get this ability I couldn't pick it!", it's "ok, i want to figureout what just happened and whether it can be used to our advantage".... which is a perspective that sounds rather reasonable to me.

Either way, saying "in theory" to everything is irrelevant. Since it can be done, by the PC, thus is something that can happen that makes sense.


You can not ''identify'' a Custom spell. Custom spells are special. The skill check only works for ''known spells''.
If that's one of your Houserules then that is how it works in your games, but that is not how it works by default. Also.... wouldn't all spells in the setting start as custom spells at some point... :smallconfused:

jedipotter
2015-01-28, 01:17 AM
You keep saying things like they are being unreasonable. In my experience it isn't some player whining about "how did this guy get this ability I couldn't pick it!", it's "ok, i want to figureout what just happened and whether it can be used to our advantage".... which is a perspective that sounds rather reasonable to me.

Are you talking about metagaming? The Players want to stop the game, and not play their characters in the setting, and find out the game mechanics of something their characters encountered so they can ''use it to their advantage''? That does not sound reasonable to me.



Either way, saying "in theory" to everything is irrelevant. Since it can be done, by the PC, thus is something that can happen that makes sense.

I guess if that works for you.



If that's one of your Houserules then that is how it works in your games, but that is not how it works by default. Also.... wouldn't all spells in the setting start as custom spells at some point... :smallconfused:

No house rules here, this is all by the book.

The spellcasting characters ''go to school'' where they learn the details of every single spell in the book(s). So when they encounter a spell, they can roll and maybe ''remember'' everything about the spell.

But that does not apply to custom spells. Like Wizard Bob sits in his tower and makes a new spell ''Whistling Teapot''....and instantenious all over the world everyone with a single rank in spellcraft knows all about the spell....or, er, they will remember all about the spell if they see it cast.

And sure, lots of spells would be custom spells, that is why skills like Spellcraft are broken.

Milo v3
2015-01-28, 01:32 AM
Are you talking about metagaming?
Nope. Characters can be curious as well.


But that does not apply to custom spells. Like Wizard Bob sits in his tower and makes a new spell ''Whistling Teapot''....and instantenious all over the world everyone with a single rank in spellcraft knows all about the spell....or, er, they will remember all about the spell if they see it cast.

And sure, lots of spells would be custom spells, that is why skills like Spellcraft are broken.

Thats not what happens. If they have good enough ranks in spellcraft, are intelligent enough, have a decent grasp of the Arcane (synergy bonus from Knowledge (Arcana), and roll decently then yes they figure out what the spell in front of them is doing. That's the primary use of the skill. It doesn't automatically succeed from you putting a single rank into it. Stop making strawmen.

Telok
2015-01-28, 01:49 AM
I feel that there are times when symmetry is good and other times when it is bad. Both can occur in the same game system.

Personally, for me, D&D4 had asymmetry that was both good and bad. Simple NPCs and monsters were good for fast set up by the DM, building them as PCs would have been a pain (200 powers or feats to sort through, yuck). But it was bad if the players turned an enemy into an ally, you had to stop and rebuild the NPC from scratch because there was so much asymmetry. The strict divide between PC and NPC powers was an issue too. The PCs would never face a monster with Come And Get It or any other powerful control ability because those were PC abilities. Likewise even a demigod archer couldn't do things that third level bandit minions could do. Your super-archer demigod wants to pin someone's foot to the ground with an arrow for a round? Too bad, that power is reserved for a low level minion with an Int of six and a Dex of twelve.

So I think that symmetry and asymmetry can be good or bad depending on what it does in the system.

PairO'Dice Lost
2015-01-28, 02:03 AM
I strongly agree with 'they must be asymmetric'. The roles of PCs versus NPCs in the game are very different. That said, NPCs, the world, and the PCs should all be mutually consistent with one another in that there should be patterns which the players can make use of.

I think a lot of what people want from symmetry, is really more about consistency. The idea is, if NPCs use the same rules as PCs, then as a player you can reason about an NPC's abilities by observing them.
[...]
For example, lets say that for gameplay reasons you want some NPC to have a 10x hitpoint multiplier and three actions a round (they're supposed to be a boss fight for the party, and for various reasons you don't want to just dump a bunch of minions onto the field).

A 10x HP multiplier on what, though? If the base value of an NPC's hit points is [level]dX+[level*Con] just like a PC's is, the system is symmetric, and if it's not, it's not, and whether a given NPC's HP are consistent with that of other NPCs or whether you arbitrarily multiply that base value for the BBEG is a separate concern. It's not a matter of one or the other; I personally want my systems to be both symmetric and consistent, you want yours to be asymmetric and consistent, and I'm guessing jedipotter wants his systems to be asymmetric and inconsistent.

Your point about mechanical differences needing to have in-game explanations for verisimilitude is one I completely agree with, but while that works for one-off villains and such it's a harder sell if everyone has different abilities than the PCs do. A high degree of consistency and transparency can make up for asymmetry, but it's still not exactly the same.


Also, symmetry like this is for 'versimilltude', and after reading the arguments... I get the feeling it would take a very experienced player to notice the difference and to be actually somewhat upset about it. Perhaps it's my gamist attitude (non-symmetry would be required in computer games obviously), but stuff like handwaving doesn't sound bad in and of itself.

Speaking as someone who's played under DMs who are very blatant in giving special snowflake mechanics to their special snowflake villains, you don't need an encyclopedic knowledge of the game to notice and get upset when that's done, and if you do have good system mastery it's just that much more irritating.

Speaking as a DM who doesn't handwave stuff like that, I don't like doing it mostly because if my players know that everything I do is by the book (to the point that I'm happy to explain statblocks after encounters if they wonder how something was done or give them tips on how to build similar characters if they like a particular NPC's schtick) that engenders a deeper level of trust: if something funny seems to be going on, they know that there's a good and premeditated reason for it and that they'll be able to eventually discover what's going on, even if only out-of-character (as opposed to another DM in our group, who likes a more "invisible walls" style of DMing and tends to provoke eye-rolls when he gives something special to his villains).

Not to mention that handwaving and fiat is boring; I like to have fun with the mechanics too, y'know, and building NPCs and encounters within the rules is much more interesting than just slapping random abilities on random numerical chassis and calling it a day.


4th Edition's use of monster statblocks was handy, because it meant you didn't have to spend time in character creation for all of your NPCs.

I would point out that 4e is not the first edition to have a monster manual. :smallwink: The "symmetry is bad because of long character creation" argument doesn't really hold for monsters, since every edition has tons of pre-built monsters; it's only when you need to advance monsters, create classed NPCs, and similar that you need to take that time, and I think it's a lot easier and more elegant to have everything work on the same system, so that creating a "salamander cleric" is as easy as salamander monster + cleric class and PCs and NPCs can be reused on either side of the DM screen.



If one streamlines the NPC creation process by only giving them maxed-out class skills, choose simpler or randomly-generated equipment, and the like the process goes by quite quicklyThis is what I do with my bad guys, among other things - they use the same building blocks but different mortar than the PCs. So an NPC won't have access to an ability the PCs can't get, but he might have fudged entry a little bit and gotten into a PrC without the requisite number of hit dice or skill ranks (which I usually just abstract into being good at 2 out of 5 skill groups).

To clarify, I wasn't talking about fudging the rules like that, just things like someone with 7 skill points per level only buying max ranks in 7 class skills instead of spreading points around, the same kind of stuff you'd do to simplify building a PC.


More prosaically, lets take D&D. Only if a character is a true dragon can they take true-dragon-only feats and spells. If the campaign has a rule 'PCs must be human', then any true-dragon-only stuff is strictly available only to NPCs. There's no in-setting strangeness, because obviously humans and elves and so on are different from dragons. The rule did not change the in-game reality, it changed what aspects of the in-game reality the players are permitted to run. In character, all it does is draw a logical connection between 'dragon-ness' and a specific subset of mechanics and abilities.

It's important to note that PC-NPC symmetry is a characteristic of the game, not the individual setting or campaign. Just as you still have symmetry if both PCs and NPCs function the same way at 15 HD even if the PCs in a given campaign don't make it to level 15, it's possible to have a symmetric system that allows dragons as PCs even if a particular setting doesn't allow dragons as PCs.


Personally, for me, D&D4 had asymmetry that was both good and bad. Simple NPCs and monsters were good for fast set up by the DM, building them as PCs would have been a pain (200 powers or feats to sort through, yuck).

Again, character building complexity is independent of PC-NPC symmetry. You can have slow or fast chargen with both symmetric and asymmetric NPCs, and slow chargen is an issue in and of itself regardless of symmetry. Not to mention that 4e's monster creation system wasn't really a "system" but rather a set of numbers to which you attached arbitrary abilities, and in that case there's really no advantage to having said numbers be out of whack compared to the PC numbers and a major disadvantage when, as you mentioned, you want to have an NPC swap sides or have a PC try to mimic an NPC's ability.

CarpeGuitarrem
2015-01-28, 02:05 AM
The asymmetry I'm most in approval of is in character creation. Character creation is a means to an end, so it doesn't really matter if PCs and NPCs are using different means. So long as they wind up with roughly comparable end products, it works.

4E did this by giving PCs more customization options, which is why it was faster to make NPCs.

jedipotter
2015-01-28, 02:11 AM
Nope. Characters can be curious as well.

Well, characters can accept ''it's a strange new something''' (that I do not know the game details of, as I don't even know I'm a character in a game).




Thats not what happens. If they have good enough ranks in spellcraft, are intelligent enough, have a decent grasp of the Arcane (synergy bonus from Knowledge (Arcana), and roll decently then yes they figure out what the spell in front of them is doing. That's the primary use of the skill. It doesn't automatically succeed from you putting a single rank into it. Stop making strawmen.

Well, my Players Handbook that might be a first printing or something says: Spellcraft: Use this skill to identify spells as they are cast or spells already in place. That is not figuring out what a spell is doing. The word is identify. And you can only identify what is already known.

And by RAW, everyone with even a single rank in Spellcraft might ''remember'' enough to identify every single spell in the world as they learned about every single spell in the whole world in magic school.

Milo v3
2015-01-28, 02:24 AM
Well, characters can accept ''it's a strange new something''' (that I do not know the game details of, as I don't even know I'm a character in a game).
Yep, and to many people in real life (myself included), we can accept that something is strange and new that I don't know, and then we try to understand the new thing.


Well, my Players Handbook that might be a first printing or something says: Spellcraft: Use this skill to identify spells as they are cast or spells already in place. That is not figuring out what a spell is doing. The word is identify. And you can only identify what is already known.
Ummm.... If you identify a spell, you know what it is. If I successfully identify a creature as a spider, then I know it's a spider. If I successfully identify a spell, I know what that spell is. So... "you can only identify what is already known" is a rather pointless statement when, obviously you do know it if you succeed thats the point.


And by RAW, everyone with even a single rank in Spellcraft might ''remember'' enough to identify every single spell in the world as they learned about every single spell in the whole world in magic school.
Not necessarily, could spontaneously theorise what the magic is doing based on what my senses tell me at the moment. But either way.... So what? Yes, this is a game where skill checks are a thing. If you put ranks in a skill you might succeed. You might not. It's a game where dice + modifiers determine what happesn, that's how it works.

Knaight
2015-01-28, 02:35 AM
A 10x HP multiplier on what, though? If the base value of an NPC's hit points is [level]dX+[level*Con] just like a PC's is, the system is symmetric, and if it's not, it's not, and whether a given NPC's HP are consistent with that of other NPCs or whether you arbitrarily multiply that base value for the BBEG is a separate concern. It's not a matter of one or the other; I personally want my systems to be both symmetric and consistent, you want yours to be asymmetric and consistent, and I'm guessing jedipotter wants his systems to be asymmetric and inconsistent.

On the other hand, even in systems like this it's not uncommon for extras to show up through some sort of ability or whatever. You just have a golem with [level]dX+Bonus, where the bonus is some special quality calculated to yield the desired end result, instead of just skipping that step entirely and assigning a stack of HP that fits with the toughness directly. It doesn't actually change what happens, it just makes it much more difficult to get there.

Then there's the matter of more esoteric systems. For instance, Dread doesn't have stats. That means that it doesn't have NPC stats either. It also doesn't really have a conventional die mechanic, instead using a jenga tower pulled from at choice moments - all pulls are player-side. That creates an asymmetry by nature, in that PC actions (at least the ones that really matter) are tied to a concrete system. NPCs can be directly affected by these actions, but the GM will never so much as touch the tower. It's a beautiful system for what it does, and trying to impose PC-NPC symmetry on it would ruin it.

jedipotter
2015-01-28, 02:55 AM
Yep, and to many people in real life (myself included), we can accept that something is strange and new that I don't know, and then we try to understand the new thing.

Sure...in theory. You see ''strange thing X'', but can't explain it. You could spend the rest of your life in intensive study and do nothing else. You might find an answer...you might not. That is reality.



Ummm.... If you identify a spell, you know what it is. If I successfully identify a creature as a spider, then I know it's a spider. If I successfully identify a spell, I know what that spell is. So... "you can only identify what is already known" is a rather pointless statement when, obviously you do know it if you succeed thats the point.

But you only know it's a spider as you know what a spider is. But we can't compare spider to a single spell, we need to compare a single species of spider to a single spell. Ready for the example: Dr. Smith travels deep into the Amazon Jungle. He knows every spider species in the book. And he finds, for the very first time ever in the whole history of modern science....a new spider species. So, can he roll a knowledge check to see what he remembers about the spider species that one one in the world ever knew about?



Not necessarily, could spontaneously theorise what the magic is doing based on what my senses tell me at the moment. But either way.... So what? Yes, this is a game where skill checks are a thing. If you put ranks in a skill you might succeed. You might not. It's a game where dice + modifiers determine what happesn, that's how it works.

Luckily them rolls are open to interpretation. And being changed.

Milo v3
2015-01-28, 02:59 AM
So, can he roll a knowledge check to see what he remembers about the spider species that one one in the world ever knew about?

That would be deducing from what he can sense + his knowledge on spiders in general, rather than purely remembering.

PairO'Dice Lost
2015-01-28, 03:08 AM
On the other hand, even in systems like this it's not uncommon for extras to show up through some sort of ability or whatever. You just have a golem with [level]dX+Bonus, where the bonus is some special quality calculated to yield the desired end result, instead of just skipping that step entirely and assigning a stack of HP that fits with the toughness directly. It doesn't actually change what happens, it just makes it much more difficult to get there.

Granted there's more than just XdY+Z that goes into the calculation, and even 3e has Toughness and corner cases for monsters without Con scores and such. The point remains, though, that if an average 5th-level PC has 5d6+10 HP and deals 2d6+2 damage per hit and an average level 5 monster has 100 HP and deals 1d4 damage per hit because they calculate HP and damage totally differently, then you already have a highly asymmetric system even before you decide to give one monster 1000 HP instead of 100 by fiat and it's a bit late to talk about verisimilitude and consistency at that point.


Then there's the matter of more esoteric systems. For instance, Dread doesn't have stats. That means that it doesn't have NPC stats either. It also doesn't really have a conventional die mechanic, instead using a jenga tower pulled from at choice moments - all pulls are player-side. That creates an asymmetry by nature, in that PC actions (at least the ones that really matter) are tied to a concrete system. NPCs can be directly affected by these actions, but the GM will never so much as touch the tower. It's a beautiful system for what it does, and trying to impose PC-NPC symmetry on it would ruin it.

Yeah, I'm familiar with games like Dread or *World. I can't stand them personally, because I like my games to be as mechanically complex and interesting for the GM as for the players (Fate is the rules-lightest I'm willing to go), but an asymmetric system can certainly work well for a more narrative-focused game.

jedipotter
2015-01-28, 03:21 AM
That would be deducing from what he can sense + his knowledge on spiders in general, rather than purely remembering.

I don't think the skill works like that. I know some homebrew it to do so, but that is not what the rules say.

Milo v3
2015-01-28, 05:01 AM
I don't think the skill works like that. I know some homebrew it to do so, but that is not what the rules say.

As you said:

Luckily them rolls are open to interpretation.

Eldan
2015-01-28, 05:30 AM
[QUOTE=jedipotter;18726365]Sure...in theory. You see ''strange thing X'', but can't explain it. You could spend the rest of your life in intensive study and do nothing else. You might find an answer...you might not. That is reality. /QUOTE]

Exactly. It's a scientist. It's what I do. Actually, I might well do that ingame, as well. I have, in fact.

Segev
2015-01-28, 09:37 AM
DM is not a Player. Dungeon Master and Player are Different words. And they have different roles. The DM is also playing the game, and in the context of controlling NPCs, is much the same as a player controlling a PC.


A DM has between 1-100 Characters per game, a player has one(maybe two or three if they play mounts, pets, or whatever). So with only one character, the player treats them special. It's the only character they have.

A DM can have a spacial character, but it's not the same when the DM can make any call they wish and control the game world.

Take player Sally. She has character Zora, the only thing she can control is her character. Zora gets into a fight and dies. Sally can not do anything about that. Take DM Eric. He has 50 NPCs or so that he runs, and he really likes Zippo the Evil Gnome. Then zippo gets killed in a fight. No problem, as the DM is all powerful, he can just say ''Zippo's brother Harpo was hidding nearby, and brings his brother back to life''.Actually, Sally could just say, "Zora's sister Flora has the same personality and capabilities, and upon hearing of her sister's tragic death, joins the party to fulfill Zora's quest."

Of course, the DM could say "no," but players, too, can balk at the DM just and-waving her special NPC into invincibility. (It's harder; it requires being willing to make a stink.)


I guess it sounds better to have a list of hard requirements, then to just say ''no'', but your still ''just saying no''. Sure, but having reasons for it beyond "because he's an NPC" are important. I think that's the crux of it: "He has special mechanics because he's an NPC" is different from "I don't want you guys playing this class or race for plot reasons."

The thing here is that if you say one thing but mean the other, it's no different in the end than saying the other except for the fact that you lied (possibly to yourself as well as the other players).

Even so, mechanical symmetry remains. You won't see Koby the Kobold Sorcerer casting Limited Wish at will as a spell-like ability "because he's an NPC." There will be an explanation for it, and a PC kobold sorcerer could theoretically figure out the trick and duplicate it. In fact, it may not be required that one be a kobold or a sorcerer. There needs to be a reason in-game for this "unique" ability, and PCs should have at least theoretical ability to replicate the circumstances.


For a good example, giving a NPC a spell like ability to cast a spell at will does not matter much. Even with that ability, the NPC will only be alive a couple minutes. But you can't give the game ability to the PC's without unbalancing the game. So don't give it to the NPC. You can play it as functionally doing that, since you plan for him to be rendered irrelevant after the scene, but a PC could play as if he had functional unlimited access to a spell or two of choice for the length of a scene if he didn't care about exhausting his resources. (Especially if he's a sorcerer or warlock).

So decide on a class and class feature or feat which lets him use the ability a large enough number of times, then don't worry about it. If you mess up and do it 1-2 times too many, woops. It's only really a problem if it is "he can do it at will."


The good, game breaking stuff must be NPC Only.And that's where you create that adversarial, players-can't-have-nice-things problem that this thread is all about discussing. Yes, the DM can do anything he wants. That doesn't mean it's fun for anybody but him when he engages in power fantasies to show off how much more awesome than the PCs his NPCs are.


"but yes, there should be at least as much possibility of them becoming king as there is for any other character of their race/class/social status"

So, the DM has to take another 3 months to come up with a nobilty/royality system that didn't exist at first? To figure out how the finer point of diplomancy and running a country?

There is a limit to which a DM can flesh out the world.As somebody else said, if the PCs WANT to become king, then the DM can focus his attention on fleshing that part of the world out. If they don't, it doesn't matter.


I think the distinction there is that the PCs should have access to the same things on a system level. Like, if they're level 12 guys, and they're fighting a level 15 guy with a feat that requires 18 skill ranks, it's fine that they don't have access to this feat in this specific situation. Same if they're all mundanes fighting a spellcaster - they can't do what he does now, but in another campaign they could.This is more or less my position. Well said, Flickerdart.

NichG
2015-01-28, 12:51 PM
There needs to be a reason in-game for this "unique" ability, and PCs should have at least theoretical ability to replicate the circumstances.
(emphasis mine)

I agree with the former, but why the latter?

If the reason for the in-game ability was, e.g., 'this entity is one of the primordials who existed before the onset of the current universe, and they carry the rules of the former universe with them', then why would it follow that the PCs should theoretically be able to replicate those circumstances? They might be able to survive the end of their current universe and carry their own rules into the next, but that would still technically be a different set of unique abilities that then the PCs would have sole access to.

Flickerdart
2015-01-28, 01:01 PM
(emphasis mine)

I agree with the former, but why the latter?

If the reason for the in-game ability was, e.g., 'this entity is one of the primordials who existed before the onset of the current universe, and they carry the rules of the former universe with them', then why would it follow that the PCs should theoretically be able to replicate those circumstances? They might be able to survive the end of their current universe and carry their own rules into the next, but that would still technically be a different set of unique abilities that then the PCs would have sole access to.
Everyone knows that if you eat your enemies, you gain their powers.

