Fallacy: NPC are more realistic with PC creation rules

[horseboy]

Sure, I hadn't meant to indicate that only one person ever said that, just that 'at least' one critic said that.

Which is the simplified version of [I]RoleMaster? Express? MERP is the only simplified version I know. :smallwink:
MERP is dumbed down but not the one he was talking about. I'm not for sure which one it was, I want to say the SS edition, but I'm not sure. But since we still use the books from the 1984 edition and have never had a reason to upgrade.

[EvilElitest]

In absolutely no reality is "Using the PC character creation rules" considered "homebrewing".

When i go against the rules of the game concerning the NPC vs. PC rules, then i am homebrewing. If i make the wizard a reasonable class in 3.5 then i am homebrewing. If i make monks a useful class, then i am homebrewing
from
EE

[Rutee]

From Wizards Presents: Races and Classes, page 14:

One of 3rd Edition's advances was to model monsters using the same tools used to model player characters. 3rd Edition player characters and monsters calculate ability scores, hit points, saves, attack bonuses, and skill ranks using the same mechanical structure. 4th Edition recognizes the value of using the same tools for PCs and monsters, but opts to turn the tools to a new purpose.

The parameters and basic game mechanics for 4th Edition player characters are not identical to the rules and powers used by the world's monsters and nonplayer characters. The PCs are going to be on center stage for the life of the campaign and deserve all the power options and customization features that the system can bear. Monsters and most NPCs are lucky to appear more than once, particularly if they're encountered in combat situations.


So we've made 4th Edition simpler to run and play by simplifying monsters and NPCs. The new system is not overly concerned with simulating interactions between monsters and nonplayer characters when the PCs are not on stage. 4th Edition orients monster design (and, to some extent, NPC design) around what's fun for player characters to encounter as challenges. Intricate lists of abilities and multiple significant exceptions-based powers are reserved for the PCs rather than handed out to every monster.


From what we can glean from the 4e Pit Fiend stat block, it appears that there may have been a wire or two crossed with the PR Department. Monsters SEEM to use the exact same systems (That is, the game doesn't function on different formula for NPCs as for PCs).

[AKA_Bait]

From what we can glean from the 4e Pit Fiend stat block, it appears that there may have been a wire or two crossed with the PR Department. Monsters SEEM to use the exact same systems (That is, the game doesn't function on different formula for NPCs as for PCs).

True, although if I have to pick bettween WotC sources for accuracy about the new edition I'm inclined to go with the physically published works rather than the web published ones. But really, given WotC, there is no particularly good reason to prefer one over the other that I can think of.

[Jack Zander]

From what I gather the numbers add up but the methods of getting those numbers do not. You will usually take on a template or the like instead of giving them levels, which will often result in NPC wizards getting spell-like abilities rather than actual spells.

[AKA_Bait]

which will often result in NPC wizards getting spell-like abilities rather than actual spells.

Where are you getting that from? I find that pretty concerning.

But then, thinking about it, I find the notion of 'spells' to be concerning when mixed with the per round/encounter/day abilites and am curious to see how that fleshes out.

[Rutee]

From what I gather the numbers add up but the methods of getting those numbers do not. You will usually take on a template or the like instead of giving them levels, which will often result in NPC wizards getting spell-like abilities rather than actual spells.

The overstated difference between SLA/Spell notwithstanding, I think this is correct. But that's just me; It would be more sensical and intuitive to have everyone use the same parameters, but derive them in an altogether different manner.

Of course, this being the sensical option for accomplishing their goals, that's a strike against it actually being the case...

[Jack Zander]

Of course, this being the sensical option for accomplishing their goals, that's a strike against it actually being the case...

Owch! This thread turned from a heated debate to a gang up on WotC. (Not that there is anything wrong with that. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?)

[AKA_Bait]

Owch! This thread turned from a heated debate to a gang up on WotC. (Not that there is anything wrong with that. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?)

Most of these threads do, eventually. Why? Because everyone, on all sides, likes the system enough to talk about it on message boards. There are at least two sides (sometimes more) that want opposite things or have opposite perspectives on a proposed change. However, in order for there to be the opposed sides, neither side can be totally happy with WotC. Therefore, the one common ground pretty much guaranteed, is being willing to blast the pointy hatted folks on the coast.

[Rutee]

Most of these threads do, eventually. Why? Because everyone, on all sides, likes the system enough to talk about it on message boards. There are at least two sides (sometimes more) that want opposite things or have opposite perspectives on a proposed change. However, in order for there to be the opposed sides, neither side can be totally happy with WotC. Therefore, the one common ground pretty much guaranteed, is being willing to blast the pointy hatted folks on the coast.

...We're targetting by hats? Uh oh. :smalleek:

Honestly, it's not even anything specific against Wizards, for me. It's that it's a company, period. And one that doesn't have a good track record for sensical decisions, which is most of them. I'm a cynic about this sort of thing.

[AKA_Bait]

...We're targetting by hats? Uh oh. :smalleek:

Oh don't worry, your hat isn't pointy. :smallsmile:

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I don't have a hat.

As an air genasi, I must have wind going through my hair at all times. Hats disrupt that. Circlets of intellect are a little less than ideal, but I think the trade-off is worth it. Don't you?

In any case, just point me at whatever needs zapping or polymorphing (baleful or otherwise), and I'll be happy to oblige.

[illathid]

True, although if I have to pick bettween WotC sources for accuracy about the new edition I'm inclined to go with the physically published works rather than the web published ones. But really, given WotC, there is no particularly good reason to prefer one over the other that I can think of.

Actually, I'd choose the web sources as the most accurate authority, as there most likely has been some degree of changes made to the system since the preview books were written (IIIRC they went to the printer in august).

I mean when Mike Mearls tells us he's stating up a gnoll warlock NPC, I'm rather inclined to believe them when they say in a web blog you can use PC classes as a means of monster advancement. At least I'd believe it more than one obscure quote from R&C that could be read to say that you can't give NPC's PC classes.

[Yahzi]

I think most everyone agrees with that list as written, but everyone's actually going back and forth on slight variations of it. Here's my take:
I see you've pretty much resolved the issue.

As you say, plenty of monsters have unique abilities, and nobody's really complaining about that.

The basic idea is that players-as-separate-species offends some of us, and doesn't offend others. I say, if you want to play a game where the players are unique from all the NPCs because they are unique, then give them Divine Rank 0. But please don't encode into the very rules for the game the idea that players are unique species.

[Yahzi]

That's ludicrous on its face. I don't care if a dead philosopher said it. That's why Logic and programming have a "For:" set of conditions.
There is a word for when someone objects to a principle of logic by citing a discipline that exists solely on principles of logic.

It is called "irony." :smallbiggrin:


Games are not supposed to be work. They're supposed to be fun. Simulationism is fine and all, but when it gets you into the mentality that you must work for every little thing in a small private game, /it has screwed you up/.
So you want to play a game where the laws of physics bend over backwards and just give your characters what they want.

Why have rules? Why have dice? Why not just have the GM tell you all the uber cool things that happen to your characters for no reason whatsoever?

The answer is because, for the game to be enjoyable, it has to have versimilitude. Despite your protestations, you require at least the veneer of versimilitude, which is why you have a rule book in front of you at all.

The thing is, Rutee, versimilitude is like dope: it's addictive, and it takes more and more of it to get the same fun. You'll see. :smallbiggrin:


Ruki neatly summed up the original issue, and I see we're on to Rolemaster now. All I remember of Rolemaster was creating 1st level characters who were seriously outclassed by one of the character's pet hawks.

Any level-based system is going to be terrible at reflecting our world (even it does reflect a world that could be real).

[Yahzi]

In absolutely no reality is "Using the PC character creation rules" considered "homebrewing".
It is if every single published module, campaign setting, and rulebook builds NPCs differently.

[EvilElitest]

Go Yahzi, but be careful, you try to hard they will simply ignore you

also be careful with the double posting
from
EE

[Matthew]

More like if we just keep repeating the same endless points at one another with slight rephrasing, people will get bored and stop paying attention (which is pretty much what happens with threads like these). I'm certainly seeing points above that have been countered and repeated numerous times.

Some people like Rules Heavy Games, some people like Rules Light Games. Some people like to have Player Characters and None Player Characters use the exact same rules for generation, others don't care and still others actively dislike it.

As has been said numerous times during the course of this thread (and so many others), there is no absolute right or wrong in relation to this issue, there's just preference.

I might create a Roman Legionary like this:



Roman Legionary
AB 1(3), DB 1D6+1, HP 8, AC 19,

...you might want to create him like this:



Human Warrior 1
AB 1(3), DB 1D6+1, HP 8, AC 19,
Attributes: Strength 13, Dexterity 12, Constitution 11, Intelligence 10, Wisdom 9, Charisma 8,
Feats: Weapon Focus (Short Sword), Shield Specialisation (Large Shield)
Saves: Fortitude 2(2), Reflex 0(1), Willpower 0(-1),
Skills: Jump 4(5), Climb 4(5), Swim 4(5),
Equipment: Short Sword, Large Shield, Mail Armour,

In the end, what works for one might not work for another, but that doesn't make one absolutely right or wrong.

[EvilElitest]

But with the old system, you can do it both ways without breaking the rules


I could make Roman legionary a generic Fighter or warrior.

or I could make him just a pile of simple stats


however in the current system, PCs and NPCs follow different rules, you see what i mean
from
EE

[Matthew]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, EE, we don't know what 4e is going to look like, we just have a few contradictory reports.

The first set of stats offered above looks like it's not breaking the rules, but that's because I have shown you how the same objective can be reached via an actual build. The first set of stats may be breaking the rules all over the place, there's not enough information there for you to know. [i.e. What level is he? What are his saving throws? What happens if he is subject to Attribute Drain? etc...]. Fact is, I didn't bother making that bit up because I doubt it's going to come up in the game I prepared him for; if it does, I'll make something up.

To put it another way, I could have made him like this:



Roman Legionary
AB 1(5), DB 1D6+2, AC 20, HP 10,

Trying to get that combination via a build is a more convoluted process. I could reverse engineer him to try and figure out what build might fit, but I don't really need to, as the objective is complete.

[VanBuren]

But with the old system, you can do it both ways without breaking the rules


I could make Roman legionary a generic Fighter or warrior.

or I could make him just a pile of simple stats


however in the current system, PCs and NPCs follow different rules, you see what i mean
from
EE

Though the Devs have said otherwise.

(Incidentally, could someone repost the link to that source? I've seen it about a hundred times but can't remember what the link was and I don't want to keep looking like I'm pulling things out of my ass.)

[Rutee]

I asked the same thing. I can't remember for the life of me where the podcast was originally though.

[Matthew]

Probably Mike Mearls' Blog, according to my Google Fu:

Some people rambling on about NPC creation in 4e (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/62abe555174b22c5/892ff06b3c92ee3a?lnk=raot)

[edit]
Yeah, he posted there about how long it takes him to create a Level 11 Human Wizard and a Level 8 Gnoll Warlock for 4e; then he followed up with a response about how long it takes for him to create 3.5 NPCs of a similar level:

Mike Mearls' Gleemax Blog (http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/DisplayProfile.aspx?userid=17314&blogid=8838)

The inference is that if Mike Mearls is creating NPC Wizards and Warlocks for D&D 4e then the rules for NPC creation cannot be that much different from the rules in 3e; that's pretty much supposition, though, since an NPC Wizard or Warlock could still be created differently from a PC version.

[Jack Zander]

The inference is that if Mike Mearls is creating NPC Wizards and Warlocks for D&D 4e then the rules for NPC creation cannot be that much different from the rules in 3e;

Sorry, I fail to see the reasoning behind that conclusion.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Tangential but related: in a homebrew system I'm working on, NPCs don't have stats at all. Instead NPCs are treated as contributing factors in the overall difficulty of a task.

[Yahzi]

We’ve talked elsewhere about some of the bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design—such as all monsters having to follow character creation rules, even though they’re supposed to be foes to kill, not player characters—
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080201a&pf=true

Straight from the evil wizard's mouth.

:smallfurious:

NPCs are just XP containers.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Straight from the evil wizard's mouth.

:smallfurious:

NPCs are just XP containers.
Yeah. Actually yielded on my standing refusal to avoid these preview things for a bit and read some other articles. Found a statement in the article on criticals implying monsters that wield magic weapons don't get the extra damage magic weapons afford PCs on criticals.

No idea how that would apply to arbitrarily "non-monstrous" NPCs.

[Rutee]

Straight from the evil wizard's mouth.

:smallfurious:

NPCs are just XP containers.

If you need the character creation rules, is the NPC more likely an antagonist (Which is the ONLY thing you can derive from "A foe to kill", without adding in your reading of their interpretation), or someone never to see the end of a sword point, given what 80% or more of the mechanics are for?

[Yahzi]

without adding in your reading of their interpretation
I agree there's some room for misinterpretation; but the text is still quite worrisome. They didn't say "We made it easier to whip together an NPC," or even the imminently logical "We made it easier to whip together a character of any class." No, they said, "foes to kill."