Segev
2015-01-28, 01:31 PM
Eh. When you have to take it to the extreme of "Primordial Entity From Before Time," you're getting past the point of "NPC" and into "cosmic event."

Regardless, the point is that you shouldn't have "a level one commoner oracle" who has a power to see the future way better than any PC could ever have, just because you want to reserve the power to see the future to that one NPC. Even if you want it to be a relatively unique thing, there's little reason you couldn't let a player control a character who has that plot-important ability.

Similarly, if you have a villainous necromancer commanding hordes of undead, it should be possible for a PC to study magic of that sort and gain taht ability.

Restricting all the "cool stuff" behind walls of "you can't play this kind of creature" is a little better than "I just decided NPCs can do this but you can't," but it's still frustrating if carried too far.

NichG
2015-01-28, 02:23 PM
Eh. When you have to take it to the extreme of "Primordial Entity From Before Time," you're getting past the point of "NPC" and into "cosmic event."

I picked it because generally the currency of discussion revolves around D&D 3.5, where TO tricks would make it possible to duplicate pretty much anything less cosmic than that and I didn't want to get into the side debate of whether a PC really could duplicate the circumstances or not given that whole mess.

A less extreme example is: in X-Com, you can get the alien weaponry and adapt it to your purposes. But you can't play a Chryssalid or a and chest-burst the aliens into copies of yourself.



Regardless, the point is that you shouldn't have "a level one commoner oracle" who has a power to see the future way better than any PC could ever have, just because you want to reserve the power to see the future to that one NPC. Even if you want it to be a relatively unique thing, there's little reason you couldn't let a player control a character who has that plot-important ability.

Similarly, if you have a villainous necromancer commanding hordes of undead, it should be possible for a PC to study magic of that sort and gain taht ability.

This is sort of circular reasoning though. Yes, you shouldn't have a "level one commoner oracle" that has wildly different abilities than a "level one commoner oracle" would have, because by using that phrase to describe the character you've already projected them into a specific mechanical basis - the same one as the PCs. But what about having, say, a "nature spirit" who has a power to see the future better than any PC could ever have? Or "a level one commoner possessed by a demon of malicious prophecy"? Or "someone who, due to temporal shenanigans, is their own grandpa and inherited a journal from their own future self"? Or "This is the inanimate stone wall of prophecy. This is the thing it does."?

If you say "They're a level one commoner oracle, but they're a better level one commoner oracle than your level one commoner oracle", then sure, that's going to cause problems. But that's not because the PCs could never get that ability, it's because there's no rationale behind it - its random and arbitrary and feels like the DM is trying to compete with the player.

Darth Ultron
2015-01-28, 02:52 PM
The DM is also playing the game, and in the context of controlling NPCs, is much the same as a player controlling a PC.

It's kinda like the same...but different.



Actually, Sally could just say, "Zora's sister Flora has the same personality and capabilities, and upon hearing of her sister's tragic death, joins the party to fulfill Zora's quest."

Are you talking about Sally just cloning Zora? Where they use the same character sheet and just change the name at the top? Well, guess that is ok, if the DM allows it. And that is the big point I think he is talking about: the player can't just ''do stuff'' without approval.



I think PC/NPC should be different. I wish D&D had things like ''Hero Points'' and ''Villain Points''.

obryn
2015-01-28, 02:59 PM
For the original question, I moved from not caring in the 80's-90's, to loving symmetry in the early 00's, to actively disliking it in the latter half of the 00's and pretty much hating it by the 10's.

I want my NPCs and monsters to be quick to build and easy to run. I want to skip straight to the results - the actual stats that will see use in-game - rather than build them with the same blocks PCs use. I hate the idea that every resource in the game should be a player resource. Or that, as a DM, I should need intimate familiarity with PC builds to create NPCs.

What's more, in an asymmetric system, it's much easier to zero in on balanced challenges. That's important to me, too. I love the ideas of harder and easier challenges, based on narrative importance. Mooks/minions. Bosses/solos. These are all great building blocks for me to fine-tune my adventures with minimal effort.

Flickerdart
2015-01-28, 03:37 PM
Or that, as a DM, I should need intimate familiarity with PC builds to create NPCs.
You should be intimately familiar with PC builds anyway, to properly tune your encounters and loot, and restrict or ban unbalanced options.

obryn
2015-01-28, 03:45 PM
You should be intimately familiar with PC builds anyway, to properly tune your encounters and loot, and restrict or ban unbalanced options.
My assumptions are that (1) the game isn't unbalanced enough that I need to properly tune challenges based on specific party makeup, and (2) well-made enough that I don't need to restrict or ban unbalanced options. I want a functional system, and the rest follows.

Regardless, "I know that [Exploit X] exists" is a pretty low bar, I'd say.

Segev
2015-01-28, 03:55 PM
This is sort of circular reasoning though. Yes, you shouldn't have a "level one commoner oracle" that has wildly different abilities than a "level one commoner oracle" would have, because by using that phrase to describe the character you've already projected them into a specific mechanical basis - the same one as the PCs.If "commoner oracle" is a class, then you can avoid asymmetry by letting PCs take it if they want.


But what about having, say, a "nature spirit" who has a power to see the future better than any PC could ever have?Frustrating, especially for that poor player who wanted to play a diviner.


Or "a level one commoner possessed by a demon of malicious prophecy"?And if the PCs are willing to endure the downsides, they could get themselves so possessed. At least, taht would be symmetry.


Or "someone who, due to temporal shenanigans, is their own grandpa and inherited a journal from their own future self"?PCs who are interested should be able to discover how this was done and arrange it.


Or "This is the inanimate stone wall of prophecy. This is the thing it does."?Not a character, so lacks the "C" part of "NPC."


If you say "They're a level one commoner oracle, but they're a better level one commoner oracle than your level one commoner oracle", then sure, that's going to cause problems. But that's not because the PCs could never get that ability, it's because there's no rationale behind it - its random and arbitrary and feels like the DM is trying to compete with the player.Indeed. If "level one commoner oracle" is a thing, then if a PC chooses to be that thing, they should have the same powers.

If "level one commoner" is one thing and "oracle" is another that this level one commoner happens to be, then it should be possible for PCs to gain "oracle," somehow, as well. Maybe not pleasant nor easy, but it should be feasible.

mephnick
2015-01-28, 03:58 PM
You should be intimately familiar with PC builds anyway, to properly tune your encounters and loot, and restrict or ban unbalanced options.
I haven't had a PC in so long I bet I could barely build a proper 3.5 character if I tried. Balance, CR and loot have never seemed to be a problem regardless. Everything can be fixed at the table, either by me or by the PC's creativity.

But like I say, I'm the guy that says "Damn, I need a high level paladin...eh modified planetar will work."

Segev
2015-01-28, 04:01 PM
Are you talking about Sally just cloning Zora? Where they use the same character sheet and just change the name at the top? Well, guess that is ok, if the DM allows it. And that is the big point I think he is talking about: the player can't just ''do stuff'' without approval.Nor should the DM just "do stuff" because he feels like it, then deny it to the PCs arbitrarily because it only doesn't break the game (or whatever excuse) in the hands of the DM showing off his special snowflake.




I think PC/NPC should be different. I wish D&D had things like ''Hero Points'' and ''Villain Points''.

Honestly, I don't disagree. I know I sound like I do, because I'm trying to articulate a point that I may be handling poorly.

What I'm TRYING to get at is that NPCs should not, by virtue of being NPCs, have access to powers and abilities and narrative importance that it is impossible for PCs to achieve if the players want to play a PC with or working towards those roles.

Having simpler rules for NPCs is fine, as long as those simpler rules don't enable NPCs to have capabilities that PCs might want to replicate but can't only because they are PCs.

I think that's the big difference. If the reason you can't have this nice thing is "you're a PC," that's a problem. If the reason is, "You're a human wizard, not an Aboleth Monk," that's far less of one. If you see a "human wizard NPC" doing something, it is not cool of the DM to say, "no, he could only do that because he's an NPC. Your PC human wizard can't do it."

Honest Tiefling
2015-01-28, 04:06 PM
I actually have to ask, what would the problem be with a spirit having better divination abilities then the party? I mean, most celestials start off having better combat abilities. And spirits are usually things that are ancient or even worshiped. So I don't really get why it is bad for a spirit to have these abilities?

Telonius
2015-01-28, 04:06 PM
I like a bit of a mixture. I like to be able to crank out random Ogres, Skeletons, and Demons by the truckload, without having to care much that the players might want to play an Ogre, a Skeleton, or a Demon. I also like being able to improve the basic stats (if necessary), or change them around, or build a powerful recurring NPC. When I do build an NPC, it's almost a point of pride that I always use the same rules that I apply to the PCs. It's something the players could have, if they'd decided to make the same choices I had while building it.

CarpeGuitarrem
2015-01-28, 05:29 PM
It's kinda interesting how much of the pro-symmetry talk on this thread appears to be coming from people primarily playing D&D as opposed to other RPGs. Accurate or no?

NichG
2015-01-28, 05:41 PM
If "commoner oracle" is a class, then you can avoid asymmetry by letting PCs take it if they want.

[quote]Frustrating, especially for that poor player who wanted to play a diviner.

Feels like a lack of clarity on what 'being a diviner' means. In something like Pathfinder, being an Oracle means a very specific ability set. If the player has expectations that go beyond that, or even expectations that the abilities granted by the class will automatically be the best possible way to achieve something that isn't just what that class does, then that's a misunderstanding on their part, a miscommunication with the DM, or other such problem.

This is actually exacerbated by systems trying too hard to be symmetric. It creates an incorrect expectation that what you see is all there is, and that everything is the same. Therefore, something called 'Fighter' must logically be the best at fighting and something called 'Oracle' must be the best possible character at doing oracular things. That's because 'character' here is being used as if its monolithic, when actually that's wrong. In an openly asymmetric system, there's no such expectation. Dragons are really good at breathing fire. People are really good at swordplay. There isn't a 'class' you can take as a person to be a better fire-breather than a dragon, just like there isn't something for the dragon to do that will make them better at swordplay than a person.



And if the PCs are willing to endure the downsides, they could get themselves so possessed. At least, taht would be symmetry.


The PCs can't 'get themselves possessed', because the actor is the possessor, not the possessee. If the demon doesn't want to possess them, they cannot arrange to be possessed. So I would say that this is an unreasonable expectation.



PCs who are interested should be able to discover how this was done and arrange it.


The guy himself didn't 'arrange it', so this is also an unreasonable expectation.



Not a character, so lacks the "C" part of "NPC."


It is as much a character as someone whose entire purpose in the game is to spout off specific prophecies about the future. Whether that's 'is a character' or 'is not a character' is I suppose up to how you want to slice things, but its the same in both cases.

Really what it is is a 'plot device'. And actually, so are many if not most NPCs - quest-givers, magic item salesmen, etc.



Indeed. If "level one commoner oracle" is a thing, then if a PC chooses to be that thing, they should have the same powers.

If "level one commoner" is one thing and "oracle" is another that this level one commoner happens to be, then it should be possible for PCs to gain "oracle," somehow, as well. Maybe not pleasant nor easy, but it should be feasible.

Strongly disagree. "Pelor" is one thing that someone can be. That does not mean that it should be possible for PCs to "be Pelor". It doesn't follow, unless you're already explicitly assuming that we're talking about character options structured in a very specifically 3.5/Pathfinder-esque way.

If I'm playing 7th Sea, the Syrneth are a thing in that setting. They had crazy technology, introduced magic to human-kind, etc, then got sealed away outside of reality for generally being jerks. A player cannot be a Syrneth - the game is not structured to provide interesting and meaningful gameplay for a Syrneth character (unless you consider 'I check the wall again. Still no hole? I wait another century and check the wall again. Still no hole? ...' to be meaningful gameplay). Yet, this does not detract at all from what the PCs can accomplish. Even if a Syrneth will by default have more powerful magic than the most powerful human sorceror could ever be, they're stuck behind the wall and the PCs are out in the world doing stuff.

The fact that the Syrneth stuff is inaccessible simply shouldn't matter. It was never on the table to begin with.

johnbragg
2015-01-28, 06:10 PM
It's kinda interesting how much of the pro-symmetry talk on this thread appears to be coming from people primarily playing D&D as opposed to other RPGs. Accurate or no?

'tsa good point. If you're playing pre-d20 GURPS or Shadowrun or Marvel Super Heroes or Deadlands, and the bad guys have abilities you don't have/basically can't get, that's par for the course. (I speak of games I've been in, haven't done any d20 RPG except D&D.) In D&D, as a player it feels like "cheating", the DM is arbitrarily making things harder, or creating special snowflake DM-NPCs to fight the players.

Segev
2015-01-28, 06:19 PM
Wait, GURPS? It's a points-based system. There is literally nothing that an NPC should be able to be constructed to do that you could not theoretically construct a PC to do.

Vertharrad
2015-01-28, 08:36 PM
It's kinda interesting how much of the pro-symmetry talk on this thread appears to be coming from people primarily playing D&D as opposed to other RPGs. Accurate or no?

DnD - 2e, 3e, 4e(one game)
Pathfinder
StarWars - RCR, Saga edition
Arduin
MERPS
OWoD(VtM and some DarkAges)
V20
McWoD
Rifts(once)

Would you like to explain why that blanket claim you made is wrong??? At least close to half of those aren't DnD or entirely covered under fantasy...

johnbragg
2015-01-28, 08:53 PM
Wait, GURPS? It's a points-based system. There is literally nothing that an NPC should be able to be constructed to do that you could not theoretically construct a PC to do.

Theoretically, you could. But you basically wouldn't. Just like there's no complaining or arguing about whether PCs could get the abilities of trolls or dragons or vampires or elementals. (Set aside for a moment the reality that through the magic of ECL and templates, you could build a half-dragon vampire troll and probably give it a half-elemental template, too.) The player discontent comes in when humanoid antagonists don't work by the same rules as the PCs. That's what looks to players like "cheating."

I suppose as an example, let's say the DM puts psionics off limits to PCs, it's just not an available subsystem. If the DM then gives psionics instead of arcane spells to a dragon, that's going to be better received than if the players fight a tiefling psion.

CarpeGuitarrem
2015-01-28, 11:13 PM
Would you like to explain why that blanket claim you made is wrong??? At least close to half of those aren't DnD or entirely covered under fantasy...
Easy there, all I said was "it seems like the symmetry perspective is coming from D&D, is this accurate or not?"

The reason why I made the observation was based on looking at the posts in the thread, and seeing a lot of D&D-specific references.

I decided to go and do a numbers run-through, mostly just 'cuz. I'm bored and I need something to do. There's 22 posts that I could isolate as being 100% in support of symmetry. 13 of those posts specifically reference D&D (I'm broadly counting anything that's close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades, like Pathfinder or other OGL games, since in the context of all RPGs, there's hardly any difference--though, most of said posts were still referencing D&D, generally 3.5), and 1 post referenced a non-D&D RPG (Chronica Feudalis).

So...yeah. D&D has definitely been the focal point of the conversation. I'm not surprised, but this is the general RPG forum, which means anything is fair game. I'll have to come back and talk about how some non-d20 games handle asymmetry.

Vertharrad
2015-01-28, 11:48 PM
In my case...yes and no.

DnD - 2e, 3e[symmetry], 4e(one game)
Pathfinder[symmetry]
StarWars - RCR, Saga edition[both symmetry]
Arduin
MERPS[symmetry]
OWoD(VtM and some DarkAges)[symmetry]
V20[symmetry]
McWoD[symmetry]
Rifts(once)

Admittedly most of these we're made by the same company or designers. DnD, Pathfinder, StarWars Rcr and Saga, and McWoD are cut from the base d20 system; DnD StarWars RCR and Saga were made by tsr/wotc, Pathfinder and McWoD were made by some of the designers from DnD 3e SKR and Monte Cook among others. Rifts and Arduin I don't remember much about, Rifts blew my mind out of the water so much I only lasted one session and Arduin is a world that was run by a frined of mine now running PF Kingmaker AP. OWoD and V20 are basically the same game with some cosmetic differences.

I am weighing in on consistency...if you start a game with rules and then half way through add crit fumbles or some other thing I tend to wonder why and can get paranoid since like most of the asymmetry supporters that person sounds like a adversarial GM vs. player attitude rules them. Everyone wants to have fun. The games operations director or referee is there to make sure we all have fun...not just him/her. And when you mess with the consitency like they want to but label me as a whiny baby special snowflake entitled player it smacks of the same thing itself...hypocrisy much? Yes we know symmetry systems have problems all their own, but we're prepared to deal with that. At least it means we can deep six the DM if they give a 5th lvl wizard the wish spell without it being from a item. No there is no other way to do this. You don't want us doing it...don't do it yourself.

This all comes back to common courtesy and the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

chadmeister
2015-01-29, 10:00 AM
I can say as a D&D player I was highly in favor of symmetry. At least in theory. I never tried to reverse engineer my GM's NPCs to make sure they were following all the rules.
When I later did some DMing, I realized how frustrating it can be to make challenging encounters while following all the rules.

GMing different games, I've fully embraced the idea that NPCs don't have to follow the same build rules as PCs. So I think there's something to the idea that D&D does something to put you in that frame of mind. Or it could be I'm just older and lazier now.

VincentTakeda
2015-01-29, 11:02 AM
I'm pretty much a 2e/heroes unlimited/ninjas and superspies guy myself so I can only speak with regards to simbieda/wujick/zeb...

2e pretty much does not adhere to symmetry but I never for a moment wasn't fine with that looking back on it...

On the other hand...

I would say despite its irreverent and tacit knack for running from 'even the semblance of balance'... palladium stuff does adhere to the above notion of symmetry in that I can't think of a single ability an enemy has access to that a player does not...

Beta Centauri
2015-01-29, 01:41 PM
Player NPC symmetry, players and NPCs being given the same stats and following the same rules, an example from a well known system D&D, both PCs and NPCs use the same six ability stats, but both draw from separate class types, PCs use Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric etc, NPCs use Warrior, Specialist, Noble, etc.

In your opinion, how important is PC:NPC symmetry to you when you play or DM? Not at all.

When 4th Edition showed me that monsters didn't have to adhere to PC creation rules, I was thrilled. Actually, I guess that was a throwback to earlier editions; I don't remember Basic D&D monsters having to be made like PCs, though lots of NPCs still were.

For NPCs that aren't going to fight, or would either easily win or easily be defeated, I don't bother with any stats at all. They just do whatever I need or want them to do. The NPC blacksmith doesn't have to roll to craft a sword, he just does, in whatever time frame I deem appropriate. The NPC caster doesn't have to be limited to PC spells and rituals in order to do his thing. But he's not an adventurer, so it's not as though he has the wherewithal to do what the PCs do.

jedipotter
2015-01-29, 03:53 PM
It's kinda interesting how much of the pro-symmetry talk on this thread appears to be coming from people primarily playing D&D as opposed to other RPGs. Accurate or no?

Other games don't have the Power Level or the Many Options of D&D. The ''other'' games are lucky to even have like three whole books, and lots of the space in the books is wasted with bad artwork. So when you have a very low powered, simple game with only a couple things to pick from, it does not matter.

I really think the game should have PC rules and NPC rules.

Knaight
2015-01-29, 04:09 PM
Other games don't have the Power Level or the Many Options of D&D. The ''other'' games are lucky to even have like three whole books, and lots of the space in the books is wasted with bad artwork. So when you have a very low powered, simple game with only a couple things to pick from, it does not matter.

This is just factually untrue. There are games that exceed D&D in power level (Exalted), there are games which have well over three books (How big is the Shadowrun library these days?), and as far as lots of space being wasted with bad artwork, D&D has an unusually high amount of artwork, and while there are a few books with awful artwork en mass (Exalted), there are also some books with very good artwork and a lot that just don't have much. Legend of the Five rings has some very good artwork, as does the previously mentioned Shadowrun, as does Chronica Feudalis if you like the style.

Now, it is true that there's a skew towards fewer books, a skew towards lower power than high level D&D, and similar. If you want to use D&D 3e as a standard with it's thousands of feats, hundreds of classes, etc. then you could even say that there are only a few things to pick from in a lot of games, though there are still plenty with really long lists even compared to D&D in some aspects (GURPS and it's needlessly narrowly defined skills come to mind here). Then there's the matter of the games being simple. Even a rules light RPG can be upwards of 100 pages, which is way in excess of just about any board game rules, and upwards of a significant number of war games.

Broken Twin
2015-01-29, 06:04 PM
Yeah, the idea that all other systems only have a few books at max out, or are all at a lower power level then D&D, is an astonishing claim to make. Also factually untrue. They may not have as many as, say, 3.5, but there's definitely systems with both a higher power level and more than a couple of books.

Personally, I don't care about PC/NPC symmetry. As long as it makes sense in world, I'll use it. I'm not gonna spend hours crafting ever minute stat of every person the PCs come across when I can just remember ballpark figures for people of their power level. It helps that I usually play classless systems, so I don't need to worry about foolishness like "He can't cast that spell! He'd need to be at least a level 8 wizard to do that!" I only want to worry about what's dramatically appropriate and setting-consistent.