It's just their attitude.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Oh no! WotC is suggesting we play a different way than we like while still providing us the means to play in the manner we enjoy! The horror!
If they think the game should be played one way, how long will they really continue support for another?

I believe most of the conflict in this thread arose from the idea that there's not much concrete evidence that they will indeed support the way some of us wish to play. Though there has been some evidence to allay certain of those fears, much of that evidence was also seemingly contradicted by other developer/publisher comments (i.e. Races and Classes vs. "Design and Development").


It's just their attitude.
My thoughts exactly, but I didn't want to say it. So... non-logical.

Plus, it makes you sound like their mother. :smallwink: :smalltongue:

[Aerogoat]

Oh no! WotC is suggesting we play a different way than we like while still providing us the means to play in the manner we enjoy! The horror!Drat, I was caught.
I thought my speedy deletion would stop anyone from catching that post.
Eh, Oh well.

If they think the game should be played one way, how long will they really continue support for another?
Anyway, I don't see how they can stop supporting that playstyle. As long as players have the ability to make characters, the DM retains the ability to make characters along the same lines. The group decides the attitude it wants to show NPCs, not the books. People play the games, not books.

Honestly, I don't see how it matters. As a DM, I don't stat NPCs unless the PCs are going to be fighting them. I don't care about the magistrate's HP or skill ranks, even if he becomes a central NPC in my campaign. If the PCs try to lie to him with an unconvincing statement or a middling Bluff check, they'll fail. If anyone shoots him with an arrow or stabs him with a sword, he'll die. I wouldn't mind a DMG that supports this mentality.

I don't mind the 3.x "everybody has class levels" concept either, but it involves much more work than leaving stat-blocks blank until the PCs actually directly interact with them. And the only time that those stat-block interactions really matter is when the PCs and NPCs enter combat. Otherwise, limiting the NPCs to a compliation of numbers just tends to just interfere with gameplay.

And, for instance, when my players decided to fight a NPC Warrior-type that I hadn't planned to stat out last Friday, I didn't bother to make new numbers for him or to assign him class levels. I opened the DMG to the Ogre page and ran the encounter with Ogre stats (dropped to Medium size and reach). Frankly, I don't care where the numbers come from as long as they're appropriate and as long as they're at hand when I need them.

The attitude "NPC=Foe to Kill" doesn't bother me because what it seems to mean in practice is, as Rutee says, "an NPC that you'd bother to stat out=a Foe to kill." That doesn't seem outrageous at all.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

The group decides the attitude it wants to show NPCs, not the books. People play the games, not books.
It would be a grave error to assume the attitude presented in the book doesn't affect the attitude of the players. For an extreme example: How many people actually play Paranoia straight? The whole system is built around the attitude of "Cold War Science Fiction Farce." The rule books make this attitude glaringly obvious, of course. As such, that's the type of game people play when playing Paranoia.

However, oftentimes the more pervasive attitudes are subtle. The manage to become pervasive because they don't call attention to themselves. As such, people don't necessarily have a concious awareness that the attitude is even there. By the time anyone realizes such an attitude has caught on, it's often firmly entrenched. Many of the trouble expressed in various "My DM is Mean" or "Help Me Talk Sense to My Players" threads in this forum exist because of such attitudes. Of course, on a lighter note, those same attitudes also provide humor in Order of the Stick.

Of course, also add to this that, unless introduced by a strong group that has been stubborn enough to maintain their own attitudes, new players will be primarily influenced by the attitude given in the books, whether that attitude is subtle or explicit.

The attitude expressed in the rules will affect the game as a whole, one way or another.

[AKA_Bait]

Anyway, I don't see how they can stop supporting that playstyle. As long as players have the ability to make characters, the DM retains the ability to make characters along the same lines. The group decides the attitude it wants to show NPCs, not the books. People play the games, not books.

One way could be, as they did with 3.x, not to properly balance PC classes against eachother. Failure to do this, which is entirely possible if NPCs and PCs are built on different mechanics and expected to be the default opponents, is a very easy way to 'not support' a different playstyle that can have a real effect on a game.


Honestly, I don't see how it matters. As a DM, I don't stat NPCs unless the PCs are going to be fighting them. I don't care about the magistrate's HP or skill ranks, even if he becomes a central NPC in my campaign. If the PCs try to lie to him with an unconvincing statement or a middling Bluff check, they'll fail. If anyone shoots him with an arrow or stabs him with a sword, he'll die. I wouldn't mind a DMG that supports this mentality.

I would. If only because that option, handwaving rules for expediencey, has existed in every edition and I don't need to spend $30 to know that. I'd rather my DMG provide a rigorous system for my money and still have the option of handwaving parts of it as I please.


The attitude "NPC=Foe to Kill" doesn't bother me because what it seems to mean in practice is, as Rutee says, "an NPC that you'd bother to stat out=a Foe to kill." That doesn't seem outrageous at all.

Maybe this is just a difference of opinion and play style. I frequently stat out NPCs that the PCs aren't going to have to kill but are going to have to deal with. I might not do it fully, but the important stuff for how I expect the NPC to function in my game will be in there. If it's a foe to kill, BAB, AC etc are essential but I might skip over assigning most skill points. If it's an information source for the PCs I may not bother with those but will be sure to do the skills.


It would be a grave error to assume the attitude presented in the book doesn't affect the attitude of the players.

QFT



However, oftentimes the more pervasive attitudes are subtle. The manage to become pervasive because they don't call attention to themselves. As such, people don't necessarily have a concious awareness that the attitude is even there.

Yes, a good example of that is the Magic Item Emporium meme in 3.x

[Jack Zander]

Going ten pages back to the original topic, I think it's pretty clear that the statement is not a fallacy as it has been proven correct in at least a few cases. Perhaps something along the lines of, "NPCs are roleplayed better when fully stated out" or something could be considered a fallacy. But since a few of us were able to give examples of times when NPCs are more realistic when they follow the same rules, the original fallacy is incorrect.

Now that I realized what the original point was and properly debunked it, I can leave this thread in peace. All the other side arguments are of no importance.

Thank you everyone for getting so off-topic that you managed to side-track us into forgetting the original point.

[AKA_Bait]

Now that I realized what the original point was and properly debunked it, I can leave this thread in peace. All the other side arguments are of no importance.


But side arguments make the world go round!


Thank you everyone for getting so off-topic that you managed to side-track us into forgetting the original point.

You're welcome. :smallbiggrin:

[Jack Zander]

But side arguments make the world go round!

You're right, who was I kidding?

While the fallacy is incorrect, I will continue to debate about NPCs following PC rules are simply more realistic.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Perhaps something along the lines of, "NPCs are roleplayed better when fully stated out" or something could be considered a fallacy.
No, that's too situational. Dependent upon how a particular DM organizes his or her thoughts. For instance, there have been a number of times when I let a particular character's stats tell me what a particular character was like rather than using a preconcieved idea of the character's personality to come up with the stats. Had no idea the character was so stubborn until I gave them Iron Will or Endurance, for instance. A lack of stats would have made the character much more bland in those cases.

Which method I use ("personality first or last") depends upon what service the character in question will serve. Antagonists with minimal screen time, for instance, would benefit more from thoes stats to help me figure out nuances, for instance, because those nuances will rarely have a great impact on the game. It's the movers and shakers of the campaign world whose nuances help determine the direction of the campaign that I can afford to stat up to a given personality.

[Jack Zander]

Okay, how about this one, "Fallacy: Roleplaying NPCs properly is the only component needed to make your world realistic." Which is a statement a lot of people have been saying in this thread.

[Tormsskull]

But since a few of us were able to give examples of times when NPCs are more realistic when they follow the same rules, the original fallacy is incorrect.


"Realistic" is a really loaded word when talking about RPGs. If you define "Reality" as far as it is concerned with characters as all characters in the world are bound by the same limits as those presented to the players for crafting their player characters, then yes, an NPC that is built using other rules will seem unrealistic.

What I mean by that is if a DM were to give a level 1 NPC the Weapon Specialization (Long Sword) Feat because the NPC was special in some way (descended from a long line of weaponmasters, or has glimpses into the memory of other people, or trained from birth in the ways of the long sword, or was blessed by the god of blades at birth, etc.) some people might say that it was unrealistic.

The same thing occurs if an enemy can do something that the PCs cannot do, because the players are trying to tactically defeat their opponents. When they see a guy in robes, they assume the guy is a spellcaster, and then they try to guess at his level, what spells he might have, etc. They use all of these calculations to determine what their characters should do.

If an enemy does something that they are not aware of, then they sometimes feel cheated because they were not given the opportunity to take that ability/spell/skill/feat into consideration for their calculations.

This is a completely acceptable way to play, but its not the way that I like to play. I would much prefer to play as my character would act, without all of the extraneous knowledge. If I'm a Fighter level 1 and I see a guy in robes, the most I'm likely to know is that that guy in robes can be really dangerous with just a flick of his hands and some strange words.

As a player I might know that he is a level 1 spellcaster and as such can't turn me into a toad, for example, but my character the Fighter doesn't know that. The tactics I use are based on what my character would know, not what I would know.

There have been times when RPing as a low level cleric or bard I wouldn't move into flanking positions when it was obvious to me as the player that I should in fact do so. That was because I had predetermined that those characters were not familiar enough with combat to know that. Once each character's teammates instructed them that it was a good idea, and after he forgot a few times then made it a regular habit, the character learned.

Seeing the characters grow, change, and adapt based on their in game experiences is a HUGE part of the game, to me.

So anyway, I broke off into a rather detailed explanation there, but yeah, I wouldn't endorse this as a fallacy, but I agree with pretty much everything that the OP was trying to explain.

[Jack Zander]

There have been times when RPing as a low level cleric or bard I wouldn't move into flanking positions when it was obvious to me as the player that I should in fact do so. That was because I had predetermined that those characters were not familiar enough with combat to know that. Once each character's teammates instructed them that it was a good idea, and after he forgot a few times then made it a regular habit, the character learned.

That's a real sorry excuse for "roleplaying." Even children and Int 1 animals know that attacking someone from behind is better than the front.

And to your example with the guy in robes deal: If the only thing you can tell about him is that he can be highly dangerous with just the flick of his finger, wouldn't the best option by roleplaying be to run away screaming? If you cannot tell the difference between a high level mage and a low level one, why ever assume he's a low level mage?


"Realistic" is a really loaded word when talking about RPGs. If you define "Reality" as far as it is concerned with characters as all characters in the world are bound by the same limits as those presented to the players for crafting their player characters, then yes, an NPC that is built using other rules will seem unrealistic.

Yes I do define it as that and when you give NPCs different abilities, you're only cheating your players.

[Muyten]

That's a real sorry excuse for "roleplaying." Even children and Int 1 animals know that attacking someone from behind is better than the front.


Since there is no orientation in D&D flanking is not the same as attacking from behind. Also he might not be attacking at all he might just be moving around doing other stuff. Having a character who doesn't know anything about combat stay out of it seems pretty valid roleplaying to me.

[Jack Zander]

Also he might not be attacking at all he might just be moving around doing other stuff. Having a character who doesn't know anything about combat stay out of it seems pretty valid roleplaying to me.

Pretty sure that's not what he meant so that doesn't even pertain here.


Since there is no orientation in D&D flanking is not the same as attacking from behind.

no, but flanking does represent a character trying to get behind another character. The flanked character's ability to turn and have two opponents on his sides rather than 1 behind him and one in front of him makes no difference that it's still simply common sense for someone to try and attack from two sides.

Seriously, people try and use the excuse that poor tactics in battle is good roleplaying. It's not. You are adventures. You battle for a living. Besides, even Farmer Joe knows he's in trouble when surrounded by wolves, or more powerful when his dog and he surround a fox.

[AKA_Bait]

Since there is no orientation in D&D flanking is not the same as attacking from behind. Also he might not be attacking at all he might just be moving around doing other stuff. Having a character who doesn't know anything about combat stay out of it seems pretty valid roleplaying to me.

No, flanking is the same as flanking, i.e. being on opposite sides of a target you are attacking. However, it's still something children and wild animals know. I know I used to flank and be flanked by kids in the playground playing tag or keep away.

Also, if the character doesn't know anything about combat and stays out if it is fine. Having them not know anything about combat, get in it, and not use the most basic hunting strategy (see all pack hunters) known to man is a bit much.


I would much prefer to play as my character would act, without all of the extraneous knowledge. If I'm a Fighter level 1 and I see a guy in robes, the most I'm likely to know is that that guy in robes can be really dangerous with just a flick of his hands and some strange words.


Do you prefer to play characters that aren't particularly observant about the world? Although a fighter can't by looking at a mage (in is mage outfit) tell his level he should, in most cases, be able to tell generally how competent he seems. Those who excell at their trade tend to carry themselves differently than those just beginning and the difference is noticable in character.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Okay, how about this one, "Fallacy: Roleplaying NPCs properly is the only component needed to make your world realistic."
Sounds pretty close to me.