Telok
2015-01-29, 06:36 PM
I wonder if sometimes people aren't talking about the same thing when they say 'symmetry'.

There can be symmetry in PC/NPC creation, D&D3.5 has this while D&D4 doesn't. In 3.5 a level 5 PC wizard and a level 5 NPC wizard have the same creation parameters, spell lists, and other options. If the PC wants to leard a spell from the NPC they can. In 4th the PC wizard has AEDU powers and feats that change them where the NPC has a couple of powers and recharge mechanics. Here if the PC wants to learn a spell from the NPC he can't because it's an NPC power.

There can be symmetry in rules use. Again in D&D3.5 the PC and NPC wizards cast spells the same way. Cast on the defensive, mark the spell off as expended, the target rolls a save. And again in D&D4 you have the minion rules, solo rules, monster recharge rules, etc. that the NPCs play by and the PCs don't.

Interestingly in AD&D you had what I think of as optional symmetry, PCs and NPCs could use the same rules or different rules depending on circumstances. You could have NPCs that were the same as PCs and others that were just an AC/HD/Atk/Loot line. Some things used the same rules as PCs for stealth or wrestling while others had different (sometimes very very different) rules.

More and more as time goes by I find myself leaning towards preferring optional symmetry where it's there if it's useful and ignored if it gets in the way.

nedz
2015-01-29, 07:32 PM
It's kinda interesting how much of the pro-symmetry talk on this thread appears to be coming from people primarily playing D&D as opposed to other RPGs. Accurate or no?

I primarily play DnD these days, though I have played all manner of systems in the past. My post was neutral on this issue FWIW.

Frozen_Feet
2015-01-30, 08:37 AM
D&D only had PC:NPC symmetry in editions 3 and 3.5. Even there, it was optional as there were separate rules for NPC classes and wealth progression, as well as monstrous advancement not available to player characters. Rules like LA buy-off and monstrous classes were essentially hacks to the game to allow players to play stuff they weren't orginally intended to.

In other editions of D&D, NPCs have much simplified set of stats and character creation rules. It's possible for the GM to build adversaries using the same rules and classes as PCs, but it was a specific case, not the default assumption.

The idea of rules-symmetry is hardly D&D specific - on the contrary, I'd claim the idea was introduced to D&D from other games.

1st Edition AD&D, in particular, certainly did not buy into the idea that players should have access to everything. Good Ol' Gykax has a long rant written in the DMG about how playing of monstrous creatures should be discouraged, as it's usually just a blatant powergrap, with most players lacking the skill and imagination to portray monstrous characters as something else than cliched stereotypes or humans in funny hats. The DM was also regularly encouraged to destroy or cheat away any items or abilities with unintended setting-wrecking effects.

Beta Centauri
2015-01-30, 01:34 PM
My assumptions are that (1) the game isn't unbalanced enough that I need to properly tune challenges based on specific party makeup, and (2) well-made enough that I don't need to restrict or ban unbalanced options. I want a functional system, and the rest follows.

Regardless, "I know that [Exploit X] exists" is a pretty low bar, I'd say. Hear, hear. If I have to completely understand the PCs in order to make a fun game, and that doing so involves banning certain player options and not using certain GM options, then the game is questionably functional.

I have no sympathy for players wanting enemy abilities as written. NPCs generally don't have the same drive as PCs, because generally the GM is going to be interested in preserving the game world and the adventure idea, and the players are going to be interested in amassing power and neutralizing threats.

Some monsters create other monsters under their control when they kill a creature. That's a fine ability for a monster, because the GM can be expected not to carry that monster to its logical conclusion which, if such monsters have existed for a long time, is the conversion of the entire world. There might not even be a good reason why the monsters haven't done that, but it's not required to have one to use such monsters as a fun, temporary threat against the players.

If a player has such a power, it's a different story. The player won't necessarily agree that it's not a good idea to use that power to it's maximum potential, and will require a good in-game reason why they shouldn't or can't. A player who understands the needs of the game will either come up with their own reason or just not do it, but other players will gleefully wreck the game, because they assume that's the point.

It is possible to come up with reasons why the power doesn't work, but that just puts the GM on an adversarial footing with the player. The GM has to be in the position to say "No," rather than "Yes, and..." and that's a bad position.

obryn
2015-01-30, 02:03 PM
The idea of rules-symmetry is hardly D&D specific - on the contrary, I'd claim the idea was introduced to D&D from other games.
Oh, certainly. d20 was an outgrowth of 90's design philosophy, which generally veered towards higher-sim rules-heavy sorts of games. (There are exceptions, but even "narrative" games like Vampire are chunky and have a simulation design philosophy. Heck; even Feng Shui has nitpicky ammo-counting and other weird sim rules for such a 'eh whatever' kind of game.)


1st Edition AD&D, in particular, certainly did not buy into the idea that players should have access to everything. Good Ol' Gykax has a long rant written in the DMG about how playing of monstrous creatures should be discouraged, as it's usually just a blatant powergrap, with most players lacking the skill and imagination to portray monstrous characters as something else than cliched stereotypes or humans in funny hats. The DM was also regularly encouraged to destroy or cheat away any items or abilities with unintended setting-wrecking effects.
It's hilarious, because AD&D Gary is such a different dude than OD&D Gary and At His Table Gary. I mean, he had Vampire and Balrog PCs. And let's not even get into Gord, who out-Drizzts Drizzt.


I have no sympathy for players wanting enemy abilities as written.
Yeah, as-written, I agree, but I do have sympathy for thematic inspiration. If an NPC knows a cool sword trick or a neat spell, I have no problems whipping up a custom, balanced version for PC use. :smallsmile:

CarpeGuitarrem
2015-01-30, 02:04 PM
So, like I said! Thought it might be interesting to have a breeze through various games I play (or have read), to see how they handle symmetry. Which can definitely mean different things!

Primetime Adventures is on the brain, because I've been reading through the game lately. NPCs only really exist in relation to PCs, because the PCs are the protagonists of the story and the focus of every scene. All scenes ask the question "how do things go for the protagonist?", and never focus on the NPC, so the resolution mechanics themselves are asymmetrical. The Producer (the GM role in Primetime Adventures) draws a standard number of cards in a scene, and gets a resource called Budget to augment it. Players draw cards according to their character's current Screen Presence, and can expend Traits to augment that. And it doesn't feel so much as though the player is opposing an NPC...it's more like the player is opposing the Producer in general.

Burning Wheel uses mostly the same mechanics for PCs and NPCs. However, building NPCs can be simpler than full character creation. That's really up to you. There's very clear rules for eyeballing characters, and they work out pretty well.

In Smallville, there's three types of characters: Features, Leads, and Extras. Features are the main charactes, with full writeups, character traits, and attributes. Leads are the Features controlled by the players. Extras are everyone else, and the only stat they have is a single attribute which represents their ability to give assistance to Features. Features all use the same mechanics; Extras don't roll their own dice. Instead, you look to the players. When a player takes action against anyone who's not a Lead, there's a generic pool called the Trouble Pool that grows through the episode.

Dungeon World is of course known for asymmetrical gameplay: the GM never rolls dice. The basic moves for the players and for the GM look entirely different. NPCs are statted up in terms of HP, armor (optional), and particular moves that they might possess, but they just do things, usually in response to player moves.

kyoryu
2015-01-30, 03:51 PM
I decided to go and do a numbers run-through, mostly just 'cuz. I'm bored and I need something to do. There's 22 posts that I could isolate as being 100% in support of symmetry. 13 of those posts specifically reference D&D (I'm broadly counting anything that's close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades, like Pathfinder or other OGL games, since in the context of all RPGs, there's hardly any difference--though, most of said posts were still referencing D&D, generally 3.5), and 1 post referenced a non-D&D RPG (Chronica Feudalis).

Interestingly, of the D&D family (including PF), *only* 3.x even makes PC/NPC symmetry an option, and it wasn't even there at the start of 3.0.

I've noticed a great tendency in D&D 3.x to treat the game as kind of a "deck-building game" in many ways, much more so than any other RPG I'm aware of. Not trying to say "it's not an RPG", but just that the "deck-building" side of it has a greater emphasis than most other games. And if you view "deck-building" as a big part of the game, then it only makes sense that you value PC/NPC symmetry, as part of the game really then *is* about building the "best deck".

Beta Centauri
2015-01-30, 04:00 PM
Yeah, as-written, I agree, but I do have sympathy for thematic inspiration. If an NPC knows a cool sword trick or a neat spell, I have no problems whipping up a custom, balanced version for PC use. :smallsmile: Definitely agreed. In D&D, if you're not a particular class, it's possible to obtain certain features of another class, but often not in their full form. The feature the character receives is "inspired by" the feature of the actual class. The same is done for summoned creatures and polymorph powers, among other things: the player version gives a feel of that thing, but it's not always (or even often) the same as the NPC or monster version of the same thing. I like this because it makes it much less worrisome for me to allow things and be on the player's side, because the game itself limits them. I get to be the GM who gets to say "Yes, and..." rather than the one who says "No."

I had a player playing a druid who wanted to wildshape into a kruthik and get tremorsense. By the rules, the wildshape has almost no mechanical effect itself, but I was happy to grant him that ability in that case. If he could wildshape and gain tremorsense at will, I'd probably feel the need to limit him.

obryn
2015-01-30, 04:32 PM
Interestingly, of the D&D family (including PF), *only* 3.x even makes PC/NPC symmetry an option, and it wasn't even there at the start of 3.0.
I'mma nitpick here, sorry... AD&D did have various non-PC stats for farmers, mercenaries, etc. But it also had plenty of full-classed NPCs, using the PC rules directly. What's interesting is that it also had different stat generation methods for NPCs - at least in AD&D 1e - should you need to know a Blacksmith's strength score or something. Still, henchmen were just weaker PCs.

Now, monsters were a whole different deal and used a system all their own. Though they still referenced stuff like spells.

It's totally fair to say d20/3.x pushed D&D symmetry just about to the maximum extent possible, given that even monsters were built using the PC building rules.

mikeejimbo
2015-01-30, 05:44 PM
I like asymmetry myself. I ran a 13th Age game where one of the important NPCs was statted in GURPS instead.

Rakaydos
2015-01-30, 06:27 PM
In ironclaw most NPCs are extremely simplified, but to the same framework as the PCs. The D&D equivilant would be Race, Class, (both much simpler than D&D equivilants) and 10s in every stat for a backround/mook NPC, 14 in every stat for someone toughter, 16 in every stat for the brute squad types. advanced abilities are handled similarly to E6, in that high powered characters keep getting more of them but their power curve tapers off, so the GM just gives whatever abilities to them he wants- but a PC could get each of these abilities if he wanted to spend his hard-earned XP on them.

It's a lethal system, but as special snowflakes, PCs get a 1/day plot armor get out of death only heavilly injurred ability for being PCs. However, important, named NPCs (like the villian) can also be given the plot armor gift if the GM decides the NPC deserves it.

Jay R
2015-01-30, 06:54 PM
I like asymmetry myself. I ran a 13th Age game where one of the important NPCs was statted in GURPS instead.

That does it. Next game, my players will face a TOON character -

Ragnar Rabbit, the Hanna-Barbarian.

kyoryu
2015-01-31, 12:06 AM
I'mma nitpick here, sorry... AD&D did have various non-PC stats for farmers, mercenaries, etc. But it also had plenty of full-classed NPCs, using the PC rules directly. What's interesting is that it also had different stat generation methods for NPCs - at least in AD&D 1e - should you need to know a Blacksmith's strength score or something. Still, henchmen were just weaker PCs..

In various campaign settings, a lot of NPCs had full PC stats because they were retired PCs from the original campaign.

Forgotten Realms, especially, had tons of this.

Telok
2015-01-31, 02:55 AM
And if you view "deck-building" as a big part of the game, then it only makes sense that you value PC/NPC symmetry, as part of the game really then *is* about building the "best deck".

I recall that deck building really only showed up with the first splats that introduced prestige classes which an organic PC wouldn't qualify for. I paticularly remember in 3.0 that I had a 7th or 8th level sorcerer and Tome and Blood came out with the first real spellcaster prestige classes after the DMG ones. I looked at the feat and skill prerequsities and discovered that my character couldn't qualify untill 16th level after his 15th level feat. But if I had known of the PrCs before I could have taken the right feats and gotten in at 6th level. The character had developed during play and taken skills, feats, and spells that were useful and fun at the time instead of sinking them into feat or skill taxes for a Prc.

The PrCs in the DMG aren't great but they are generally have prerequisites that a character interested in the PrC would have taken anyways. Later PrCs tend to emphasize feat/skill taxes as a sort of trade-off for cool abilities. That's where the "deck building" stuff came in because most characters had so few feats (and the stupid feat chains didn't help). If it weren't for the PrC entry taxes and the power tricks that they are used to justify in the PrCs, I don't think you'd see as much character building.

Frozen_Feet
2015-01-31, 01:38 PM
It's hilarious, because AD&D Gary is such a different dude than OD&D Gary and At His Table Gary. I mean, he had Vampire and Balrog PCs. And let's not even get into Gord, who out-Drizzts Drizzt.

Well, the 1st ed AD&D DMG is ostensibly all about Gary imparting his experience and wisdom on newer DMs. Obviously he wouldn't have known how poorly such characters worked, if someone at his table had not tested it. :smalltongue::smallwink:

kyoryu
2015-01-31, 01:55 PM
Yeah, no doubt about the deck building picking up later in the lifecycle, and certainly some of the stuff *required* deckbuilding.

That said, my point was more about people that enjoy deckbuilding as an activity in and of itself, and especially those who consider it a primary focus of an RPG. If that's how you view it, then it makes a lot more sense for the GM to have to adhere to the same rules.

If you play M:tG against someone, you expect them to build legal decks.

CarpeGuitarrem
2015-02-01, 09:27 AM
That does it. Next game, my players will face a TOON character -

Ragnar Rabbit, the Hanna-Barbarian.
*slow clap*

Akodo Makama
2015-02-01, 04:22 PM
Yeah, no doubt about the deck building picking up later in the lifecycle, and certainly some of the stuff *required* deckbuilding.

That said, my point was more about people that enjoy deckbuilding as an activity in and of itself, and especially those who consider it a primary focus of an RPG. If that's how you view it, then it makes a lot more sense for the GM to have to adhere to the same rules.

If you play M:tG against someone, you expect them to build legal decks.

And yet, a lot of people totally love playing Netrunner, where the two opposing decks have different limitations, different cards to choose from, and different goals to achieve to win the game. You can still get the 'deck building' feel, even when the two sides don't use the same rules.

Segev
2015-02-02, 12:11 PM
And yet, a lot of people totally love playing Netrunner, where the two opposing decks have different limitations, different cards to choose from, and different goals to achieve to win the game. You can still get the 'deck building' feel, even when the two sides don't use the same rules.

Ah, but you also don't have the sense that you could not play by those other rules if you so chose.

Also, this works in an adversarial game.

But the nature of RPGs tends to be one where your victory condition is not just "beat the bad guy" anymore. In games where this is not the case - where "go, kill, win" is the MO, sure, some asymmetry's fine as it's a game of DM vs. players playing with different "decks."

In games where "I want to have impact on the setting" is a valid thing for a player to say, giving the NPCs a stacked deck of special abilities PCs cannot possibly have gets irritating, especially when those abilities are more powerful than what the PCs get and only are "balanced" by the fact that the DM chooses not to use them to greater effect.

Knaight
2015-02-02, 01:29 PM
In games where "I want to have impact on the setting" is a valid thing for a player to say, giving the NPCs a stacked deck of special abilities PCs cannot possibly have gets irritating, especially when those abilities are more powerful than what the PCs get and only are "balanced" by the fact that the DM chooses not to use them to greater effect.

What if the stacked deck of special abilities don't give them extra powers. Again, Chronica Feudalis has 1 wound, 2 wound, and 3 wound NPCs, and only 3 wound PCs. Being ineffective and taken out easily is pretty much an NPC only trait (at least as regards wounds, having a set of completely useless skills for some type of conflict is easy), because the PC rules explicitly don't model side characters and borderline character-shaped window dressing.

I'll also say that as a player I generally want to have an impact on the setting (though it can be on a small part of it), and I have no issue with NPCs having genre-appropriate abilities restricted to them. The PCs in a sword and sorcery game aren't going to be the ones forming a cult and performing some bizarre ritual at some really significant time to summon some dead evil god. That's exactly what some S&S antagonists do though, so having it be open to them seems fine to me.

mephnick
2015-02-02, 01:55 PM
As an example, I just made a level 12 druid using real character generation in 5e and then tried to figure out his CR. The defensive scores ranged from CR 3 to CR 9 and the offensive scores ranged from CR 10 to CR 17. Am I supposed to make him a CR 8 and hope he never hits anyone?

So I said screw it, kept his offensive scores and gave him appropriate defense scores. Now I have a boss I can actually run. Sorry, PC's.

Segev
2015-02-02, 02:24 PM
What if the stacked deck of special abilities don't give them extra powers. Again, Chronica Feudalis has 1 wound, 2 wound, and 3 wound NPCs, and only 3 wound PCs. Being ineffective and taken out easily is pretty much an NPC only trait (at least as regards wounds, having a set of completely useless skills for some type of conflict is easy), because the PC rules explicitly don't model side characters and borderline character-shaped window dressing.I have less problem with asymmetry if the asymmetry does not give the NPCs MORE ability than the PCs can have. I would expect that the GM always has the option of using the PCs' character-building methods on the NPCs; if that is not the case, that's also potentially a problem. Simplified NPC-building is fine and dandy. I only object if the NPC's "simplified" build lets him do things that I am not allowed to.


The PCs in a sword and sorcery game aren't going to be the ones forming a cult and performing some bizarre ritual at some really significant time to summon some dead evil god.Why aren't they? Why, if the PCs want to be the ones to do it, should they not be allowed to?

Knaight
2015-02-02, 02:42 PM
I have less problem with asymmetry if the asymmetry does not give the NPCs MORE ability than the PCs can have. I would expect that the GM always has the option of using the PCs' character-building methods on the NPCs; if that is not the case, that's also potentially a problem. Simplified NPC-building is fine and dandy. I only object if the NPC's "simplified" build lets him do things that I am not allowed to.


Why aren't they? Why, if the PCs want to be the ones to do it, should they not be allowed to?
Largely because that sort of thing often works better without being properly systematized, and because the core conceit of the genre has sufficiently clearly delineated narrative roles. As such, it's vastly easier to make a significantly better system that focuses on the more protagonist-side of things while leaving a "plot magic" opening. If the players want to play a game as a bunch of cultists trying to go for a doom ritual, it's likely better to just play a different game.

Segev
2015-02-02, 03:10 PM
Largely because that sort of thing often works better without being properly systematized, and because the core conceit of the genre has sufficiently clearly delineated narrative roles. As such, it's vastly easier to make a significantly better system that focuses on the more protagonist-side of things while leaving a "plot magic" opening. If the players want to play a game as a bunch of cultists trying to go for a doom ritual, it's likely better to just play a different game.

Ah, but if it's better for all games for them not to be able to, what game should they play?

To put it another way: we're down to a matter of taste. Which is fine; I just happen to like games where the asymmetry doesn't translate to "NPCs get toys that are too cool for the PCs," or worse, "NPCs can do things PCs cannot, no matter how little sense that makes." It's fine if you like different kinds of games. But I prefer more symmetry to less.

Knaight
2015-02-02, 03:19 PM
Ah, but if it's better for all games for them not to be able to, what game should they play?

I'm definitely not saying it's better for all games to be asymmetrical, let alone asymmetrical in the same way. Generic systems in particular often benefit from symmetry in used stats and end results to some degree (though character creation method symmetry can take a hike). What I am saying is that it's totally fine for just about any given system to be asymmetrical and to have PC only or NPC only traits, or even to use dramatically different mechanics for the two.

Segev
2015-02-02, 03:24 PM
I'll agree that, depending on what the system is trying to do, it's fine to be asymmetrical. I just tend not to prefer those sorts of games.

Rakaydos
2015-02-02, 04:03 PM
Ah, but if it's better for all games for them not to be able to, what game should they play?

To put it another way: we're down to a matter of taste. Which is fine; I just happen to like games where the asymmetry doesn't translate to "NPCs get toys that are too cool for the PCs," or worse, "NPCs can do things PCs cannot, no matter how little sense that makes." It's fine if you like different kinds of games. But I prefer more symmetry to less.

I think you might like Myriad Song/Ironclaw. PCs build power slowly but have (theoretical) access to all the same abilities the NPCs do, and take damage in the same way. PCs and named villians tend to be more complex and get the same codified plot armor ability (in an otherwise lethal system) whereas backround NPCs are simplified to the point of having all stats the same (at what number repending on how hard they should be to best, the difference between nameless punks and nameless brutes) and only basic abilities.

NichG
2015-02-02, 07:45 PM
More to the point, with the Sword and Sorcery doom cult, the asymmetry can come from having a prerequisite of specially functional knowledge rather than built-in character abilities. Its a D&D-ism that everything that does something must be associated in some way with the level-up process (either through abilities gained from classes or from a standard level of fungible wealth).