Those who excell at their trade tend to carry themselves differently than those just beginning and the difference is noticable in character.
I believe certain supplements even give advice on modelling this with the Sense Motive skill. :smallbiggrin:

(Only downside is that that particular ruleset seems to assume everyone's trying to hide their personal power level. :smallconfused:)

[Matthew]

It would be a grave error to assume the attitude presented in the book doesn't affect the attitude of the players.

*and some other true stuff*

This, I think, shows exactly why it's okay to my mind to move away from systematic NPC creation. The current D20 rules reinforce the notion of prescribed limits and that's not the way I like to play. Not everyone wants to play the same way, of course, but I would prefer D20 actively supported and encouraged the style of game I prefer (as, I suppose, would everybody prefer their 'own' way to be the one primarily supported). On the other hand, 4e looks like it's not going to agree with me anyway, so I couldn't give a stuff if they create NPCs using rules derived from a recipe for bootleg moonshine.



Going ten pages back to the original topic, I think it's pretty clear that the statement is not a fallacy as it has been proven correct in at least a few cases. Perhaps something along the lines of, "NPCs are roleplayed better when fully stated out" or something could be considered a fallacy. But since a few of us were able to give examples of times when NPCs are more realistic when they follow the same rules, the original fallacy is incorrect.

Now that I realized what the original point was and properly debunked it, I can leave this thread in peace. All the other side arguments are of no importance.

Thank you everyone for getting so off-topic that you managed to side-track us into forgetting the original point.

Must have missed that part, as I still agree with the primary contention and am yet to see anything brought up here that would convince me otherwise.

[AKA_Bait]

I believe certain supplements even give advice on modelling this with the Sense Motive skill. :smallbiggrin:

(Only downside is that that particular ruleset seems to assume everyone's trying to hide their personal power level. :smallconfused:)

Having a Sense Motive check for power level makes sense to me if they are trying to hide how powerful they are, but then, it seems to me that could be handled without extras with a regular old sense motive and spot (to see through their disguise) checks.


Must have missed that part, as I still agree with the primary contention and am yet to see anything brought up here that would convince me otherwise.

I thought the primary contention was the fallacy? :smallconfused:

[Matthew]

I thought the primary contention was the fallacy? :smallconfused:

Heh, heh! Let me be clearer, I agree with the primary contention that the absolute statement "NPCs are more realistic with PC creation rules" is a fallacy.

[Jack Zander]

It was, and many (if extreme) examples have bee given to disprove it.

Here is one (or two): An NPC wizard is casting low level buff spells on his warrior friend when suddenly, he summons meteor swarm to rain destruction on the party. The survivors begin to target him and find that he dies in only 5 hit points of damage.

How did such a weak mage learn this spell if the PCs cannot learn it until level 17+?

Why do all the NPCs in the town seem to simply work differently, even if slightly? All the priests seem more like humans with a mage template slapped on like in some sort of video game.

In these two examples, the fallacy is proven false. In a theory, only one extreme example can disprove it, as is the same case here.

Kids, please think a bit more about your "fallacies" before you try to be "cool" and imitate Stormwind.

[Jack Zander]

Heh, heh! Let me be clearer, I agree with the primary contention that the absolute statement "NPCs are more realistic with PC creation rules" is a fallacy.

lulwut? That's still pretty unclear to me. Are you using a double negative?

[Matthew]

It was, and many (if extreme) examples have bee given to disprove it.

The very extremity of the examples shows a misunderstanding of the statement. Building NPCs using PC rules doesn't create more realistic NPCs. It limits NPCs to the things that PCs are limited to and is consistant with the PC creation rules. If the PC creation rules are unrealistic (which I think they are), so are the NPC creation rules. I can make much more 'realistic' NPCs by not using the PC creation rules.



Kids, please think a bit more about your "fallacies" before you try to be "cool" and imitate Stormwind.

I always thought the Stormwind Fallacy was rather uncool.



lulwut? That's still pretty unclear to me. Are you using a double negative?


No, I agree with this:

"Fallacy: NPCs are more realistic with PC creation rules"

[Tormsskull]

That's a real sorry excuse for "roleplaying." Even children and Int 1 animals know that attacking someone from behind is better than the front.


I disagree. Certain animals are known to attack from behind, or from hiding, like cats for example. But how about bears? If two bears charged a human, do you think they would stop to move to flanking positions on the human? I can't imagine so. I would bet they would both move in the most direct way towards the human, I.E., a straight line.

The same goes for combatants with little combat experience. Heck, I have players that plain forget to flank often times. Should I be smacking their hands and telling them no, their character would know better than that and move their minis into a flanking position? Should I tell them they are roleplaying their character poorly if they aren't making the most optimal choices when it comes to combat?



And to your example with the guy in robes deal: If the only thing you can tell about him is that he can be highly dangerous with just the flick of his finger, wouldn't the best option by roleplaying be to run away screaming? If you cannot tell the difference between a high level mage and a low level one, why ever assume he's a low level mage?


That all depends on the character. Some fighters may have never even seen magic done, they've just heard about old guys wearing robes carrying staffs that can do crazy things. Would that mean EVERY fighter who encounters such a person should run away? Of course not.

Some might. Some might be so courageous (or foolish), that they don't believe magic could harm them. Or, perhaps a fighter has only even seen low level mages, and has a roundabout idea of what they can do from experience.



Yes I do define it as that and when you give NPCs different abilities, you're only cheating your players.

To each their own. To me it shows a lack of imagination, or perhaps a sense of entitlement from the player. Some people are just different, or special, or whatever.



Do you prefer to play characters that aren't particularly observant about the world? Although a fighter can't by looking at a mage (in is mage outfit) tell his level he should, in most cases, be able to tell generally how competent he seems. Those who excell at their trade tend to carry themselves differently than those just beginning and the difference is noticable in character.


But unless you find in the books somewhere that it says "Higher level characters appear more powerful than low level characters" you would have to agree that your assumption that just being observant is enough to know how powerful a character is only as valid as my assumption that character's can only guess at another character's power.

In your eyes, how does a level 1 Fighter know the difference between a level 5 Wizard and a level 10 Wizard?



How did such a weak mage learn this spell if the PCs cannot learn it until level 17+?


More importantly, how do the PCs know that they cannot learn it until level 17? How do they know that it is the 9th level spell "Meteor Swarm"? And, what do they do to try to find that out?

It seems like you want to be on both sides of the DM/Player divide. Do you also require your DMs approve their homebrew creation by you before they introduce it into the campaign?

[horseboy]

I disagree. Certain animals are known to attack from behind, or from hiding, like cats for example. But how about bears? If two bears charged a human, do you think they would stop to move to flanking positions on the human? I can't imagine so. I would bet they would both move in the most direct way towards the human, I.E., a straight line.Well, given that bears are bigger than humans, they'd have to just to both be able to hit. :smallwink:


That all depends on the character. Some fighters may have never even seen magic done, they've just heard about old guys wearing robes carrying staffs that can do crazy things. Would that mean EVERY fighter who encounters such a person should run away? Of course not.

Some might. Some might be so courageous (or foolish), that they don't believe magic could harm them. Or, perhaps a fighter has only even seen low level mages, and has a roundabout idea of what they can do from experience.
Well, that's actually more of a setting thing. Though the DMG does say quite a bit against this particular play style on page 142.


But unless you find in the books somewhere that it says "Higher level characters appear more powerful than low level characters" you would have to agree that your assumption that just being observant is enough to know how powerful a character is only as valid as my assumption that character's can only guess at another character's power.
In your eyes, how does a level 1 Fighter know the difference between a level 5 Wizard and a level 10 Wizard?
WBL, if nothing else. "Wow, look at all that crazy looking gear, he must be a successful adventurer."




It seems like you want to be on both sides of the DM/Player divide. Do you also require your DMs approve their homebrew creation by you before they introduce it into the campaign?
Only when it breaks my sense of verisimilitude.

[Rutee]

Going ten pages back to the original topic, I think it's pretty clear that the statement is not a fallacy as it has been proven correct in at least a few cases. Perhaps something along the lines of, "NPCs are roleplayed better when fully stated out" or something could be considered a fallacy. But since a few of us were able to give examples of times when NPCs are more realistic when they follow the same rules, the original fallacy is incorrect.

NPCs haven't been proven more meaningfully realistic. If you're bragging about proving an absolute wrong, well, that's just super, but you haven't really proven that it makes a difference in general.

What I mean is, all the debate has done is enumerate what various people subjectively find more realistic. It doesn't 'prove' anything, on either side. The only truly backed up statement was AKA_Bait's about how it's better to get his money's worth and receive a system, and still be allowed to handwave things. For my part, getting a system I will never use is exactly the same as never getting a system, to me, but I agree with the sentiment.

Personally, I only stat important people out in depth, if then. And really, as anyone who's read a good story knows, "Ally" is just another word for "Antagonist in hiding", since there's bound to be an occasion where they'll oppose the PCs in some capacity. Nah, not really, but it's not really that unusual, and it can be entertaining to throw the party out of their element when they have to convince someone who they've taken for granted of the rightness of their chosen method for dealing with a problem, for instance.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I disagree. Certain animals are known to attack from behind, or from hiding, like cats for example. But how about bears? If two bears charged a human, do you think they would stop to move to flanking positions on the human?
They wouldn't be working with each other on a human. Since the human is pretty obviously weak by bear standards, they'd probably ignore the human and try to get the other out of its territory.

If bears were a more cooperative species, they'd be pretty likely to have flanking down.


More importantly, how do the PCs know that they cannot learn it until level 17?
Same way I know I can't manage to program a sophisticated AI or play Pachelbell's canon without loads more study in programming or music. It's freakishly more complicated than the crap whose difficulty I've been complaining about to date.


How do they know that it is the 9th level spell "Meteor Swarm"? And, what do they do to try to find that out?
DC 24 Spellcraft check. By the time you can survive one of those, it's really a pretty easy check.

[AKA_Bait]

I disagree. Certain animals are known to attack from behind, or from hiding, like cats for example. But how about bears? If two bears charged a human, do you think they would stop to move to flanking positions on the human? I can't imagine so. I would bet they would both move in the most direct way towards the human, I.E., a straight line.

None of your exampels are pack hunters. Humans are pack hunters.


The same goes for combatants with little combat experience. Heck, I have players that plain forget to flank often times.

I suspect, in real life, were they tasked with ganging up on and stabbing a guy they would naturally not both run directly at them.


Should I be smacking their hands and telling them no, their character would know better than that and move their minis into a flanking position? Should I tell them they are roleplaying their character poorly if they aren't making the most optimal choices when it comes to combat?

Obviously not. Also, I apologize for the intimation that not doing so is bad role playing. Failing to flank strikes me as an unusual decision for 'in character reasons' and would not do so myself but to each theor own.


That all depends on the character. Some fighters may have never even seen magic done, they've just heard about old guys wearing robes carrying staffs that can do crazy things. Would that mean EVERY fighter who encounters such a person should run away? Of course not.

I should think that in the standard D&D setting where Adepts, Mage Guilds and Temples exist it would be very unlikley that any classed character never have seen magic done. In an extremely low magic setting I can see that being the case, but other wise no. If only because there is an assumed baseline training for PC class.


But unless you find in the books somewhere that it says "Higher level characters appear more powerful than low level characters" you would have to agree that your assumption that just being observant is enough to know how powerful a character is only as valid as my assumption that character's can only guess at another character's power.

In your eyes, how does a level 1 Fighter know the difference between a level 5 Wizard and a level 10 Wizard?

One way that would typically work is stuff. Unless a wizard is taking pains to hide their wealth then the Ioun stones, headbands of intellect etc would probably give them away. Many magical items look magical. If someone has more than a few of them it's a pretty safe assumption they are of pretty high level.

Putting that aside though, the level 1 fighter would ultimatley know roughly how powerful a Wizard is the same way I (being generous a level 3 expert) can usually tell the difference bettwen a regular soldier and a sharpshooter just by seeing how they carry the weapon.


More importantly, how do the PCs know that they cannot learn it until level 17? How do they know that it is the 9th level spell "Meteor Swarm"? And, what do they do to try to find that out?

They would know that the huge explosions indicative of a Meteor Swarm would require a very powerful caster. They wouldn't know level 17. Just the former is good enough.


NPCs haven't been proven more meaningfully realistic. If you're bragging about proving an absolute wrong, well, that's just super, but you haven't really proven that it makes a difference in general.

Well, asserting something is a fallacy is making an absolute claim. So, disproving it, even in the limited case, is still enough to disprove it as a fallacy.

Has it been disproven that 'as a rule of thumb, diffrent mechanics for NPCs don't substantially impact versimilitude'? No.


What I mean is, all the debate has done is enumerate what various people subjectively find more realistic. It doesn't 'prove' anything, on either side.