If you just need to do a particular ritual (like 'Pazuzu Pazuzu Pazuzu') regardless of who you are, that seems like it would be symmetric, but its actually quite asymmetric because the DM is always the first one to know if there is some kind of ritual of that sort. E.g. if the ritual is written in the Tome of the Unbound Flesh, the cultists can always 'have already read it', but the PCs would always need to first learn about its existence, then locate it, then read it.

I guess my point is, there is always asymmetry as long as the roles of the players and the roles of the DM are asymmetric. Making the system appear symmetric feels like just putting a cover of paint over that to soothe the ego.

Flickerdart
2015-02-02, 11:13 PM
putting a cover of paint over that to soothe the ego.
Welcome to design 101. :smalltongue:

Bob of Mage
2015-02-03, 12:08 AM
PC:NPC symmetry is a must in the in-game world. If a PC picks up a "normal" gun and shoots it, the same things happens if a NPC did the same action. If a true dragon NPC can take a class that makes him a god, any PC true dragon that takes the same class can become a god.

It's all about having the world itself make sense. An input of x + y from a PC will always function the same as it would for the same NPC. The real question is what options can a player use for PCs? Clearly being a god is too system breaking for most game which is why it's out. If the normal human PC somehow undertakes the actions to become a god he does so. Sure he might need a trillion followers to worship him, but why is he banned from doing it if an NPC could?

The point of RPGs like D&D is the group as a whole to have fun. This means that the DM is not the only preson with input on the path the story takes. If a PC wants to take a crazy side path (say become a dragon god for example), and everyone thinks that would be neat to roleplay, why should it be banned if they follow the same path an NPC would have to (be born or become a true dragon, enter the needed class, reach level 12 and become a god)? I feel that in-world a PC should be able to follow any path as long as the table agrees out of game. The reverse holds for NPCs. How mad do you think players will be if NPCs can fly from willpower and stronger willed PCs can not? Pretty sure they would be mad and they are within their rights to refuse to keep playing with a DM that acts that way.

NichG
2015-02-03, 08:57 AM
Welcome to design 101. :smalltongue:

Fair enough I suppose, but I'm more of the flies/honey school of thought than the 'nice doggy'/big stick school of thought. Designing around soothing the ego of players that already internally resent you feels like you've (or someone has) already let something get out of hand.

LudicSavant
2015-02-03, 09:05 AM
I think PC:NPC symmetry is very important for a variety of reasons, but I also believe that it is important to expedite the NPC creation process. It doesn't matter to me much if PC creation takes a long time, but it is a huge burden on the DM if NPC creation can take hours.

As a game designer, I often ask myself: How can I set up the rules to get the best of both worlds? That is, what if there were a way to create NPCs much faster than PCs, without really sacrificing PC:NPC symmetry? For example, let's say you have access to 80 spells, but can only have 8 spells prepared at a given time. If you were creating an NPC that would last one encounter, you only have to stat them up with 8 spells unless they're a repeat encounter, in which case you can take more time on the NPC. Another example would be making it so that wealth by level is not important to base relevance (e.g. gear is more like "get a grappling hook" rather than "get a level-appropriate save bonus) so that you could also potentially omit some of the gearing-up process from NPC creation. Using methods such as these, NPCs can take far less time to create, while still following all of the same rules as PCs.

So here's my question for you guys to ponder. What else can one do to make NPC creation much faster than PC creation without sacrificing PC:NPC symmetry?

neonchameleon
2015-02-03, 10:30 AM
Consider a possible skill, feat, or ability that would warp any encounter it was used in.

If a one-time NPC has that power, there is a single interesting, unique encounter.
If a PC had it, the entire game - every encounter, every session, the entire campaign - is warped.

This, incidentally, is a lot of what is wrong with high level D&D 3.X - the highest level PC in Greyhawk was about level 14, and I don't think there were any wizards with 7th level spells. Which meant they could hide plot device spells at high levels. 3.0 removed the soft-cap at level 10 and this gave PCs access to plot device spells.


Well, the 1st ed AD&D DMG is ostensibly all about Gary imparting his experience and wisdom on newer DMs. Obviously he wouldn't have known how poorly such characters worked, if someone at his table had not tested it. :smalltongue::smallwink:

The 1st ed DMG is about tournament rules and rules that allow you to take the same character from game to game and group to group with different DMs (which is why "Monty Haul" DMs were so loathed). At a table with a definite head you can be a lot looser - as B/X was.


PC:NPC symmetry is a must in the in-game world. If a PC picks up a "normal" gun and shoots it, the same things happens if a NPC did the same action.

If I pick up a normal bow and shoot it, I'm not going to be able to get the same sort of results as Lars Andersen. This symmetry applies if and only if actual character skill is of minor importance. A view I utterly reject.


If a true dragon NPC can take a class that makes him a god, any PC true dragon that takes the same class can become a god.

What class am I? Internet nerd? To me "class" is a gamist conceit for structuring the world rather than something that actually exists.


It's all about having the world itself make sense. An input of x + y from a PC will always function the same as it would for the same NPC.

But Fred Weasley is not George Weasley. Identical twins aren't the same.


Sure he might need a trillion followers to worship him, but why is he banned from doing it if an NPC could?

Because it's not part of the scope of the game, and because the default assumption is that he will not do so. If a PC wants to take a crazy side path then it's going to involve massive elements of DM fiat anyway. You can house rule. On the other hand if the PC doesn't take the crazy side path, having the rules there will add clutter to my game thereby making it harder to learn, harder to run, and overall a worse experience for everyone who does not use that one obscure pathway. (That one path isn't going to do much on its own - but there are literally thousands of such cases, each of which adds clutter while ultimately not saving the DM much time).

TheCountAlucard
2015-02-03, 11:10 AM
Fair enough I suppose, but I'm more of the flies/honey school of thought than the 'nice doggy'/big stick school of thought.What's this about flies and honey, now? :smallconfused:

NichG
2015-02-03, 12:27 PM
What's this about flies and honey, now? :smallconfused:

If you keep your players happy, then they'll focus on the cool and awesome things more than things that could potentially be abused, used against them, or used to lord power over them. For example, in Segev's comments, he's mostly concerned with NPCs being asymmetric in a way that favors them over PCs, not the other way around (e.g. the example of a game where PCs all get 3hp and NPCs have 1 or 2 wasn't a problem).

So the trick is, make sure you give the PCs things that no one else has. Then when NPCs also have things that no one else has, not only is it more clear that you aren't doing it for sake of a power trip, but you're also keeping the players in a favorable mood where they aren't concerned with you going on a power trip because the last time you pulled something out of nowhere it was fun and awesome and theirs.

For example, D&D has a built in premise which goes something like 'under sufficient retraining and resource refresh, there is a transformation which can transform any level X + Y wealth character into any other level X + Y wealth character'. E.g. you do not gain history-dependent benefits or penalties. So, if you break that rule, make sure that you break it is in the PCs' favor first: the party does something awesome at a critical moment, and everyone gets a free bonus feat commemorating the event. Then, if you later introduce an NPC who e.g. has more ranks in a skill than their level would support in order to e.g. provide some particular story function that lets you gloss over the details, you're priming the PCs to feel positive about the idea rather than negative: they got a free feat, this guy just got a few free ranks of Craft(Alchemy) or whatever.

The PCs don't need to reliably or reproducibly be able to set up situations where they get particular bonuses, and in fact you should take great steps to ensure that it can't be reproduced to prevent the game from becoming about gaming that system for infinite resources. Just the idea that a character can be history-dependent, and that the mechanic has a dominantly positive feel for the PCs, sets a good mood about that kind of thing.

If on the other hand, the only time you ever invoke PC/NPC asymmetry is to give the NPCs something which threatens the PCs or messes up their plans, of course the players are going to get bitter about that. And then even when it doesn't matter they're going to be nitpicky and cautious.

endur
2015-02-03, 04:17 PM
Player NPC symmetry, players and NPCs being given the same stats and following the same rules, an example from a well known system D&D, both PCs and NPCs use the same six ability stats, but both draw from separate class types, PCs use Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric etc, NPCs use Warrior, Specialist, Noble, etc.

In your opinion, how important is PC:NPC symmetry to you when you play or DM?

So this is a role-playing game, let's divorce the role-playing from the stats.

I think it is very important to role -play the NPCs whether it is a shop keeper you will only see once or a long standing NPC that will be seen in game for years.

However, I don't think the stats matter much ... the PCs won't know whether an NPC knight they encounter is a paladin or a fighter or a warrior or an aristocrat or actually belongs to the knight class.

My personal preference is to use PC classes for major NPCs and non-PC classes (warrior, etc.) for minor NPCs.

To make it easier, I tend to only use PHB classes and feats for NPCs ... adding in rules from all the splat books makes the NPCs way too complex.

Flickerdart
2015-02-03, 05:16 PM
However, I don't think the stats matter much ... the PCs won't know whether an NPC knight they encounter is a paladin or a fighter or a warrior or an aristocrat or actually belongs to the knight class.
Asymmetry is definitely something that is in the eye of the beholder - the PCs won't know if the NPC has 3/4 BAB or 1/1 BAB or even 2/1 BAB, but they'll definitely notice when tumbling around him is suddenly much harder, or he's way more effective against the token evil party member, or he knows more combat techniques than any of them do.

goto124
2015-02-03, 07:09 PM
TBecause it's not part of the scope of the game, and because the default assumption is that he will not do so. If a PC wants to take a crazy side path then it's going to involve massive elements of DM fiat anyway. You can house rule. On the other hand if the PC doesn't take the crazy side path, having the rules there will add clutter to my game thereby making it harder to learn, harder to run, and overall a worse experience for everyone who does not use that one obscure pathway. (That one path isn't going to do much on its own - but there are literally thousands of such cases, each of which adds clutter while ultimately not saving the DM much time).

You put it better than I could.

TheCountAlucard
2015-02-03, 11:32 PM
-snip-What's that got to do with honey?

NichG
2015-02-04, 12:47 AM
What's that got to do with honey?

The original proverb is 'you catch more flies with honey than vinegar'. Honey, in this case, means making the idea of PC/NPC asymmetry attractive to the players because it also works in their favor, as opposed to e.g. trying to disguise it or apologize for it or whatever.

Beta Centauri
2015-02-04, 03:05 AM
In reality, you catch more flies with vinegar than with honey.

Milo v3
2015-02-04, 03:10 AM
In reality, you catch more flies with vinegar than with honey.

In reality, people don't want to attract flies.

Cazero
2015-02-04, 03:48 AM
In reality, people don't want to attract flies.

You forgot the part where flies are stuck in the honey and can't leave. It is a form of pest control.

Akodo Makama
2015-02-04, 04:43 AM
The original proverb is 'you catch more flies with honey than vinegar'. Honey, in this case, means making the idea of PC/NPC asymmetry attractive to the players because it also works in their favor, as opposed to e.g. trying to disguise it or apologize for it or whatever.

Of course, in actual experiments, bowls of vinegar attract far more flies than bowls of honey left in the same locations, and bowls of feces gather even more.

goto124
2015-02-04, 04:45 AM
This is leading up to a pun isn't it?

VincentTakeda
2015-02-04, 10:44 AM
In actuality you attract more honeys by being fly.

TheCountAlucard
2015-02-04, 11:05 AM
In actuality you attract more honeys by being fly.
Vincent wins the thread.

Segev
2015-02-05, 02:34 PM
PC:NPC symmetry is a must in the in-game world. If a PC picks up a "normal" gun and shoots it, the same things happens if a NPC did the same action. If a true dragon NPC can take a class that makes him a god, any PC true dragon that takes the same class can become a god.

It's all about having the world itself make sense. An input of x + y from a PC will always function the same as it would for the same NPC. The real question is what options can a player use for PCs? Clearly being a god is too system breaking for most game which is why it's out. If the normal human PC somehow undertakes the actions to become a god he does so. Sure he might need a trillion followers to worship him, but why is he banned from doing it if an NPC could?

This is the point I was trying to get at. Thank you, Bob, for spelling it out so much more clearly than I was/could.

Beta Centauri
2015-02-05, 02:56 PM
PC:NPC symmetry is a must in the in-game world. If a PC picks up a "normal" gun and shoots it, the same things happens if a NPC did the same action. Not if the GM doesn't want it to.

There are different ways to model an NPC shooting a gun, for example. It might be identical to the PC's action, or it might not. A GM might just decide that an NPC's shot misses, or hits. It might do more damage than a PC's shot would, or just automatically cause a desired effect. It's like TV shows: sure the bad guys have guns, but sometimes those guns are used with deadly accuracy, and sometimes they just help set the scene.


If a true dragon NPC can take a class that makes him a god, any PC true dragon that takes the same class can become a god. A great reason for the NPC not to be represented by classes. If a GM needs a dragon NPC to become a god, then it does, without needed to hew to whatever options are offered to players.


It's all about having the world itself make sense. An input of x + y from a PC will always function the same as it would for the same NPC. That's not the only way for the world to make sense. In fact, too much of a reliance on that can cause the world to stop making sense. A lot of simulation, you'll find, functions not on logic and consistency, but on what people want to see and imagine they should be seeing. It's why perfectly realistic computer generated human forms tend to be creepy and why more cartoonish forms work very well.


The real question is what options can a player use for PCs? Clearly being a god is too system breaking for most game which is why it's out. But it wouldn't be for an NPC, which is why an NPC can be allowed, when a player maybe shouldn't. A player could avoid breaking the game when given such options, but they have less incentive not to break things than the GM does.


If the normal human PC somehow undertakes the actions to become a god he does so. Sure he might need a trillion followers to worship him, but why is he banned from doing it if an NPC could? If he needs a trillion followers, he's effectively banned from it anyway.

This is another reason not to build NPCs like characters: if the NPC isn't using an option but just has whatever it has, then the PC isn't "banned" from using an option. The PC is a PC and the NPC is an NPC.


The point of RPGs like D&D is the group as a whole to have fun. This means that the DM is not the only preson with input on the path the story takes. If a PC wants to take a crazy side path (say become a dragon god for example), and everyone thinks that would be neat to roleplay, why should it be banned if they follow the same path an NPC would have to (be born or become a true dragon, enter the needed class, reach level 12 and become a god)? He shouldn't, but that still doesn't mean that there needs to be symmetry. It works just as well if the NPC "just can" and the PC has to go through some quest or adventure, rather than simply picking an option from a book.


I feel that in-world a PC should be able to follow any path as long as the table agrees out of game. The reverse holds for NPCs. How mad do you think players will be if NPCs can fly from willpower and stronger willed PCs can not? Not mad at all, if the players find it to be a fun challenge.

I'm happy to give players anything they need to make the game fun. They don't need to find the option or copy an NPC's stats or whatever. If they can fly or become a god or whatever, I'm happy to play that game, as long as they help me come up with situations that can still challenge them.

None of that requires symmetry in the sense of NPCs being built like PCs.

Segev
2015-02-05, 03:41 PM
Beta, I cannot disagree with you more strongly, here, while remaining civil.

The very idea that if an NPC shoots a gun and it fires missiles, then a PC picks up the same gun and it instead fires cream pies, when the only difference is that one's an NPC and the other's a PC, creates any sort of verisimilitude is preposterous.

Am I missing something? Do you not mean what it looks like your post clearly said? Explain to me how verisimilitude is heightened if a PC doing exactly what an NPC did, or vice-versa, causes totally different results strictly based on whether it was a PC or NPC that did it.

neonchameleon
2015-02-05, 04:35 PM
Beta, I cannot disagree with you more strongly, here, while remaining civil.

The very idea that if an NPC shoots a gun and it fires missiles, then a PC picks up the same gun and it instead fires cream pies, when the only difference is that one's an NPC and the other's a PC, creates any sort of verisimilitude is preposterous.

Am I missing something? Do you not mean what it looks like your post clearly said? Explain to me how verisimilitude is heightened if a PC doing exactly what an NPC did, or vice-versa, causes totally different results strictly based on whether it was a PC or NPC that did it.

And that's a strawman.

Try the following. "Expert Sniper picks up the gun he's been using for years. Casually sights it and hits an enemy tank right in the ammo box. Tank blows up. Schlub picks up the expert sniper's gun, can't aim it properly, has the bullet go wild, and breaks his shoulder on the recoil."

The gun does the same thing. Fires a bullet and kicks like a mule. But the effects of the gun doing the same thing are amazingly different.

Or for a less extreme example, Jayne has been using Vera for ages. Vera might as well be an extension of Jayne's arm. In Mal's hands, Vera is a decent gun - but nothing special. Mal doesn't know how Vera is balanced. And in Jayne's hands, Mal's guns are decent. But Jayne with Vera is far more dangerous than either Mal with Vera or Jayne with any other gun, even if with a random gun they are close to equal shots.

In neither case is it cream pies vs bullets. In both cases who is firing the gun is incredibly important. Close only counts with horse shoes, hand grenades, and nukes.

Segev
2015-02-05, 04:50 PM
You perhaps missed the key part where I was objecting to the only difference being that it was fired by a PC one time and an NPC the other time.

If Beta was writing as you suggested, that's fine. But that's not objecting to what Bob wrote then, either.

Vera the Expert Sniper NPC using the gun and doing what she does is fine. If Verne the Expert Sniper PC picks up that same gun and has the same expertise with it, he should be able to do the same thing Vera did, at least to within expected margin of error.

If Jayne the NPC is expert with HIS rifle to the point that he gets bonuses with that specific one, of course Bob the PC picking it up won't be as good. That's because Jayne has the Signature Weapon feat for that rifle, and even if Bob has Signature Weapon, it's for a different rifle.

But nothing prevents Bob from becoming as good with his own rifle as Jayne is with Jayne's.

That's the symmetry to which Beta seems to be objecting in no uncertain terms.

NichG
2015-02-05, 05:07 PM
Segev, you're missing the point where 'the only difference' you're positing can, logically, imply a large number of additional differences if there is a constraint on who can be a PC and who cannot. You are already assuming that it is possible to make a PC and NPC identical in all other ways than that label.

E.g. lets take the gun case. There is an ability in the system called 'ghost bullet' which lets you transform a bullet from a gun into an ethereal shot that can hit ghosts. Due to whatever factors, this ability can only be obtained by PCs: it requires having visited the ancient ruins of The Old West and fighting against the ghost of Billy the Kid, which can only be done once since it kills the ghost to do it, and was part of the PC plotline, for example. In this case, absolutely, something different can happen when a PC picks up the gun than when an NPC picks up the gun, and this can make perfect sense.

It's not part of the gun, its part of the character. And history-dependence can make it impossible for two characters to be identical.

Beta Centauri
2015-02-05, 05:37 PM
Part of the hangup seems to involve PCs not getting to do things the NPCs can do. People get tetchy about that.

Fine. Even though the NPC is not built like a PC and its abilities are not intended to be used by a PC or in the ways a PC would probably use them, sure, the player can do that. We'll gin something up. If it breaks the kind of game we were playing, we'll play a different kind of game.

Meanwhile, the NPCs will continue to not be built like PCs, and will function as the GM desires them to function to bring about what they and their players consider to be a fun game with interesting situations. Rarely, if ever, will this require an NPC doing the exact same thing as a PC because a) there's not much of a need to and b) even if there is a need to, there's more than one way to simulate the same effect. For instance, the PC can disarm NPCs, eliminating their ability to do damage effectively and the NPC can disarm the PC (should its standard allotment of abilities prove inadequate) imposing a temporary -2 penalty to attack rolls.

Vertharrad
2015-02-06, 07:50 PM
Segev, you're missing the point where 'the only difference' you're positing can, logically, imply a large number of additional differences if there is a constraint on who can be a PC and who cannot. You are already assuming that it is possible to make a PC and NPC identical in all other ways than that label.

E.g. lets take the gun case. There is an ability in the system called 'ghost bullet' which lets you transform a bullet from a gun into an ethereal shot that can hit ghosts. Due to whatever factors, this ability can only be obtained by PCs: it requires having visited the ancient ruins of The Old West and fighting against the ghost of Billy the Kid, which can only be done once since it kills the ghost to do it, and was part of the PC plotline, for example. In this case, absolutely, something different can happen when a PC picks up the gun than when an NPC picks up the gun, and this can make perfect sense.

It's not part of the gun, its part of the character. And history-dependence can make it impossible for two characters to be identical.

Then a NPC goes and kills the ghost of Wyatt Earp and gets the same ability...see how that works?

Just because you can doesn't mean you will. But what makes me any different than the cop two houses down? I was trained and worked as a army infantryman for 3 1/2 years and he has been a cop for longer...nothing makes him any less or anymore able to take that weapon spec feat than me(exept I might be warrior and he might be fighter) see how that works? Symmetry stikes again. Your ignoring that in actuality there is no difference from a PC and NPC(the only difference is one's played by a human player and the other by a human GM). It's about options and making the character you want to play. I don't like being told that that cool thing the NPC did that would fit my character can't possibly be accomplished..because GM BS. Come up with the prereqs and I might just jump through those hoops. Or I might look for another OP ability to annoy you with when I curb stomp your army. We all want fun, without players or GM there is no game, you sometimes need compromise and symmetrical systems help in their own way.

NichG
2015-02-06, 09:18 PM
Then a NPC goes and kills the ghost of Wyatt Earp and gets the same ability...see how that works?

Sure, then they get... well, nothing, because Wyatt Earp isn't haunting anything and summoning up a ghost just to kill in a controlled fashion isn't the same as actually encountering an honest haunting in the greater context. Or they get a different ability since Wyatt Earp and Billy the Kid were different people with different legends and abilities and backgrounds.



Just because you can doesn't mean you will. But what makes me any different than the cop two houses down? I was trained and worked as a army infantryman for 3 1/2 years and he has been a cop for longer...nothing makes him any less or anymore able to take that weapon spec feat than me(exept I might be warrior and he might be fighter) see how that works?

On the other hand, you're probably very different than the guy who grew up in a police state, or the guy who grew up in a tribal system, or in a war-torn anarchy, or the one who was chosen to be the diplomat to the aliens in the first contact situation, or the guy who invented the automobile.

neonchameleon
2015-02-07, 11:36 AM
You perhaps missed the key part where I was objecting to the only difference being that it was fired by a PC one time and an NPC the other time.

And my point is that this is only ever the only difference if the PC and NPC are teleporter-clones. A PC/NPC split says "You are more important than the gear you are carrying". And that your choices that have shaped you matter. A lack of a split says that different people are fundamentally interchangeable and that what's important is the hardware you are carrying.


Vera the Expert Sniper NPC using the gun and doing what she does is fine. If Verne the Expert Sniper PC picks up that same gun and has the same expertise with it, he should be able to do the same thing Vera did, at least to within expected margin of error.

This assumes that Vera hasn't customised her gun, and that Verne could have exactly the same expertise, having focussed on exactly the same targets and been trained in exactly the same schools and learned from exactly the same experiences as Vera. Which is such an unlikely event that it's not worth accounting for at the cost of the greater customisation not being limited provides.

Thrudd
2015-02-07, 12:05 PM
It seems that the issue basically comes down to: players don't like being told "no". If they encounter a cool bad guy with a custom spell, or a monster with powerful special abilities, in the next game someone wants to have it or be it. This is more common among young/new gamers than experienced folk, but I'm sure it isn't isolated.
The DM needs tools to be able to challenge and surprise the players, and sometimes that means being able to give enemies whatever abilities they want without worrying about designing a whole new subsystem for the game to describe it. There is no rule that says the players must have access to anything and everything that exists in the game world for their characters. I find it is best if they don't. Limits make for a more sensical and cohesive game environment.

Bob of Mage
2015-02-07, 01:41 PM
Here's a question what changes when a PC becomes a NPC or vice versa? We all know it can and does happen so what happens when a being in the game world gets a new real world human puppeteer. It would be weird if some magic transformation happened. Did anything happen in the game world? No, nothing happened. The in-game being should not gain or lose things like skills solely based on what type of player controls them. In case you're wondering yes GMs are a type of player too.

kyoryu
2015-02-07, 01:42 PM
It seems that the issue basically comes down to: players don't like being told "no". If they encounter a cool bad guy with a custom spell, or a monster with powerful special abilities, in the next game someone wants to have it or be it. This is more common among young/new gamers than experienced folk, but I'm sure it isn't isolated.
The DM needs tools to be able to challenge and surprise the players, and sometimes that means being able to give enemies whatever abilities they want without worrying about designing a whole new subsystem for the game to describe it. There is no rule that says the players must have access to anything and everything that exists in the game world for their characters. I find it is best if they don't. Limits make for a more sensical and cohesive game environment.

I'm with you.

I do think there's an argument for PC/NPC symmetry if you're playing a more competitive style game, where "character build" is really part of the competition. That's totally not how I like playing, and I'm not super interested in playing with people that like that, but I can see it.

Thrudd
2015-02-07, 01:53 PM
Here's a question what changes when a PC becomes a NPC or vice versa? We all know it can and does happen so what happens when a being in the game world gets a new real world human puppeteer. It would be weird if some magic transformation happened. Did anything happen in the game world? No, nothing happened. The in-game being should not gain or lose things like skills solely based on what type of player controls them. In case you're wondering yes GMs are a type of player too.

A pc that becomes an npc doesn't change in their statistics or abilities, at least not right away. And npc's that could potentially become pc's, like henchmen, are built just like pc's. But once a character becomes an npc and goes "off screen", anything could happen to them.
What if an evil retired pc wizard comes back years later, as a lich, or Demi-god, with powers I have invented? I don't need to have specific mechanics worked out for how they did it, nor allow the players to get those abilities for their current characters. If a character pursued and somehow succeeded in becoming a lich or a god, at that point they would be retired and become an NPC.

NichG
2015-02-07, 04:41 PM
Here's a question what changes when a PC becomes a NPC or vice versa? We all know it can and does happen so what happens when a being in the game world gets a new real world human puppeteer. It would be weird if some magic transformation happened. Did anything happen in the game world? No, nothing happened. The in-game being should not gain or lose things like skills solely based on what type of player controls them. In case you're wondering yes GMs are a type of player too.

Even aside from everything else, a PC that becomes an NPC inevitably gains the special OOC ability 'can act off-screen'. This actually has tons of specific game mechanical consequences, far more than something like +2 to hit. It means that that character can e.g. retrieve a dangerous artifact from a mad cult based entirely on whether or not it feels credible that they could do so, rather than having to suffer the actual uncertainty of playing through that adventure. This also means that they become immune to the law of conservation of spotlight - they can do things offscreen which would be very tedious and time-consuming OOC (even if relatively fast IC) for a PC to do. For example, an NPC thief can be responsible for 'a string of burglaries' without having to dedicate 30 minutes of play time to each individual break-in.

Similarly, the gain the special OOC flaw 'less important than the PCs'. This means that their actions only have first-order relevance to the gaming group if they somehow relate back to the PCs, and not in their own right. That is to say, everything they do becomes measured by 'will this influence what happens on screen?' or 'will this influence a thing that will influence what happens on screen?'.

As far as specific in-game abilities, they can certainly retain them. But especially for NPC -> PC, characters who have abilities that are categorically inappropriate or disproportionately powerful for PCs are simply not likely to be allowed to become PCs. E.g. "No, you can't play Pelor". The question of whether or not Pelor would lose his divine rank if you have a rule 'PCs cannot get divine rank' and he became a PC is a meaningless one, because the rule simply means 'Pelor will not become a PC'.

Similarly, PCs with PC-only powers like 'chosen one' who become NPCs tend to fade out of relevance very quickly and stop showing up on-screen. E.g. they have abilities that require a proactive role, which would not be appropriate for the DM to run seriously, and so rather than hanging around and causing problems as a DMPC they take the first cue to exit the stage.

Milo v3
2015-02-07, 06:14 PM
It seems that the issue basically comes down to: players don't like being told "no".
I disagree, as a GM 95% of the time, I still prefer a degree of synergy between PC's and NPC's. Gives me some limits on stuff, from which I can use to decide how stuff like people and societies in the world works.

goto124
2015-02-07, 10:54 PM
I agree with a lot of NichG's points. PCs and NPCs have different priorities. Don't force them to use the exact same system and rules the same way.

Rakaydos
2015-02-08, 12:03 AM
I disagree, as a GM 95% of the time, I still prefer a degree of synergy between PC's and NPC's. Gives me some limits on stuff, from which I can use to decide how stuff like people and societies in the world works.

I didnt know so many people played in the Tippyverse.

Milo v3
2015-02-08, 02:01 AM
I didnt know so many people played in the Tippyverse.

I assume that's a joke... but yeah actually. Not a true optimised tippyverse, but people do actually use magic how people would use it.

Akodo Makama
2015-02-08, 02:04 AM
I didnt know so many people played in the Tippyverse.

PC:NPC symmetry is what gave us Pun-Pun: "That creature has an ability, therefore PCs must be able to access it as well."

Before 3e, people just assumed that some monsters had abilities they'd never get. Now, some people feel like it's 'cheating' for the GM to not have the same exact limitations they do. I feel some abilities should never be allowed to be used by the players (see Sarruhk::Manipulate Form). So, I shrug my shoulders, let them play the game they want, and keep playing the game I and my players have loved for several decades, where NPCs don't play by the same character-building rules as the PCs.

Daedroth
2015-02-08, 05:34 AM
PC:NPC symmetry is what gave us Pun-Pun: "That creature has an ability, therefore PCs must be able to access it as well."

Before 3e, people just assumed that some monsters had abilities they'd never get. Now, some people feel like it's 'cheating' for the GM to not have the same exact limitations they do. I feel some abilities should never be allowed to be used by the players (see Sarruhk::Manipulate Form). So, I shrug my shoulders, let them play the game they want, and keep playing the game I and my players have loved for several decades, where NPCs don't play by the same character-building rules as the PCs.

Pun-Pun is the proof that this ability should not exist in the first place (Or Kobolds would be ruling the world... or destroying it by sheer sillyness).

NichG
2015-02-08, 09:14 AM
The ability itself isn't nearly so bad if you think of it as an abstraction of a hard-to-define open-ended set of possibilities. It's only if you combine it with a view point that literally only the text on the page is binding and with complete knowledge of the rules-as-physics that things get out of hand. E.g., much like Wall of Iron economics, the broken-ness is a consequence of treating the rules as physics, rather than as an generally functional approximation of some more complex ideas.

The reason it causes more problems in PCs than in NPCs is that it's in the DM's primary job is to create the illusion that the game world is self-consistent even when due to pragmatic reasons it isn't, whereas often for the players there's no such constraint (outside of gentleman's agreements and the like). So the DM knows they can break the world by RAW, but then says 'this wouldn't serve the game, so actually its more constrained than the rules text suggests'.

johnbragg
2015-02-08, 11:02 AM
It's about options and making the character you want to play. I don't like being told that that cool thing the NPC did that would fit my character can't possibly be accomplished..because GM BS. Come up with the prereqs and I might just jump through those hoops.

The problem with asymmetry is that it can create the impression that the DM is "cheating". Frex, the DM bans Tome of Battle or Incarnum or psionics because "it doesn't exist in this setting" and then you're fighting vampires with warblade levels and drow swordsages. I don't know Vertharrad, but I think if the answer to why his PC can't have soulmelds is "soulmelds aren't standard in this campaign, to get them you basically have to retire from adventuring and spend a couple of years or decades doing obscure rituals in a candlelit dungeon--in other words, be an NPC" might be acceptable.



It seems that the issue basically comes down to: players don't like being told "no". If they encounter a cool bad guy with a custom spell, or a monster with powerful special abilities, in the next game someone wants to have it or be it. This is more common among young/new gamers than experienced folk, but I'm sure it isn't isolated.
The DM needs tools to be able to challenge and surprise the players, and sometimes that means being able to give enemies whatever abilities they want without worrying about designing a whole new subsystem for the game to describe it. There is no rule that says the players must have access to anything and everything that exists in the game world for their characters. I find it is best if they don't. Limits make for a more sensical and cohesive game environment.

But it helps a ton if there are in-game or in-universe reasons for the limitations rather than just DM fiat.

And part of the reason can be an OOC discussion where the DM brings up that the players at this point have more knowledge of the system than their PCs do. This is a role-playing game, and as a DM I want/need the option to scare the bejeezus out of your players when they cross a threshold of danger and the rules are suddenly different. Psionics or incarnum or Tome of Battle or laserguns or lair powers aren't scary or intimidating if it's part of the ordinary campaign world. That sort of thing is what makes the boss fight or the deep levels of the dungeon special.


Even aside from everything else, a PC that becomes an NPC inevitably gains the special OOC ability 'can act off-screen'.

I've played in a couple of campaigns where PCs effectively did this--during "down time" between sessions, player-GM email covered various things the PCs were doing in town, usually without each other's knowledge. DM had to roll a couple of skill checks, but big deal.


Similarly, PCs with PC-only powers like 'chosen one' who become NPCs tend to fade out of relevance very quickly and stop showing up on-screen. E.g. they have abilities that require a proactive role, which would not be appropriate for the DM to run seriously, and so rather than hanging around and causing problems as a DMPC they take the first cue to exit the stage.

Or, y'know, power corrupts and they become campaign villains.

neonchameleon
2015-02-08, 12:10 PM
The problem with asymmetry is that it can create the impression that the DM is "cheating". Frex, the DM bans Tome of Battle or Incarnum or psionics because "it doesn't exist in this setting" and then you're fighting vampires with warblade levels and drow swordsages.

That assumption is so deeply woven into the specific 3.X systems that I don't even...

Seriously, one of the big reasons to avoid symmetry is so the DM does not have to waste their time writing up things like swordsage levels for drow that will never actually see use in play. Instead the Drow becomes a Drow Warrior who can do X. I can't think of a game outside the d20 family that has (a) detailed character creation and (b) tells you to generate PCs and NPCs the same way.

Thrudd
2015-02-08, 12:20 PM
That assumption is so deeply woven into the specific 3.X systems that I don't even...

Seriously, one of the big reasons to avoid symmetry is so the DM does not have to waste their time writing up things like swordsage levels for drow that will never actually see use in play. Instead the Drow becomes a Drow Warrior who can do X. I can't think of a game outside the d20 family that has (a) detailed character creation and (b) tells you to generate PCs and NPCs the same way.

Yes, 3e is the big problem in this area. The example I like to use is for commoner/artisans. If I want there to be a world famous master sword maker, the rules of pc creation would imply that he needs to be a high leveled commoner or expert to have enough skill points to reflect his mastery of sword making. This also means he has 15 or 20 hd worth of hit points, attack bonus, saving throws, etc. I don't need all that. I don't need to roll a craft skill to see if he can make a sword. I don't want him to have 70 hp, I want him to have 4 hp, so he is vulnerable for a story point. The pcs don't need to be able to achieve his level of perfect skill in sword making, it doesn't make sense that they would be able to. So he is an npc created by DM fiat, not according to pc building rules. He automatically succeeds at crafting swords, he has no skill as a combatant or adventurer and no more hp than any other commoner, he has no levels or xp.

johnbragg
2015-02-08, 01:07 PM
That assumption is so deeply woven into the specific 3.X systems that I don't even...

Seriously, one of the big reasons to avoid symmetry is so the DM does not have to waste their time writing up things like swordsage levels for drow that will never actually see use in play. Instead the Drow becomes a Drow Warrior who can do X. I can't think of a game outside the d20 family that has (a) detailed character creation and (b) tells you to generate PCs and NPCs the same way.

OK. For me, it's easier (faster) to stat up an NPC by stacking these-and-those class levels/feats/skills than it is to figure out whether a particular Swordsage ability I want the bad guys to use in the encounter bumps the CR up or not.

Oh, and by the way, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of old-school games where NPCs and PCs stat up pretty much the same way. GURPs, the original Star Wars RPG, old Shadowrun. (My examples are old because I'm old.)


Yes, 3e is the big problem in this area. The example I like to use is for commoner/artisans. If I want there to be a world famous master sword maker, the rules of pc creation would imply that he needs to be a high leveled commoner or expert to have enough skill points to reflect his mastery of sword making. This also means he has 15 or 20 hd worth of hit points, attack bonus, saving throws, etc. I don't need all that. I don't need to roll a craft skill to see if he can make a sword. I don't want him to have 70 hp, I want him to have 4 hp, so he is vulnerable for a story point. The pcs don't need to be able to achieve his level of perfect skill in sword making, it doesn't make sense that they would be able to. So he is an npc created by DM fiat, not according to pc building rules. He automatically succeeds at crafting swords, he has no skill as a combatant or adventurer and no more hp than any other commoner, he has no levels or xp.

That's fine.

I suppose there are two types of NPC that we're talking about here. Noncombat NPCs, who don't need stats at all (or at least any stats more detailed than "Yes/No") and combat NPCs, who do need stats. Your master smith doesn't need any stats--his Craft check is "yes", his Armor Class is "he gets hit" and his hit points are "he gets killed." But the drow warrior shouldn't have abilities that a drow PC couldn't have, unless you have a reason that will satisfy the players.

For the NPCs who need stats, I don't see much reason to have a separate process for creating them. (You can streamline some things, but why not use the same chassis for an NPC drow warrior as you would for a PC drow?)

I guess my major argument is that NPC/PC asymmetry usually breaks versimilitude. The master craftsman being useless in combat doesn't break suspension-of-disbelief. The Mary Sue DMPC having stuff you won't let the PCs have does. The BBEG having stuff you won't let the PCs have might or might not, depending on whether you can at least half-explain it.

johnbragg
2015-02-08, 01:20 PM
Yes, 3e is the big problem in this area. The example I like to use is for commoner/artisans. If I want there to be a world famous master sword maker, the rules of pc creation would imply that he needs to be a high leveled commoner or expert to have enough skill points to reflect his mastery of sword making. This also means he has 15 or 20 hd worth of hit points, attack bonus, saving throws, etc. I don't need all that. I don't need to roll a craft skill to see if he can make a sword. I don't want him to have 70 hp, I want him to have 4 hp, so he is vulnerable for a story point. The pcs don't need to be able to achieve his level of perfect skill in sword making, it doesn't make sense that they would be able to. So he is an npc created by DM fiat, not according to pc building rules. He automatically succeeds at crafting swords, he has no skill as a combatant or adventurer and no more hp than any other commoner, he has no levels or xp.

Reasonable on-the-fly houseruling can be your friend here.

If you give him 2 levels of Expert (not unreasonable), he has 5 ranks, +2 for a synergy bonus(houserule if you have to), +2 or 3 for a high ability score, +3 for Skill Focus, +2 for a masterwork workshop, +2 for aid from a senior apprentice, +2 for being a Dwarf or for being human and taking a feat for +2 to Craft checks, which gives him a Craft check of +19. And that's without letting him invest any wealth in magic items of Guidance or stat boosting.

Oh, and he has a mighty 7 hit points given average rolls for 2d6 hit points and average Constitution.

Thrudd
2015-02-08, 01:30 PM
I suppose there are two types of NPC that we're talking about here. Noncombat NPCs, who don't need stats at all (or at least any stats more detailed than "Yes/No") and combat NPCs, who do need stats. Your master smith doesn't need any stats--his Craft check is "yes", his Armor Class is "he gets hit" and his hit points are "he gets killed." But the drow warrior shouldn't have abilities that a drow PC couldn't have, unless you have a reason that will satisfy the players.

For the NPCs who need stats, I don't see much reason to have a separate process for creating them. (You can streamline some things, but why not use the same chassis for an NPC drow warrior as you would for a PC drow?)

I guess my major argument is that NPC/PC asymmetry usually breaks versimilitude. The master craftsman being useless in combat doesn't break suspension-of-disbelief. The Mary Sue DMPC having stuff you won't let the PCs have does. The BBEG having stuff you won't let the PCs have might or might not, depending on whether you can at least half-explain it.

Yes, an npc that could potentially be a pc uses the same rules, for the most part. However, in most cases the players don't and shouldn't know the stats of their enemies. If I have some bad guys that I want to be kind of tough to kill, but don't do too much damage, I might give them lower attack bonuses relative to their hp than an equivalent pc would have. Or vice versa. The point is, I don't and shouldn't explain such things to the players. If they are aware of and asking about game mechanics instead of thinking about their characters and actions, then immersion and verisimilitude are already ruined. As long as the NPCs are believable denizens of the world I have created, and their abilities are not directly contradicting something I told my players did not exist ( like a Druid npc shows up in a game where I told them Druids and Druidic magic doesn't exist), then there should be no questions or issues.

I won't give all elves in my world a racial ability that a pc elf can't have. But I may have a certain tribe or sect of elves that has different abilities than the pc elves have. As long as it makes sense in the context of the game world, there is no problem. The symmetry issue only applies when considered outside the context of a coherent world design.

Thrudd
2015-02-08, 01:36 PM
Reasonable on-the-fly houseruling can be your friend here.

If you give him 2 levels of Expert (not unreasonable), he has 5 ranks, +2 for a synergy bonus(houserule if you have to), +2 or 3 for a high ability score, +3 for Skill Focus, +2 for a masterwork workshop, +2 for aid from a senior apprentice, +2 for being a Dwarf or for being human and taking a feat for +2 to Craft checks, which gives him a Craft check of +19. And that's without letting him invest any wealth in magic items of Guidance or stat boosting.

Oh, and he has a mighty 7 hit points given average rolls for 2d6 hit points and average Constitution.

The point is, all that is unnecessary. I didn't need to know how many ranks he has in anything, he just makes world famous swords. There doesn't need to be a way to mechanically represent that with the rules, the players will never know and shouldn't ask. If someone says " how can my character become a master swordsmith like him?", the answer is, retire from adventuring and spend the rest of your life as an npc dedicated to sword making.

johnbragg
2015-02-08, 01:54 PM
As long as the NPCs are believable denizens of the world I have created, and their abilities are not directly contradicting something I told my players did not exist ( like a Druid npc shows up in a game where I told them Druids and Druidic magic doesn't exist), then there should be no questions or issues.

No doubt.


I won't give all elves in my world a racial ability that a pc elf can't have. But I may have a certain tribe or sect of elves that has different abilities than the pc elves have. As long as it makes sense in the context of the game world, there is no problem. The symmetry issue only applies when considered outside the context of a coherent world design.