By and large, that's all message board debates on 4e ever do. :smallbiggrin: But hey, 11 pages of other peoples perspective on a topic is somewhat educational in and of itself.



I always thought the Stormwind Fallacy was rather uncool.


Me too. Uncool and trivially true when you get right down to it. After the only drawn out debate on it I ever bothered to engage in on the WotC boards Stormwind resorted to saying that an 'optimal build' is one that fit the character concept best. Hence, a build could be optimally weak. Bleh.



No, I agree with this:

"Fallacy: NPCs are more realistic with PC creation rules"

I agree with that too, just as strongly as I disagree with:

"Fallacy: Mechanical Differences in NPC and PC Creation Rules Cannot Effect Versimilitude"

[Tormsskull]

Same way I know I can't manage to program a sophisticated AI or play Pachelbell's canon without loads more study in programming or music. It's freakishly more complicated than the crap whose difficulty I've been complaining about to date.


That's assuming a lot of knowledge. See, I've never heard of Pachelbell's canon, so I wouldn't even know that it was related to music. So if I heard someone play it, without seeing the instrument it was played on, I would probably only have a vague idea of what instrument was making the noise. Then again, even if I seen the instrument, I might still not know (unless it is a common instrument). That's because, as an equivalent to D&D terms, I have 0 Ranks in Knowledge (Music).

That's what I am suggesting here. A typical level 1 fighter has 0 ranks in Knowledge (Arcana), and Spellcraft, meaning he really doesn't know the power difference between 1 spell and another spell.

Perhaps you are going off of the assumption that most spells that spellcasters can cast are common knowledge, as is their general power levels. I've never played under that assumption, quite the opposite in fact.



DC 24 Spellcraft check. By the time you can survive one of those, it's really a pretty easy check.

Sounds like we both pulled something different from that piece. When I read this:



Here is one (or two): An NPC wizard is casting low level buff spells on his warrior friend when suddenly, he summons meteor swarm to rain destruction on the party. The survivors begin to target him and find that he dies in only 5 hit points of damage.


I assumed Jack was trying to say that this NPC wizard was low level, and that's what made the "meteor swarm" so shocking. I thought this was further referenced by the fact that said NPC wizard died in only 5 hit points of damage.

I see what you mean though, Shhalahr, you're going under the assumption that this is actually the 9th level spell meteor swarm and the PCs survived it. Yeah, assuming they make their Spellcraft check, which as you said should be pretty easy at that level, they would be able to ID it.



I should think that in the standard D&D setting where Adepts, Mage Guilds and Temples exist it would be very unlikley that any classed character never have seen magic done. In an extremely low magic setting I can see that being the case, but other wise no. If only because there is an assumed baseline training for PC class.


In a small village without all the hoopla of the bigger cities, it is more than likely that a character has not seen magic. I'm not sure if that means small villages cannot produce fighters, rogues, wizard, etc. But the 4 adventurers starting in a small village has been a staple of many campaigns IME.



One way that would typically work is stuff. Unless a wizard is taking pains to hide their wealth then the Ioun stones, headbands of intellect etc would probably give them away. Many magical items look magical. If someone has more than a few of them it's a pretty safe assumption they are of pretty high level.


But does a level 1 Fighter know what an Ioun Stone is? Does a level 1 Fighter know what a headband of intellect is? Does a Fighter level 1 know that based on the amount of gear that a character has they are approximately level 5, or level 10? That is completely foreign to the way that I play. At most, the amount of gear a person carries could tell you how wealthy they are, which is usually, but not always related to how powerful they are.

A level 1 wealthy noble could purchase a boatload of magic items, and he would appear to be higher level then to the PCs, assuming they have some sort of built-in level detectdar.



Putting that aside though, the level 1 fighter would ultimatley know roughly how powerful a Wizard is the same way I (being generous a level 3 expert) can usually tell the difference bettwen a regular soldier and a sharpshooter just by seeing how they carry the weapon.


I've lived in a major city my entire life, and I have never seen a sharpshooter (that I know of). And if I did I would not have been able to tell you since I don't have any specialized knowledge of such things.



They would know that the huge explosions indicative of a Meteor Swarm would require a very powerful caster. They wouldn't know level 17. Just the former is good enough.


But how would they know that huge explosions = powerful caster? Are there not lower level spells that create huge explsions (which of course deal less damage)? If we're going off of the assumption that spells are general knowledge, then yes I agree. But if spells are not general knowledge, I don't think this is such a given as you make it out to be.

[AKA_Bait]

]But does a level 1 Fighter know what an Ioun Stone is?

Maybe not. He does however know that the fellow inthe fancy coat has magical rocks circling him and not many people (or none that he has seen) do.


A level 1 wealthy noble could purchase a boatload of magic items, and he would appear to be higher level then to the PCs, assuming they have some sort of built-in level detectdar.

It's true that a noble could appear to be an adventuerer on the basis of stuff. You would only know they aren't a wizard because... well, they aren't casting any bloody spells!


If we're going off of the assumption that spells are general knowledge, then yes I agree. But if spells are not general knowledge, I don't think this is such a given as you make it out to be.

But magic, at least writ large, is common knowledge. Anyone, untrained, can answer easy knowledge arcana, religion, etc questions. I should think, more explosion = more powerful spell would be pretty common knowledge.

[EvilElitest]

The attitude "NPC=Foe to Kill" doesn't bother me because what it seems to mean in practice is, as Rutee says, "an NPC that you'd bother to stat out=a Foe to kill." That doesn't seem outrageous at all.

not me, when i make an NPC i don't think "now how would this guy work if the PC's killed him" I think "Now what would a guy like this spend his points into"For example, i think this one captain of the guard is going to have a rather unused feat, because i feel it makes him a little unique and then i make a reason why he has that feat. One merchant might have endurance, because he is just a very big guy, that sort of thing. If the PCs want to talk politics with a local ruler, i quickly roll some basic stats so I know how smart and/or charismatic this ruler is.



Thank you everyone for getting so off-topic that you managed to side-track us into forgetting the original point.
glad to be of service

[Matthew]

Me too. Uncool and trivially true when you get right down to it. After the only drawn out debate on it I ever bothered to engage in on the WotC boards Stormwind resorted to saying that an 'optimal build' is one that fit the character concept best. Hence, a build could be optimally weak. Bleh.

Indeed.




I agree with that too, just as strongly as I disagree with:

"Fallacy: Mechanical Differences in NPC and PC Creation Rules Cannot Effect Versimilitude"

Absolutely. Mechanics affect the game, they affect how it's played and they affect the experience.