Sure. And, if they want, the PCs can research why the Fire Elves (or whatever) have breath weapons (or whatever), and find out that (backstory).


The point is, all that is unnecessary. I didn't need to know how many ranks he has in anything, he just makes world famous swords.

This is true. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't that hard to create the master craftsman, if you like having all of that stuff statted up.

Knaight
2015-02-08, 02:42 PM
Coming back to the idea of an NPC and a PC doing the same thing and it having the same effect given them being sufficiently similar, that's really a setting-end and not mechanics-end thing. For instance, a lot of systems have only the players roll dice. If the player tries to stab an NPC with a spear, they roll offense*. If an NPC tries to stab the player with a spear, the player rolls defense*. Mechanically, there's an asymmetry. In setting, there's the same set of results, involving either a stab that doesn't get through or one that does and hurts the recipient to varying degrees.

*Both of these are probably the same skill here, but whatever.

Daedroth
2015-02-08, 03:30 PM
Coming back to the idea of an NPC and a PC doing the same thing and it having the same effect given them being sufficiently similar, that's really a setting-end and not mechanics-end thing. For instance, a lot of systems have only the players roll dice. If the player tries to stab an NPC with a spear, they roll offense*. If an NPC tries to stab the player with a spear, the player rolls defense*. Mechanically, there's an asymmetry. In setting, there's the same set of results, involving either a stab that doesn't get through or one that does and hurts the recipient to varying degrees.

*Both of these are probably the same skill here, but whatever.

What if a PC tries to stab another PC? Just curious.

Knaight
2015-02-08, 04:57 PM
What if a PC tries to stab another PC? Just curious.

It depends on the game, implementation varies.

Rakaydos
2015-02-08, 05:52 PM
What if a PC tries to stab another PC? Just curious.

Rocks fall and everyone dies.

Milo v3
2015-02-08, 05:54 PM
One problem with asymmetrical systems I've seen is that it can be harder to write up NPC's and "Special" people with unique powers. Because it's asymmetrical, in some cases I've had no idea how to stat up an NPC to make it a balanced opponent.

Bob of Mage
2015-02-08, 09:06 PM
What if a PC tries to stab another PC? Just curious.

What if a NPC tries to stab another NPC?

NichG
2015-02-08, 10:20 PM
One problem with asymmetrical systems I've seen is that it can be harder to write up NPC's and "Special" people with unique powers. Because it's asymmetrical, in some cases I've had no idea how to stat up an NPC to make it a balanced opponent.

Asymmetric systems with specific rules for building balanced encounters do exist. 4ed D&D is intended to work like this, for example. It explicitly recognizes in its design some of the inherent asymmetries created by the meta-game (such as PCs generally having multiple encounters a day and entering encounters without being at full strength, whereas NPCs tend to always be encountered at full strength; the action economy favoring numbers, and therefore giving boss-type monsters extra actions; etc). This kind of thing can also help to avoid the power-doubling problem that exists in 3.5, where since a significant amount of power comes from gear you have a tendency to double your wealth every time you face a truly equal opponent, and so you advance much faster than expected when fighting only humanoids unless the DM specifically optimizes NPCs to not be gear-dependent.

But the other thing is, even symmetric systems have the problem of figuring out how to balance opponents due to differences in power due to optimization. You still have to gauge what the PCs are capable of and use that to constrain the amount of optimization you use for their opponents. You could, technically, throw Pun-Pun at a party as a CR 1 encounter, but its pretty clear that you shouldn't because the outcome is obvious.

Knaight
2015-02-09, 02:11 AM
What if a NPC tries to stab another NPC?

Generally, the PC's aren't there for that, and the usual things for off-screen action apply. Even if they are, if they aren't actually involving themselves in some way then there's no real need to bring the mechanics out, and if they are they have something to roll for.

Vertharrad
2015-02-09, 02:50 AM
Uuuummmm...excuse me? FYI I'm 36 about to be 37 and have been playing since 1997 when I was stationed in Camp Greeves just over the Imjim in Sout Korea.

So you want an example??? Fine.

Let's say I'm playing a lightning focused sorcerer who is 11th lvl. We're in a fight and he sees a NPC enemy wizard cast chain lightning(it doesn't have to be chain lightning...shoot any cool looking lightning spell will do). We finish the battle, level up, and I decide that my character was so impressed with that spell that he tries to duplicate it. We take downtime and the rest of the party is doing whatever they need to do. I ask the GM how long and what resources do I have to spend to figure it out? All he tells me is I can't EVER learn it...:smallfrown:. i make it clear that my character will continue to try until he gets it. The GM again just basically says flat NO.

Now what part of this rang as me not playing my character or being outrageous in any way? It smacks of GM BS...like I said before.

This doesn't mean I want to know the hp, AC, or any other detail of NPC's or that I won't play assymetrical systems. You want to talk about PC's breaking verisimilitude...but when the GM does it it's okay. NO, I have sat on both sides of the screen and this attitude right here isn't cool. Will I cry when a character dies? No...haven't done it before won't do it ever. Will I get rankled if the dice or my poor tactics screw me? Yes...but I won't take that out on the poor GM, they don't deserve that.

As for this idea that I'm against asymmetry because it means the GM is 'cheating'...please, I understand the headaches of being a GM just do it with some style. Now if you start giving NPC's god powers and their not gods...there will be words between us, especially if there's no fathomable reason why they'd have them.

This is why I'm for symmetry.

mephnick
2015-02-09, 02:52 AM
What if a NPC tries to stab another NPC?

Boring for everyone. I determine to myself "Bob will kill Steve in 2 rounds if not helped." Then I drop hints that steve is looking outclassed. No stats or rolls needed.

neonchameleon
2015-02-09, 04:30 AM
Oh, and by the way, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of old-school games where NPCs and PCs stat up pretty much the same way. GURPs, the original Star Wars RPG, old Shadowrun. (My examples are old because I'm old.)

I only really know one of those - but in the one I know PCs and NPCs do not stat up the same way. That would be GURPS (and I believe the other two are the same).

In GURPS PCs are designed prescriptively. You start off with 100 points (assuming 3e standard PCs) and spend those points on stuff to get the stats of the PCs. NPCs on the other hand are statted descriptively. The DM writes down the stats of the NPC they think are relevant and then might (but normally IME won't) work out the cost of the NPCs afterwards. The outcome numbers look alike but the actual method of generation is very different.

3.X NPC creation is the equivalent of saying "Every NPC in Traveller should have a lifepath generated".


For the NPCs who need stats, I don't see much reason to have a separate process for creating them. (You can streamline some things, but why not use the same chassis for an NPC drow warrior as you would for a PC drow?)

Because it wastes a lot of time. Imagine if in GURPS you had to spend 75 points every time you wanted to create a random Drow warrior.


I guess my major argument is that NPC/PC asymmetry usually breaks versimilitude. The master craftsman being useless in combat doesn't break suspension-of-disbelief. The Mary Sue DMPC having stuff you won't let the PCs have does. The BBEG having stuff you won't let the PCs have might or might not, depending on whether you can at least half-explain it.

I'd have said that bad design breaks versimilitude. And forcing NPC/PC symmetry is shackling a ball and chain to the GM's ankle so they don't run off in one specific direction. The Mary Sue DMPC can be easily created by using PC rules - and adding five levels plus a truckload of magic items. Nothing you are doing prevents this. The BBEG not having stuff the PCs can't use to me breaks suspension of disbelief - if it was that easy why are they the BBEG rather than a lieutenant?


Let's say I'm playing a lightning focused sorcerer who is 11th lvl. We're in a fight and he sees a NPC enemy wizard cast chain lightning(it doesn't have to be chain lightning...shoot any cool looking lightning spell will do). We finish the battle, level up, and I decide that my character was so impressed with that spell that he tries to duplicate it. We take downtime and the rest of the party is doing whatever they need to do. I ask the GM how long and what resources do I have to spend to figure it out? All he tells me is I can't EVER learn it...:smallfrown:. i make it clear that my character will continue to try until he gets it. The GM again just basically says flat NO.

If you're going to be utterly inflexible with the rules then why bother having a GM? But this situation is rare enough that I'd far rather a few ad hoc rulings than giving the GM a massive extra workload for a very occasional situation.

goto124
2015-02-09, 04:37 AM
What if a NPC tries to stab another NPC?

The PCs start making bets. 'Hey man, I bet 20 gold Bob kills Charlie.' 'I bet 30 gold on Charlie beating Bob. Not killing him, since Bob's gonna run away.' 'Ha! I bet 40 gold they'll stop fighting midway, shake hands, and call it a draw!'

Milo v3
2015-02-09, 04:47 AM
Asymmetric systems with specific rules for building balanced encounters do exist. 4ed D&D is intended to work like this, for example.
Except I would need to homebrew up a new creature every time I want to have a human bandit that wasn't just the bandit listed in the book, I'd need to make up new creatures and powers whenever I add in a NPC that isn't the super generic ones listed in the book. That seems like a lot more work than just quickly adding class levels.


But the other thing is, even symmetric systems have the problem of figuring out how to balance opponents due to differences in power due to optimization. You still have to gauge what the PCs are capable of and use that to constrain the amount of optimization you use for their opponents.
But it is easier in my experience to gauge how powerful an opponent is and what it's strengths and weaknesses are if I can easily compare them to the players, if it's asymmetric that becomes more difficult.

Necroticplague
2015-02-09, 05:21 AM
I'd have said that bad design breaks versimilitude. And forcing NPC/PC symmetry is shackling a ball and chain to the GM's ankle so they don't run off in one specific direction. The Mary Sue DMPC can be easily created by using PC rules - and adding five levels plus a truckload of magic items. Nothing you are doing prevents this. The BBEG not having stuff the PCs can't use to me breaks suspension of disbelief - if it was that easy why are they the BBEG rather than a lieutenant?

And forcing asymetry is also shackling a ball and chain to the DM, it just stops them from running in a different direction as the symmetry ball and chain. After all, if all the options for being a certain type of character are not able to PCs, that entirely cuts out being able to have stories from the point of view, at least using that system. Like you can't have a game from, say, what's normally the bad guy point of view, because its impossible to get the bad-guy powers on a OC. Of course, you could just refluff all the good-guy powers as bad-guy powers, but if you're gonna refluff like, why not build a system on the assumption that the opposite (i.e., the bad-guys powers are refluffed good-guy powers) is just as occuring? makes it easier to be able to run PCs as both.

NichG
2015-02-09, 05:59 AM
Except I would need to homebrew up a new creature every time I want to have a human bandit that wasn't just the bandit listed in the book, I'd need to make up new creatures and powers whenever I add in a NPC that isn't the super generic ones listed in the book. That seems like a lot more work than just quickly adding class levels.

It doesn't take too much if you get a good feel for what a creature's role is. 'This guy is here to deplete resources early in a dungeon crawl', 'this guy is chaff that extends the pacing of the fight', 'this guy is here to make the PCs have to evaluate whether to go for the glass cannon or just ignore it and aim for the leader/main target', 'this guy is here to complexify the fight', etc.

Once you have a purpose in mind, you can craft mechanics around that purpose or draw from other examples you know in the system. If you want to complexify the fight, obscuring vision and blocking movement tends to have that effect - Solid Fog, Black Tentacles, etc are good inspirations, so you can draw from them for mechanics. If you want to drain party resources, stat damage and stat drain will do it, as will things which do a lot of wide-area low-intensity hitpoint damage (damage fields are a simple tactical exercise in restraint that most players fail, for example). Etc.



But it is easier in my experience to gauge how powerful an opponent is and what it's strengths and weaknesses are if I can easily compare them to the players, if it's asymmetric that becomes more difficult.

In my experience, this tends to be self-deceptive. Once I started throwing out the character-gen rules entirely for designing encounters, it became much easier to create fights that were interesting and challenging regardless of whatever crazy builds my players brought to the table. Me dropping symmetry meant that I had the tools to very quickly adapt to 'okay, this group has a Batman wizard, Mailman, Ubercharger, and someone with a 1k dpr ranged attack sequence' just as well as 'this group has a monk, a TWF ranger, a wizard who only prepares divinations, and a fighter with Toughness'.

Thinking in terms of what characters can do rather than how they're built is closer to what's actually going to matter when initiative is rolled.

neonchameleon
2015-02-09, 05:59 AM
And forcing asymetry is also shackling a ball and chain to the DM, it just stops them from running in a different direction as the symmetry ball and chain. After all, if all the options for being a certain type of character are not able to PCs, that entirely cuts out being able to have stories from the point of view, at least using that system. Like you can't have a game from, say, what's normally the bad guy point of view, because its impossible to get the bad-guy powers on a OC. Of course, you could just refluff all the good-guy powers as bad-guy powers, but if you're gonna refluff like, why not build a system on the assumption that the opposite (i.e., the bad-guys powers are refluffed good-guy powers) is just as occuring? makes it easier to be able to run PCs as both.

This is IME a constraint that is largely theoretical. Firstly in any system a vast array of bad guy powers boil down to "Minions, do this thing for me". And telling your minions to do things offscreen is almost always going to be handled by DM fiat. Secondly, a lot of bad guy powers are basically attitude and use. There's no difference between the mechanics of a good warrior and an evil one most of the time. Third, who says there aren't bad guy powers available to PCs?

And why not build an assumption that the PCs are evil? The majority of evil campaigns turn EEEEVIL instead - which is great for a game of Better Angels but the rest of the time it gets silly. And the majority of players in my experience want to be the heroes.

Vertharrad
2015-02-09, 06:47 AM
If you're going to be utterly inflexible with the rules then why bother having a GM? But this situation is rare enough that I'd far rather a few ad hoc rulings than giving the GM a massive extra workload for a very occasional situation.

Same thing could be said of the GM - if s/he is going to be so inflexible why even have the game? And as many before you have said they make up the stats as needed. I have no problem with only relevant stats being done...but if we come from the same world then why is it that they get the oooh Orcus bad ritual and I get no chance what so ever even if I jumped through the same hoops???


This is IME a constraint that is largely theoretical. Firstly in any system a vast array of bad guy powers boil down to "Minions, do this thing for me". And telling your minions to do things offscreen is almost always going to be handled by DM fiat. Secondly, a lot of bad guy powers are basically attitude and use. There's no difference between the mechanics of a good warrior and an evil one most of the time. Third, who says there aren't bad guy powers available to PCs?

And why not build an assumption that the PCs are evil? The majority of evil campaigns turn EEEEVIL instead - which is great for a game of Better Angels but the rest of the time it gets silly. And the majority of players in my experience want to be the heroes.

I haven't played evil campaigns, so I wouldn't know. I have seen plenty of players that play evil PC's, one of which hated me for no concievably sane reason that I could find out about.

As for bad guy powers being the same...no you all have said you want assymetry so you can just slap cosmic power on Tom, ****, and Harry. So if your not going to let us have it when we're good it's a given that either you won't let us have it when we're evil or you'll give the 'good guys' infinity cosmic powers...see the arms race happening? I just don't like the DM versus the players attitude that has been cited for reasons to do assymetrical systems.

neonchameleon
2015-02-09, 07:08 AM
Same thing could be said of the GM - if s/he is going to be so inflexible why even have the game? And as many before you have said they make up the stats as needed. I have no problem with only relevant stats being done...but if we come from the same world then why is it that they get the oooh Orcus bad ritual and I get no chance what so ever even if I jumped through the same hoops???

You can't step in the same river twice. And I sincerely hope you aren't stepping through the same hoops as the chosen of Orcus. Because I'm not DMing the sort of crap you need for Gods that dark onscreen. (It normally involves starting with human sacrifice).


As for bad guy powers being the same...no you all have said you want assymetry so you can just slap cosmic power on Tom, ****, and Harry. So if your not going to let us have it when we're good it's a given that either you won't let us have it when we're evil or you'll give the 'good guys' infinity cosmic powers...see the arms race happening? I just don't like the DM versus the players attitude that has been cited for reasons to do assymetrical systems.

There is no arms race. The arms race is something that the people who want symmetrical systems want. "Hey! The terrorists have set a nuke in the middle of the city! Why can't we set one?" This is the arms race mentality. And it is encouraged and enabled by symmetric systems - it is entirely averted by asymmetric ones. What you are actually objecting to is the fact that the DM will not take part in a DM vs Players arms race in an asymmetric system. You're demanding one in a symmetric one.

And cosmic power is almost never in play.

Milo v3
2015-02-09, 07:44 AM
SNIP
Except I'll have to figure out what numbers to put as the creatures defences, attacks, abilities, etc. to make sure it's balanced for the situation and fullfils it's role properly. All for just one creature, rather than just tossing some levels on it, and letting the math do the rest.

NichG
2015-02-09, 08:07 AM
Except I'll have to figure out what numbers to put as the creatures defences, attacks, abilities, etc. to make sure it's balanced for the situation and fullfils it's role properly. All for just one creature, rather than just tossing some levels on it, and letting the math do the rest.

In asymmetric systems that have rules for making the opposition, there's usually a pretty standard table for reading those things off. Its quicker than tossing levels on, and its designed to be a lot harder to accidentally make a bad build because there are fewer options. Rather than being designed to be a minigame in its own right, such systems try to cut through as much of that as possible to target what the final stats should look like.

I can make two Lv10 D&D 3.5 characters with a 20 point difference in attack bonus, saves, whatever. But if the system says 'opposition should make their saves 50% of the time' then thats much easier to deal with than the vague question of 'how much should I hold back when building this guy?'. If I know that the average saving throw that the PCs will provoke is DC 18, I can make the good saves +12 and the bad saves +5. If I know that PC attacks from a dedicated meleer should hit 80% of the time, I can go directly at that number rather than having to futz around with classes and gear to make it happen on its own. If the rule is 'combats should last about 3 rounds', I can figure out how to make that happen.

JDL
2015-02-09, 08:16 AM
The PCs are the hero of the story, as the DM I'm just here to set the scene.

Generic NPCs get the standard array of stats. Nemesis or villain NPCs get the heroic set. They're not special and unique snowflakes, they're props to tell a story.

The worst trap a DM can fall into is to get attached to their NPC. If they're an antagonist, they're made to be broken.

Segev
2015-02-09, 08:41 AM
Segev, you're missing the point where 'the only difference' you're positing can, logically, imply a large number of additional differences if there is a constraint on who can be a PC and who cannot. You are already assuming that it is possible to make a PC and NPC identical in all other ways than that label.No, what I'm suggesting is that, if I wanted to play a character that was the same kind of thing as that NPC, I should be able to build him using mechanics available to PCs. If there's some difference due to the simplified means by which the NPC was created, that's fine as long as it's not so great a difference that the NPC blatantly did things I cannot build a PC to be able to do.

That doesn't mean that the DM has to approve the character, but he should be disapproving it for more reasons than simply, "um, I don't want PCs to have that power."

"I don't want PCs that are ghosts," or "You guys aren't level 15 yet," or "that power only works for dragons, which cannot survive outside of the aura of Atlantis, which is why you only run into them there" are all acceptable.

Yes, a DM could be just contriving it to keep players from getting it. I have less problem with this if the DM puts the effort into his contrivance such that it stops making sense if you don't know that the key difference is that one character is a PC and the other an NPC.


E.g. lets take the gun case. There is an ability in the system called 'ghost bullet' which lets you transform a bullet from a gun into an ethereal shot that can hit ghosts. Due to whatever factors, this ability can only be obtained by PCs: it requires having visited the ancient ruins of The Old West and fighting against the ghost of Billy the Kid, which can only be done once since it kills the ghost to do it, and was part of the PC plotline, for example. In this case, absolutely, something different can happen when a PC picks up the gun than when an NPC picks up the gun, and this can make perfect sense.

It's not part of the gun, its part of the character. And history-dependence can make it impossible for two characters to be identical.And this is changing the situation away from "all else being equal." Which means it's no longer the case I was discussing.


And my point is that this is only ever the only difference if the PC and NPC are teleporter-clones. A PC/NPC split says "You are more important than the gear you are carrying". And that your choices that have shaped you matter. A lack of a split says that different people are fundamentally interchangeable and that what's important is the hardware you are carrying. No, you're confusing "the character I'm playing right now must be able to do anything any NPC ever can do" (which is not what I mean) with "I could build a character able to do what that NPC is able to do, if I were permitted to build a character of high enough level/some sort of equivalent to level."




This assumes that Vera hasn't customised her gun, and that Verne could have exactly the same expertise, having focussed on exactly the same targets and been trained in exactly the same schools and learned from exactly the same experiences as Vera. Which is such an unlikely event that it's not worth accounting for at the cost of the greater customisation not being limited provides.That would be part of "all else being equal," yes.

If Vera can customize her gun, then Verne should be able to, as well. If Vera can train to hit certain kinds of targets particularly well, so should Verne be able to do. If Vera can train at a given set of schools, Verne should also be able to train at them.

This isn't about "this PC in particular must be able to replicate things." It's about "I should be able to build a PC that can do the same things."

And again, allowances can be made for Vera being higher level, or of a race that players aren't allowed to play, but when those restrictions come up, they can be judged on a case-by-case basis as to whether they're legitimate or are BS excuses for the GM to have a special snowflake NPC that the players are to be in awe of, or BS excuses for the GM's "slave pit rules" game.

("Slave pit rules" games, for those who are unfamiliar with the term, are games where the GM has decided that 'authentic' games have player characters who are weak and helpless, at BEST average in the world, and often feature NPCs and enemies who are more normally statted to face the normal, exceptional power level of PCs. GMs who run these games come in two broad varieties in my experience: those who think they're running a 'gritty' game of 'coming from nothing to greatness,' but fail to deliver that 'greatness' later because the charcters never have the ability to rise above the 'gritty' loser-ness in which they start...and those who think it's 'DM vs. players,' and stack the deck in the DM's favor even more than it already is.)

Knaight
2015-02-09, 10:55 AM
As for bad guy powers being the same...no you all have said you want assymetry so you can just slap cosmic power on Tom, ****, and Harry. So if your not going to let us have it when we're good it's a given that either you won't let us have it when we're evil or you'll give the 'good guys' infinity cosmic powers...see the arms race happening? I just don't like the DM versus the players attitude that has been cited for reasons to do assymetrical systems.

One of the examples that has been brought up explicitly is the NPCs having NPC exclusive crappier stats. Or, for another example - Savage Worlds has a "wildcard" mechanic. PCs roll 1d6 and 1dx, where x is their skill in something, and take the better number (both are exploding dice as well). Most NPCs only roll 1dx, which simplifies things like rolling for groups. That's asymmetry. There are systems where the players roll all the dice. That's asymmetry. There are systems where NPCs don't even have discrete stats, and are instead rolled into a DC like system when interacting with them in varying ways, based on combinations of NPC skills, NPC numbers, and circumstances. That's asymmetry.

None of these examples come anywhere close to wanting to "just slap cosmic power" on anything.

neonchameleon
2015-02-09, 11:33 AM
No, what I'm suggesting is that, if I wanted to play a character that was the same kind of thing as that NPC, I should be able to build him using mechanics available to PCs.

Why? D&D is a game with certain design assumptions. It isn't Merchants and Magic-marts. It isn't Evil Overlords and Minions. Why do you think it improves the game to have actual rules for being a farmer and getting the harvest in?


If there's some difference due to the simplified means by which the NPC was created, that's fine as long as it's not so great a difference that the NPC blatantly did things I cannot build a PC to be able to do.

Why? Why do you think you should be able to be the BBEG, sitting on a throne of skulls after sacrificing your soul to Orcus? How does this improve the game? Why does it improve the game to suppose that you can play a ninety year old wizard aescetic who has spent the last seventy meditating just to absorb one single spell?

And why on earth can't there be secret techniques and magic? Why do you want to render down the majesty and unpredictability of magic to technology?


And this is changing the situation away from "all else being equal." Which means it's no longer the case I was discussing.

You can't step in the same river twice. You arguably can't even step in it once.


No, you're confusing "the character I'm playing right now must be able to do anything any NPC ever can do" (which is not what I mean) with "I could build a character able to do what that NPC is able to do, if I were permitted to build a character of high enough level/some sort of equivalent to level."

Why? What does being able to play Thulsa Doom in a game of Conan add to the game? Other than a massive headache for the game designer and degrading the thematic nature of the game. In a Lord of the Rings game why do you think that being able to stat Sauron and the Witch King of Angband does anything other than make them less mysterious, less mythical, and give the DM much more of a headache?


This isn't about "this PC in particular must be able to replicate things." It's about "I should be able to build a PC that can do the same things."

Again why? Why in a game of Firefly should you be able to play the two by two with hands of blue? Why do you want their abilities pinned like a butterfly to the page when it's fairly blatantly obvious firstly that Whedon didn't and secondly most of their abilities were influence. Why in a game of Buffy do you want to be able to play a Turok-han or even Glorificus? What does this add to the game?


And again, allowances can be made for Vera being higher level, or of a race that players aren't allowed to play, but when those restrictions come up, they can be judged on a case-by-case basis as to whether they're legitimate or are BS excuses for the GM to have a special snowflake NPC that the players are to be in awe of, or BS excuses for the GM's "slave pit rules" game.

("Slave pit rules" games, for those who are unfamiliar with the term, are games where the GM has decided that 'authentic' games have player characters who are weak and helpless, at BEST average in the world, and often feature NPCs and enemies who are more normally statted to face the normal, exceptional power level of PCs.

If you're worried about slave pit rules say that. The ability for PCs to be able to match the DM's super special NPCs in ten levels and with a million GP of equipment does literally nothing to help the PCs in the here and now. Indeed the PCs and the NPCs using different rules actually mitigates against slave pit rules because in order to give an NPC the ability to create Walls of Force i don't need to give them the rest of the crap a wizard or sorcerer comes with (and then to either play them stupidly or make them overwhelming).


GMs who run these games come in two broad varieties in my experience: those who think they're running a 'gritty' game of 'coming from nothing to greatness,' but fail to deliver that 'greatness' later because the charcters never have the ability to rise above the 'gritty' loser-ness in which they start...and those who think it's 'DM vs. players,' and stack the deck in the DM's favor even more than it already is.)

And in my experience your proposed solutions only encourage GMs to run slave pit games. The deck between PCs and NPCs is stacked, marked, and the GM can deal seconds whenever they choose. And they are more likely to deal seconds if (a) they've wasted an hour or two jumping through the hoops needed to create a high level NPC under PC rules and (b) the guidance points towards the same methods being used rather than consistency of challenge.

If your suggestions are because you've been burned by slave pit DMs your suggestions do things to encourage rather than discourage them and nothing at all to prevent them.


One of the examples that has been brought up explicitly is the NPCs having NPC exclusive crappier stats. Or, for another example - Savage Worlds has a "wildcard" mechanic. PCs roll 1d6 and 1dx, where x is their skill in something, and take the better number (both are exploding dice as well). Most NPCs only roll 1dx, which simplifies things like rolling for groups. That's asymmetry. There are systems where the players roll all the dice. That's asymmetry. There are systems where NPCs don't even have discrete stats, and are instead rolled into a DC like system when interacting with them in varying ways, based on combinations of NPC skills, NPC numbers, and circumstances. That's asymmetry.

None of these examples come anywhere close to wanting to "just slap cosmic power" on anything.

Yup. And I've yet to see the "Crappier stats for PCs" lobby out in force.

Segev
2015-02-09, 12:09 PM
Consistently, people are reading things into my posts that are not there, and I'm neither sure why nor how to correct it.

To address the questions that actually do seem to pertain to what I wrote, I'm not trying to reduce magic to technology. I am, however, concerned with verisimilitude. If Conan cannot choose to sacrifice his soul to Orcus to gain the power of Thulsa Dun sitting on the Skull Throne, then...why could Thulsa?

Okay, maybe everybody in that setting gets unique powers out of sacrificing their souls to Orcus, and everybody's evil throne of evil is different. But why is the option of sacrificing my soul to Orcus not even available?

The GM doesn't want to run a game where I'm a villain? Okay, that's reasonable. That's less a matter of PC/NPC asymmetry and more a game style thing. If I'm the only player that wants to go that route, then I should probably play along with everybody else, or find a game I'll enjoy more.

The GM doesn't want to allow PCs to gain power in the way he said his NPCs did? That's...less so. What's so special about the NPCs?


I did bring up slave pit rules when I realized others weren't seeing what I was getting at. Not sure why the "then just say so" thing is hurled as if I was trying to conceal something.

That said, it really is more about verisimiltude. Why am I unbothered that a level 17 wizard is able to do something my level 7 PC may never be able to do because he may never reach 17th level? Because it is possible that my level 7 PC could get there, eventually. There's no, "Nope, sorry, NPCs are special" clause.

Why am I unbothered by "PCs are special" clauses? Because the reality is that NPCs who are Big Names tend to be built by PC rules in games where that happens. There's nothing about being a PC or NPC in particular that makes your character different. If this were a real world, nobody in it would say, "ah, he's a PC, but he's an NPC." They might identify major or impressive individuals, but telling the difference between That Adventuring Party Of PCs and This Adventuring Party Of NPCs is not really possible.

When there's asymmetry based solely on being PCs/NPCs, though, that vanishes. Bob the Observant could recognize that, of all the parties of adventurers, only that one lacks the ability to do certain things.


Again, if EVERY character gets unique things and expressions? That's fine. That's again not a PC/NPC asymmetry. That's a "characters are unique" thing. Being a PC doesn't deny you something; not being THAT (non-player) character denies you something. Being an NPC doesn't deny you something; not being THAT (player) character denies you something.

Segev
2015-02-09, 12:12 PM
Yup. And I've yet to see the "Crappier stats for PCs" lobby out in force.

Mainly because the only reasons to use "crappier stats for NPCs" are because they're unimportant. PCs are never unimportant.

And nothing prevents a system which has "crappier simplified NPC stats" from building important enough NPCs on the PC system.


Perhaps a better way to put it is: There should never be a situation where the use of NPC-only character creation rules results in something that PCs might want to be able to do but are unable to use the PC character creation rules to build towards. (They don't have to start there; merely being able to angle towards it with expectation that, if they get enough advancement, they'll get there, is enough.)

Urpriest
2015-02-09, 12:58 PM
And nothing prevents a system which has "crappier simplified NPC stats" from building important enough NPCs on the PC system.

That's blatantly false. Many systems that use crappy simplified stats for NPCs break completely when you make NPCs on the PC system, with 4e being the most familiar example.

Segev
2015-02-09, 01:39 PM
That's blatantly false. Many systems that use crappy simplified stats for NPCs break completely when you make NPCs on the PC system, with 4e being the most familiar example.

Really? I didn't know any TTRPGs were designed such that that was the case. I will take your word for it; I didn't like playing 4e well enough to dig that deeply into it.

Thinking about it, I realize that most cRPGs are actually built such that that is the case. Two monsters swinging at each other would never dent each others' HP significantly, while two PCs swinging at each other would be a game of rocket-tag, because monsters are geared to have high hp/low damage output; PCs the reverse.

I still tend to think that's bad design.

Knaight
2015-02-09, 02:56 PM
Really? I didn't know any TTRPGs were designed such that that was the case. I will take your word for it; I didn't like playing 4e well enough to dig that deeply into it.

Thinking about it, I realize that most cRPGs are actually built such that that is the case. Two monsters swinging at each other would never dent each others' HP significantly, while two PCs swinging at each other would be a game of rocket-tag, because monsters are geared to have high hp/low damage output; PCs the reverse.

I still tend to think that's bad design.

That particular example is bad design most of the time, in that it's just a bizarre way of handling things. On the other hand, consider something specialized like Carnage 3:16 - the game is specifically built around the human PCs with vastly superior technology subjugating aliens to ensure the safety of Earth (pre-emtively). So, it pretty much models them with sheer raw numbers, where the PCs are generally rolling to see how many they killed, and if they maybe got hurt a bit in the process. It's a specialized game for an asymmetric situation, and it's a lot less clunky with asymmetric mechanics.

neonchameleon
2015-02-09, 03:09 PM
Consistently, people are reading things into my posts that are not there, and I'm neither sure why nor how to correct it.

To address the questions that actually do seem to pertain to what I wrote, I'm not trying to reduce magic to technology. I am, however, concerned with verisimilitude. If Conan cannot choose to sacrifice his soul to Orcus to gain the power of Thulsa Dun sitting on the Skull Throne, then...why could Thulsa?

Because. One off event. If only you could turn back time...


The GM doesn't want to allow PCs to gain power in the way he said his NPCs did? That's...less so. What's so special about the NPCs?

You mean other than blood magic, ritual sacrifice, and starting off with an entire army to scour the land? The key point about most BBEGs is that 95% at a minimum of what makes them scary won't actually be on their character sheet except in rare circumstances. Yes, they might be pretty scary in person (some aren't) but few systems have good rules for influence or having an army of ninjas and attaching that to your character sheet.


When there's asymmetry based solely on being PCs/NPCs, though, that vanishes. Bob the Observant could recognize that, of all the parties of adventurers, only that one lacks the ability to do certain things.

Like have a player that rolls dice? As happens in some games - only the players roll. In Apocalypse World NPCs don't have any stats to roll. But that's not something you see directly in the game.


Thinking about it, I realize that most cRPGs are actually built such that that is the case. Two monsters swinging at each other would never dent each others' HP significantly, while two PCs swinging at each other would be a game of rocket-tag, because monsters are geared to have high hp/low damage output; PCs the reverse.

I still tend to think that's bad design.

It's imperfect design - but there's no such thing as perfect design. And even when computers can take some of the extra workload that is one good reason for asymmetric design it's still considered preferable by every CRPG I can think of (especially for NPCs not in the same party as the PCs)

Segev
2015-02-09, 03:53 PM
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I don't know the game you quote where humans are beating up hordes of weaker aliens; are humans never NPCs in it?

I've outlined my position and why I stand where I do. I have actually acknowledged where exceptions exist, and explained where I don't think exceptions are necessary.

I'm sorry if you feel that my view on it somehow impedes your ability to enjoy games. I stand by my assertion that verisimilitude generally requires that there exist symmetry in the rules governing NPCs and PCs. Yes, exceptions can exist. But they're pretty specific. And I honestly find the "Thulsa Dun" arguments unconvincing. Getting an army of minions sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing for a PC to want to do.

obryn
2015-02-09, 03:59 PM
Except I would need to homebrew up a new creature every time I want to have a human bandit that wasn't just the bandit listed in the book, I'd need to make up new creatures and powers whenever I add in a NPC that isn't the super generic ones listed in the book. That seems like a lot more work than just quickly adding class levels.
Nope; it's even easier than this. Surely you've seen "MM3 on a Business Card" by now? It's quick formulas for all essential stats. Add on a few abilities or traits and you're done.

For this "bandit" example, let's say the normal bandit is a 'Skirmisher.' You want some archer bandits; switch the stats around to Artillery, add a Ranged Basic bow attack with formula damage, and you're done. Or you want a Solider; switch the stats to Soldier, add Mark as an Effect to their melee attack.

If you want a wizard bandit, you can pick from one of dozens of examples in the PHB, or make it either a Controller or Artillery. Controller with an AoE fire attack and -25% damage would be sufficient to get the theme across. These are all quick & dirty, of course; you can come up with even better quickly during prep.


No, what I'm suggesting is that, if I wanted to play a character that was the same kind of thing as that NPC, I should be able to build him using mechanics available to PCs. If there's some difference due to the simplified means by which the NPC was created, that's fine as long as it's not so great a difference that the NPC blatantly did things I cannot build a PC to be able to do.
The problems here are manyfold - mostly involving the action economy. I'd rather the game acknowledges this difference mechanically, so you get working and workable enemies. Damage and hit points for PCs scale in a way they don't necessarily scale on an enemy; likewise saves and save DCs, attack and defense, etc.

kyoryu
2015-02-09, 04:12 PM
A lot of this also boils down to whether you view the game rules as a simulation, or whether you view them primarily by their effect on gameplay.

The former view, I think, places more emphasis on symmetry (they're both humans, they should be modeled using the same stuff), while the latter view really doesn't care about that, and prioritizes the game experience (by the players) as being of far more importance than a consistent "model" of reality.

Segev
2015-02-09, 04:13 PM
The problems here are manyfold - mostly involving the action economy. I'd rather the game acknowledges this difference mechanically, so you get working and workable enemies. Damage and hit points for PCs scale in a way they don't necessarily scale on an enemy; likewise saves and save DCs, attack and defense, etc.

I don't really follow. If the mechanics are symmetric, balance the hp/damage to be in the right ballparks to take comparable damage.

I really don't know what action economy has to do with this. Numbers win fights; this is not a violation of any sort of verisimilitude.

Is it that you want BBEGs to be solo fights that have actions like entire parties of PCs? Or that you want huge groups of NPCs to have fewer actions?

Knaight
2015-02-09, 04:19 PM
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I don't know the game you quote where humans are beating up hordes of weaker aliens; are humans never NPCs in it?

They never are in the spots where the mechanics are relevant. The core of Carnage 3:16 is two things - one is the conveyance of the setting through the system of missions, which are generally extremely one sided by numbers. The other is the rise of the soldiers through the ranks, and what they do as the grisly details of their work comes up. It's tailored to a niche where symmetrical rules would hurt it.

With that said, there's the matter of incidental symmetry in more generic systems, particularly rules light ones. I mostly GM Fudge, and it actually is highly symmetrical by default. If you want to recreate an NPC as a player character, set your attributes to the same amount, take the same skills, take the same gifts and faults, and you're basically there. There's a lot of room for NPCs to be either over or under starting character assumptions (e.g. attribute totals), but the mechanics are very symmetrical, because there's no particular reason for them to be otherwise.

Generally, I consider the introduction of asymmetric design to be something that should be purposeful. If there's something that specifically needs to be modeled which isn't PC-relevant (e.g. bit characters, which the PC's just generally aren't), an asymmetric mechanic makes sense. If the scope of the game is such that symmetry is a problem (e.g. Carnage 3:16, where coming anywhere close to PC level detail on the hundred plus aliens likely to show up in one extended combat would be horrible), an asymmetric mechanic makes sense. There are a lot of areas where they're pretty useful, but that doesn't make symmetry bad.


A lot of this also boils down to whether you view the game rules as a simulation, or whether you view them primarily by their effect on gameplay.

The former view, I think, places more emphasis on symmetry (they're both humans, they should be modeled using the same stuff), while the latter view really doesn't care about that, and prioritizes the game experience (by the players) as being of far more importance than a consistent "model" of reality.
I'd disagree with this. I'm all for some degree of simulation, and sometimes that demands asymmetry. For instance, just about any simulation of the narrative roles of bit characters and their resultant influence will create asymmetry.

Segev
2015-02-09, 04:22 PM
I can agree with that assessment, Knaight.

obryn
2015-02-09, 04:23 PM
I don't really follow. If the mechanics are symmetric, balance the hp/damage to be in the right ballparks to take comparable damage.

I really don't know what action economy has to do with this. Numbers win fights; this is not a violation of any sort of verisimilitude.

Is it that you want BBEGs to be solo fights that have actions like entire parties of PCs? Or that you want huge groups of NPCs to have fewer actions?
Well, part of the design process is looking at the functional inputs and outputs. Hit points and damage values are some of these. They fill functionally different roles for PCs and NPCs/monsters. Likewise, damage figures need to be calibrated to hit point values. The action economy can play into this, especially if the role is "boss monster."

kyoryu
2015-02-09, 04:25 PM
Generally, I consider the introduction of asymmetric design to be something that should be purposeful. If there's something that specifically needs to be modeled which isn't PC-relevant (e.g. bit characters, which the PC's just generally aren't), an asymmetric mechanic makes sense. If the scope of the game is such that symmetry is a problem (e.g. Carnage 3:16, where coming anywhere close to PC level detail on the hundred plus aliens likely to show up in one extended combat would be horrible), an asymmetric mechanic makes sense. There are a lot of areas where they're pretty useful, but that doesn't make symmetry bad.

That's a specific example of the general case - *all* design should be purposeful.

I don't really care about NPC/PC symmetry at all. It's just a tool that can make a game good, or bad.

And there's different types of symmetry, too. There's build symmetry, where characters are built using the same rules. There's rules symmetry, where the rules are applied equally to the characters.

GURPS has rules symmetry, but typically doesn't have build symmetry (because, as a sometimes GURPS GM, I don't have time for that). 3:16 and *World have no symmetry. 4e has zero symmetry. 3.0 typically has rules symmetry, and 3.5/PF can be played with full symmetry.

I'd actually argue that very, very few games are actually played with full symmetry (rules and build).

Knaight
2015-02-09, 04:37 PM
That's a specific example of the general case - *all* design should be purposeful.

I'd agree with this, but there's some variation regarding the importance of an individual design choice and how much thought should be put into it - which also gets into what matters to people. For instance, I am really picky about dice distributions. The holes in some exploding dice distributions annoy me to no end, to the point where I would actually rather be able to roll a 0-x scale, explode on x, then roll a 0 and get x than have holes in the distribution (which is something that generally disappoints people). Meanwhile, for people who don't really care, an answer like "this uses 2d6+something because it seemed reasonable, and people have those dice" pretty much covers things.

Symmetry seems like a bit of a hot topic, and that in particular makes it worth treading extra carefully around. It's good to have a bit more purpose there a lot of the times, whereas things like exact skill names in systems with lots and lots of skills are often not a big deal.


GURPS has rules symmetry, but typically doesn't have build symmetry (because, as a sometimes GURPS GM, I don't have time for that).
Honestly, the way GURPS has characters built is pushing it on the player end of things. It does some cool things, but dang if it isn't tedious to get started. There's a reason my main game is Fudge, and that I routinely describe it as "GURPS, without all the GURPSness".

mephnick
2015-02-09, 04:38 PM
I don't know, I've found that the difference in CR between a "proper" built NPC in 3.5, say a level 15 arcane trickster vs a level 15 cleric, is so difficult to determine it's almost a useless way to build an NPC anyway if you're looking for a balanced encounter. The rogue might be a CR11 and the cleric a CR 17. So it's just a waste of time in lots of ways.

kyoryu
2015-02-09, 05:17 PM
Symmetry seems like a bit of a hot topic, and that in particular makes it worth treading extra carefully around. It's good to have a bit more purpose there a lot of the times, whereas things like exact skill names in systems with lots and lots of skills are often not a big deal.

Sure. I guess my point is more that, whichever way you go, it's worth making that decision intentionally. I don't see it as "symmetrical unless you have a good reason". I see it as "think this through carefully, whichever route you go."

I personally haven't seen symmetry be a huge issue with people. That may just be me, or people that I've played with, or I might have a different style of gaming, or something else. I don't know. It's just never been a huge issue for me or the people I play with, especially "full symmetry". As I've pointed out, I think it's fair to say that the majority of the games, even if they have "rules symmetry", don't have build symmetry.


Honestly, the way GURPS has characters built is pushing it on the player end of things. It does some cool things, but dang if it isn't tedious to get started. There's a reason my main game is Fudge, and that I routinely describe it as "GURPS, without all the GURPSness".

Agreed. I've considered looking further into Savage Worlds for the things I'd use GURPS for, for many of the same reasons.

Milo v3
2015-02-09, 07:04 PM
In asymmetric systems that have rules for making the opposition, there's usually a pretty standard table for reading those things off. Its quicker than tossing levels on, and its designed to be a lot harder to accidentally make a bad build because there are fewer options. Rather than being designed to be a minigame in its own right, such systems try to cut through as much of that as possible to target what the final stats should look like.

I can make two Lv10 D&D 3.5 characters with a 20 point difference in attack bonus, saves, whatever. But if the system says 'opposition should make their saves 50% of the time' then thats much easier to deal with than the vague question of 'how much should I hold back when building this guy?'. If I know that the average saving throw that the PCs will provoke is DC 18, I can make the good saves +12 and the bad saves +5. If I know that PC attacks from a dedicated meleer should hit 80% of the time, I can go directly at that number rather than having to futz around with classes and gear to make it happen on its own. If the rule is 'combats should last about 3 rounds', I can figure out how to make that happen.
In my experience I haven't needed to futz around with classes and gear, I just make the thing and it works. But I have never been able to make it properly in asymmetric systems, especially ones like Storyteller games where you can't even have any sort of benchmark because characters are all over the place in power levels and all their are barely any examples with none of them describing how powerful of a foe they are meant to be.


Why do you think it improves the game to have actual rules for being a farmer and getting the harvest in?
Weirdly, without it's basic farming rules, my pathfinder group would be having less fun.


Nope; it's even easier than this. Surely you've seen "MM3 on a Business Card" by now? It's quick formulas for all essential stats. Add on a few abilities or traits and you're done.

For this "bandit" example, let's say the normal bandit is a 'Skirmisher.' You want some archer bandits; switch the stats around to Artillery, add a Ranged Basic bow attack with formula damage, and you're done. Or you want a Solider; switch the stats to Soldier, add Mark as an Effect to their melee attack.

If you want a wizard bandit, you can pick from one of dozens of examples in the PHB, or make it either a Controller or Artillery. Controller with an AoE fire attack and -25% damage would be sufficient to get the theme across. These are all quick & dirty, of course; you can come up with even better quickly during prep.
Never heard of MM3 on a Business Card, but googling it looks like a fanmade 4e thing and I got bored of 4e long before MM3 so that would explain it. Either way, something like that doesn't help with regards to abilities and stuff, and saying "Just use one of the abilities from the PHB" is going the more symmetrical route rather than asymmetrical.

NichG
2015-02-09, 08:05 PM
In my experience I haven't needed to futz around with classes and gear, I just make the thing and it works. But I have never been able to make it properly in asymmetric systems, especially ones like Storyteller games where you can't even have any sort of benchmark because characters are all over the place in power levels and all their are barely any examples with none of them describing how powerful of a foe they are meant to be.

Thats more of a feature of those particular systems not being designed for being quite so combat-focused. Something like 4ed D&D is very clear about exactly what the power level is supposed to be and how exactly to benchmark everything. Its an example of a system that was designed to be asymmetric in order to actually improve the combat balance.

Milo v3
2015-02-09, 08:34 PM
Thats more of a feature of those particular systems not being designed for being quite so combat-focused. Something like 4ed D&D is very clear about exactly what the power level is supposed to be and how exactly to benchmark everything. Its an example of a system that was designed to be asymmetric in order to actually improve the combat balance.

Eh, I don't see that as big a bonus since that colossal of a combat focus is why me and my group didn't like 4e, felt soo... gamey. Which breaks verisimilitude. And then you add in the asymmetry, and the verisimilitude is damaged further.

Knaight
2015-02-09, 09:40 PM
In my experience I haven't needed to futz around with classes and gear, I just make the thing and it works. But I have never been able to make it properly in asymmetric systems, especially ones like Storyteller games where you can't even have any sort of benchmark because characters are all over the place in power levels and all their are barely any examples with none of them describing how powerful of a foe they are meant to be.

This is more because the Storyteller games are just really poorly designed in general than anything else. The math is wonky, their claims of being a story first rules light system are hilarious in the light of actual story first rules light systems (which look somewhat different), and even a lot of the fiction shorts embedded in the books are kind of terrible.

NichG
2015-02-10, 02:09 AM
Eh, I don't see that as big a bonus since that colossal of a combat focus is why me and my group didn't like 4e, felt soo... gamey. Which breaks verisimilitude. And then you add in the asymmetry, and the verisimilitude is damaged further.

I don't particularly like 4e as a game all that much either, but there's no denying that it's an exception to the statement that 'asymmetric rules mean that balancing combats becomes harder'. The two things have nothing to do with each-other, as long as the asymmetric system is very clear about giving instructions on how to build the opposition, even if the system to do so is different than the one that the PCs use.

neonchameleon
2015-02-10, 08:04 AM
I really don't know what action economy has to do with this. Numbers win fights; this is not a violation of any sort of verisimilitude.

Is it that you want BBEGs to be solo fights that have actions like entire parties of PCs? Or that you want huge groups of NPCs to have fewer actions?

If you are using a standard d20 system you run into a lot of problems both at handling dragons (who damn well should be able to deal with entire parties and possibly an entire town) and with dealing with large pitched battles - rolling that many dice takes forever. Claw-claw-bite-buffet-buffet-tail really really isn't enough, especially when the debuffs start flying. And rolling buckets of dice does weird things.

It's the outcomes that matter at least as much as the process.


That's a specific example of the general case - *all* design should be purposeful.

QFT


Honestly, the way GURPS has characters built is pushing it on the player end of things. It does some cool things, but dang if it isn't tedious to get started. There's a reason my main game is Fudge, and that I routinely describe it as "GURPS, without all the GURPSness".

I think there are a lot of GURPS fans who don't like GURPS itself (I've more GURPS rulebooks than books for any other system and regret few of them).


I don't particularly like 4e as a game all that much either, but there's no denying that it's an exception to the statement that 'asymmetric rules mean that balancing combats becomes harder'. The two things have nothing to do with each-other, as long as the asymmetric system is very clear about giving instructions on how to build the opposition, even if the system to do so is different than the one that the PCs use.

Yup. NPCs are built round a benchmark. And PC Classes have a slightly different benchmark they are designed around so the two mirror each other while making the NPCs look more threatening than they are.

Segev
2015-02-10, 08:12 AM
Well, part of the design process is looking at the functional inputs and outputs. Hit points and damage values are some of these. They fill functionally different roles for PCs and NPCs/monsters. Likewise, damage figures need to be calibrated to hit point values. The action economy can play into this, especially if the role is "boss monster."

I agree with the first two sentences.

The third sentence seems entirely wrong to me no matter how I look at it. Can you elaborate on why you say that, or explain what you mean? I am either not understanding you, missing something crucial, or do not think you are at all correct in making this claim. I would like to be certain which it is before continuing.

The fourth sentence reads like it's suggesting there was something for it to be "likewise" to in the priors; I don't see it there.


All of that said, my best parsing of it is that you feel hp and damage output should be calibrated (which is quite true), but that for some reason these values should be calibrated such that PC-v-PC and monster-v-monster are degenerate? (That is, as in Final Fantasy, two PCs would one-shot each other, while monsters wouldn't make a serious dent if they fought each other. Or maybe vice-versa?) Why is this essential? If this isn't what you mean, what do you mean?

Action economy enters into it, but I am not following why a boss fight must be a solo fight. If it genuinely is some sort of monster that acts that fast or has that many ways to act semi-simultaneously, so be it. But to suggest - as you seem to be, to me - that Bob the Evil Bossfighter should have 4x the actions he did when he was Bob the Good Partyfighter just because he's changed from player to GM control is a bit...weird.

neonchameleon
2015-02-10, 09:10 AM
The third sentence seems entirely wrong to me no matter how I look at it. Can you elaborate on why you say that, or explain what you mean? I am either not understanding you, missing something crucial, or do not think you are at all correct in making this claim. I would like to be certain which it is before continuing.

Hit Points are a 100% fictional construct that do not match up directly to anything. They are what they are invented as - a pacing mechanic, pure and simple. (And Gygax made this explicit). The pacing of PCs (who last indefinitely) is very different from that for NPCs (who generally die in the scene they were introduced in). If you want a more realistic damage system than hit points, that's another issue.


All of that said, my best parsing of it is that you feel hp and damage output should be calibrated (which is quite true), but that for some reason these values should be calibrated such that PC-v-PC and monster-v-monster are degenerate? (That is, as in Final Fantasy, two PCs would one-shot each other, while monsters wouldn't make a serious dent if they fought each other. Or maybe vice-versa?) Why is this essential? If this isn't what you mean, what do you mean?

It isn't essential. But the only case that actually matters is the one of PC vs Monster. You don't in the general course of events roll monster vs monster and PC vs PC is very rare. But what a hit point means to a PC (to last an adventure) is very different from a monster (to last a scene).


Action economy enters into it, but I am not following why a boss fight must be a solo fight. If it genuinely is some sort of monster that acts that fast or has that many ways to act semi-simultaneously, so be it.

Which is one of the many places your approach falls apart. There are monsters who are NPC only that act with multiple actions. Therefore there even in your system are abilities that the PCs can never get.

Segev
2015-02-10, 09:41 AM
a) If you can play a monster, then "monster vs. monster" becomes important because it's synonymous with "PC vs. monster."

b) I have acknowledged that games can be such that choices of what can be a PC are limited. That doesn't change that I prefer it not be the case.

c) Even when PCs are never to be monsters, there are times when PCs will have monsters-as-allies/mounts/pets/minions. Do the rules for how these are constructed and what they can do change? If so, I find that to be a flaw.

d) If an NPC is the same kind of creature that the PCs are, then the PCs should be able to be built to do more or less the same things, barring game conceits such as "every character has unique powers none others may replicate" or somesuch. Again, this applies less if the NPC is a non-PCable monster, though I still dislike the design constraint for general RPG purposes. (Specific RPGs may have good reason for this, which can be judged case-by-case.)

Does that outline my position sufficiently? Are the goalposts firmly nailed down, now? I feel like I'm being told, "Well, this extreme case where PCs can't possibly be the same kind of creature is one where asymmetry happens, so NPCs should always be asymmetric even when both NPC and PC are humans and have the same potential for backstory elements." Which is horridly bad argumentation from a logical perspective.

Toilet Cobra
2015-02-10, 10:06 AM
I mostly don't bother keeping symmetry unless an NPC can do something really special. The master swordsman, the golem crafter, the diplomat who keeps peace between rival nations. Those guys I build with actual levels so at least they come by it honestly. They're also the most likely to interact with players over longer periods of time and have to do a larger variety of rolls, so it helps to have them fully fleshed out.

Obviously nobody cares that the village blacksmith is only a lv 1 commoner with average stats so his crafting skills should be abysmal. They just want someone who sells swords and armor.

Segev
2015-02-10, 10:18 AM
Indeed. I rarely would bother to even stat out an NPC blacksmith who was mostly just there to be the point where PCs exchange gp for equipment.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't try to give him personality, but it does mean that, if the PCs decide to attack him for some reason, I may have to eitehr make something up or use a default NPC template.

If the character is actually doing something the PCs want to replicate, then I will stat him out and see how he does what he does, so I can help the PCs achieve similar results.


It's worth noting that a level 1 Expert could easily have 4 ranks in Profession(Blacksmith) and craft(blacksmith), and Skill Focus(craft(blacksmith)). That's a +7 by itself. If he's successful at his career, he might have a masterwork tool or two, giving him another +2.

A +9 to a skill check is enough to do a lot quite competently if one is not trying to do the highly-demanding activities of an adventurer.

obryn
2015-02-10, 11:50 AM
Never heard of MM3 on a Business Card, but googling it looks like a fanmade 4e thing and I got bored of 4e long before MM3 so that would explain it. Either way, something like that doesn't help with regards to abilities and stuff, and saying "Just use one of the abilities from the PHB" is going the more symmetrical route rather than asymmetrical.
I'm not saying "just use one of the abilities from the PHB" though. I'm saying, "You have your damage expression; use it and add a flavorful effect."

I'm confused why you're arguing about one thing being simpler than another while in the same sentence admitting a lack of knowledge of one whole side of that equation.


The third sentence seems entirely wrong to me no matter how I look at it. Can you elaborate on why you say that, or explain what you mean? I am either not understanding you, missing something crucial, or do not think you are at all correct in making this claim. I would like to be certain which it is before continuing.
Hit points are a pacing mechanism. I will argue that it's not cool for a PC to drop in a single hit, whereas it's potentially just dandy for a monster to do so. I will argue that it's not cool for a dragon to drop in one hit, and that it should actually take a lot more of them.

When you mix hit points and everything else together in an attempt to unify the system, stuff gets wonky.


but that for some reason these values should be calibrated such that PC-v-PC and monster-v-monster are degenerate? (That is, as in Final Fantasy, two PCs would one-shot each other, while monsters wouldn't make a serious dent if they fought each other. Or maybe vice-versa?) Why is this essential? If this isn't what you mean, what do you mean?
The PC-vs-Monster calibration is central. The others less so.


a) If you can play a monster, then "monster vs. monster" becomes important because it's synonymous with "PC vs. monster."
Said monster shouldn't be built as a monster, then, but as a PC.

Bob of Mage
2015-02-10, 02:36 PM
A lot of this also boils down to whether you view the game rules as a simulation, or whether you view them primarily by their effect on gameplay.

The former view, I think, places more emphasis on symmetry (they're both humans, they should be modeled using the same stuff), while the latter view really doesn't care about that, and prioritizes the game experience (by the players) as being of far more importance than a consistent "model" of reality.

I think the first part might explain why there seem to be two conflicting views on this topic. Some of us want the fight between two human fighters who are so similar they could be twins (went to the same fighter school, got the same grade, fought roughly the same type and amount of enemies, use the same gear and battlestyle), to have a 50% chance of going either way, all other things being equal. This would be regardless of the fact that one of them is a PC and the other is an NPC.

Any smart person would never fight an even battle if they could help it. Just like in real life, the PC would be required to find a way to tip the odds in his favour, or take a big risk. If the PC is dumb enough to risk such a battle when they have other options, then they should risk dying and not have the GM rig the fight so they have a better than 50% of winning (this is of course ingoring the skill of the two people who are running the PC and NPC in real life).

Now as for the second part, I find that when things are based on a simulation of real life, fantasy, or a mix, things are very fun. In fact I often find such games more fun than those that come up with rules solely to make the game run better. Anytime I notice them it kills the feeling of fun.

Milo v3
2015-02-10, 08:00 PM
II'm confused why you're arguing about one thing being simpler than another while in the same sentence admitting a lack of knowledge of one whole side of that equation.

I have played and ran asymmetric systems, 4e just isn't one that I ran for very long because me and my group found it boring. I'm sure that I'd be allowed an opinion on my experiences with asymmetric systems without having to know about stuff that happened half-way through the lifespan of a game I don't like. When I did run a 4e game and a few other asymmetric games, I didn't want to have to write up stats for standard humanoid NPCS because I didn't think I'd have enough experience with the system to pick the numbers right for different roles and what powers to give them, while with symmetric games I have had no difficulty in just tossing levels on the NPC or monster. There, done, easy, no guess work for a system I'm new to required.

NichG
2015-02-11, 12:21 AM
If you're new to D&D 3.5, tossing random levels on a creature isn't going to make a functional NPC any more than it will make a functional PC. The optimization floor in 3.5ed is generally really quite low.

Throwing a Fighter 6 with Dodge, Toughness, Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Improved Disarm at a party is worlds different than using e.g. a Druid 6 with a Fleshraker animal companion, Greenbound Summoning, a summoning-based spell list, a consumable source of invisibility, etc.

Segev
2015-02-11, 11:36 AM
Hit points are a pacing mechanism. I will argue that it's not cool for a PC to drop in a single hit, whereas it's potentially just dandy for a monster to do so. I will argue that it's not cool for a dragon to drop in one hit, and that it should actually take a lot more of them.That doesn't dictate in any way that hp needs to be asymmetric. Your PC who isn't going to drop in one hit and your dragon who isn't going to drop in one hit can have comparable hp and damage output values. Your goblin who is going to drop in one hit can have lower hp values.

Just because they use the same systems and scaling doesn't mean that all NPCs are equal to all PCs; that's as impossible as having all PCs be equal to all PCs. It's a silly argument that nobody is making, except possibly as something to debunk rather than what is actually being stated.

If you play a dragon as a PC, it should be able to do all the things the NPC dragon did.


When you mix hit points and everything else together in an attempt to unify the system, stuff gets wonky.I don't see how. Perhaps you mean something different than I do; I never said "unify the system;" I said "use the same system to create the character, whether it's a PC or an NPC."

(I've also repeatedly noted I'm fine with simplified NPC-generation rules, as long as those simplified rules don't lead to NPCs who are in fluff the same sort of being a PC could be, but which no PC could ever be able to mimic in capabilities.)



Said monster shouldn't be built as a monster, then, but as a PC.But they should use the same rules for construction, unless the monster was built using simplified rules. And if that's the case, the PC version should still be capable of anything the NPC version was, at the very least.

Building them asymmetrically leads to weird situations where every badger-clan goblin our party faced had, say, a Burrow ability, but this new badger-clan goblin that we just recruited to our team doesn't have it, because it's a monster-only ability, and he's a PC.

Milo v3
2015-02-11, 06:38 PM
If you're new to D&D 3.5, tossing random levels on a creature isn't going to make a functional NPC any more than it will make a functional PC. The optimization floor in 3.5ed is generally really quite low.

Throwing a Fighter 6 with Dodge, Toughness, Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Improved Disarm at a party is worlds different than using e.g. a Druid 6 with a Fleshraker animal companion, Greenbound Summoning, a summoning-based spell list, a consumable source of invisibility, etc.

Eh, I didn't have trouble with that. But I did with asymmetric systems. It's anecdotal evidence, but those experiences are things happen to some GM's.

NichG
2015-02-11, 08:01 PM
Eh, I didn't have trouble with that. But I did with asymmetric systems. It's anecdotal evidence, but those experiences are things happen to some GM's.

I mostly have trouble believing it because I've been down that road, and I've played and DM'd 3.5 for over a decade now and so I've seen my share of DMs who use this approach, think it will work, and then have it backfire in a dozen ways. I've experienced a lot of those ways myself. I co-DM'd a big club-wide campaign designed to bring in a lot of new players and DMs, and loot inflation due to NPC opponents versus monster opponents was a really big problem (to the tune of players having 2-3x WBL if they knew which DMs tended to use humanoid enemies and played with those DMs in particular). We had to institute periodic wealth resets to avoid things getting out of hand.

Meanwhile, I have less anecdotal evidence about asymmetric systems outside of my own personal experiences. My main example of it being 'easy' in particular would be a friend of mine who DM'd for the first time using 4ed in a party with a very extreme mix of gaming experience between the players, and the encounters in his game session were just about at the sweet spot (close enough you aren't sure if everyone will live, but actually everyone does).

Milo v3
2015-02-11, 08:35 PM
I mostly have trouble believing it because I've been down that road, and I've played and DM'd 3.5 for over a decade now and so I've seen my share of DMs who use this approach, think it will work, and then have it backfire in a dozen ways. I've experienced a lot of those ways myself. I co-DM'd a big club-wide campaign designed to bring in a lot of new players and DMs, and loot inflation due to NPC opponents versus monster opponents was a really big problem (to the tune of players having 2-3x WBL if they knew which DMs tended to use humanoid enemies and played with those DMs in particular). We had to institute periodic wealth resets to avoid things getting out of hand.

Meanwhile, I have less anecdotal evidence about asymmetric systems outside of my own personal experiences. My main example of it being 'easy' in particular would be a friend of mine who DM'd for the first time using 4ed in a party with a very extreme mix of gaming experience between the players, and the encounters in his game session were just about at the sweet spot (close enough you aren't sure if everyone will live, but actually everyone does).

*Shrug* Guess I'm just lucky then or something. In the 11 years I've GM'd the most common encounters that I've wrongly balanced was in asymmetric systems, with most of the 3.5e screwed up encounters being things like when I used swarms, flying ranged creatures, and shadows for the first time. As for WBL, it isn't much of an issue with my players since they only really loot enemies if they look like they're special NPC's, so that has been very fortunate.