[RukiTanuki]

That does it. Next time I'm using "Discussion:" instead of "Fallacy:" to start off my post. :D

The initial post attempted to contest this claim: "If NPCs are created via the same stat generation methods as PCs, then they will inherently be played in a more convincing manner." I saw that statement elsewhere, and felt it was false, or at least not provably true.

In my personal experience, I prefer NPC stat blocks that only list the essentials. If it's not a number or requires a dice roll, I won't need it in combat. When drafting NPCs, I care about the results, and whether the results generate a balanced and believable character. I don't need PC rules to get there, and in fact, my time is limited enough that I prefer to use the fastest method that generates consistently good results, gain extra prep time (no need to pick feats and skills the character will never use in front of the PCs), and spend it on developing the character's, well, character.

My players accept as part of the premise that the PC rules are there to provide them choices for their character while still giving me reasonable expectations on what to expect. We consider "taking the rules of the world in which the PCs live to be identical to the rules of the setting" as the very definition of metagaming. Parts of the rules are awkward if their inworld effects are taken literally, pointed out, and critically analyzed by the characters themselves. My players and I prefer to assume "that's close but not quite what's actually going on in the world" and move on.

Fully using the rules, and expanding on the fluff, are two goals that occasionally provide a bad taste when mixed together. My d20 Modern players aren't wondering whether or not the guy casting spells through his guns meets all the prerequisites for five levels in Spellslinger, for example. They are, however, wondering why a ninja-to is an Exotic weapon, when its blade's stats are identical to a machete (which is a simple weapon), and the scabbard serves as a club (simple) or a blowgun (simple). They worry about the rules when the rules get in the way of making interesting characters... and I DM the same way.

Your mileage may vary. (That much should be quite obvious by now.)

[Jayabalard]

In your eyes, how does a level 1 Fighter know the difference between a level 5 Wizard and a level 10 Wizard?Easy, you just look at the spelling on the hat. the one with "Wizzzzzard" on the hat is 5th level, and the one with "Wizzzzzzzzzzard" on his hat is obviously the 10th level one.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

That's assuming a lot of knowledge.
Ah, so we're pretty exclusively sticking to the Fighter vs. Wizard thing?

Well, in this case, Pachelbel's Canon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachelbel's_Canon) (yeah, I mispelled it above...) is a musical piece originally written for three violins and bass. I play none of those. Instead, I'd have to put up with the ridiculously complex piano arrangement.

Now, here's the thing about a canon. A canon is a musical form that revolves around the interplay of several distinct melodic parts that are all variations of one main melody. It's sort of like a round, except each part eventually winds up playing something very different from the others. That means any quality piano arrangement of Pachelbel's Canon would require me to reasonably replicate and maintain four separate voices with just two hands. And believe me, the melodies get far more complex than the score section in the article I linked to shows. (Well, all except for the bass (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM), but you gotta give the pianist some reprieve. :smallwink:)

The upshot is: If you ever heard it, you'd know it's freaking complex.

And to bring things back to context: It should be pretty easy to tell when one magical effect is way out of the league compared to another.


That's what I am suggesting here. A typical level 1 fighter has 0 ranks in Knowledge (Arcana), and Spellcraft, meaning he really doesn't know the power difference between 1 spell and another spell.
But a tiny little bolt of force that barely stings when it hits its target (magic missile) should obviously be a different power level than four rapid fire fireballs that completely incinerate the same target (meteor swarm). I mean, there's no comparison.

Back to the music example, it's the same difference between the simple two-part arrangement of "Mary Had a Little Lamb" from my Piano for Beginners book and, well, Pachelbel's Canon.


In a small village without all the hoopla of the bigger cities, it is more than likely that a character has not seen magic. I'm not sure if that means small villages cannot produce fighters, rogues, wizard, etc. But the 4 adventurers starting in a small village has been a staple of many campaigns IME.
Well, going by the community creation rules in the Dungeon Master's Guide, even a thorp of 20-80 people has:
50% chance to have a level 1, 2, or 3 adept
50% chance to have a level 1, 2, or 3 bard
50% chance to have a level 1, 2, or 3 cleric
50% chance to have a level 1, 2, or 3 druid
25% chance to have a level 1 sorcerer
25% chance to have a level 1 wizard
And of course, any of those classes that result in a level 2 or 3 spellcaster generates two more 1st level spellcasters of the same class.

Now, if my calculations are correct, that leaves us with an approximately 3.5% chance of such towns not having any local spellcaster whatsoever. Of course, that only counts residents. There's a good chance even those small thorps have had the occasional spellcaster visit their town.

So the general assumption of the game is that it would be pretty rare for a character to grow up without having seen magic in action at least once or twice before.

In any case, if it were easy to cast something like teleport, one would assume that even a sheltered individual from one of those 3.5% thorps would realize such magic would be much more common and visible than it is. So there should be some sense of scale there.


But does a level 1 Fighter know what an Ioun Stone is?
Maybe not, but an ioun stone in action does scream "magical".


Does a level 1 Fighter know what a headband of intellect is?
Doesn't need to know what it is if it's obviously magical in any way. Of course, that winds up as "DM Option" and "Setting Specific" unless you're playing a Dragonfire Adept with the magic insight invocation.


Does a Fighter level 1 know that based on the amount of gear that a character has they are approximately level 5, or level 10?
Depends on the nature of the gear, I would think. But certainly not outside the realm of possibility.


That is completely foreign to the way that I play. At most, the amount of gear a person carries could tell you how wealthy they are, which is usually, but not always related to how powerful they are.
Indeed. However, this is a good example of the way the attitude of the rules can affect the attitude of the players. Hell, from a straight reading of the wealth by level rules, the newly crowned king, a level 5 Aristocrat, would be poorer than a 20th level Commoner.

In any case, I don't think anyone's suggested there won't be the occasional tricky exception to the general case.


But how would they know that huge explosions = powerful caster? Are there not lower level spells that create huge explsions (which of course deal less damage)?
Ah! And there you hit it. One caster merely singes everything in 20 feet. Another completely incinerates everything in 40 ft. Which has the better knack for generating huge magical explosions?

[RukiTanuki]

not me, when i make an NPC i don't think "now how would this guy work if the PC's killed him" I think "Now what would a guy like this spend his points into"For example, i think this one captain of the guard is going to have a rather unused feat, because i feel it makes him a little unique and then i make a reason why he has that feat. One merchant might have endurance, because he is just a very big guy, that sort of thing. If the PCs want to talk politics with a local ruler, i quickly roll some basic stats so I know how smart and/or charismatic this ruler is.

This seems like a false dichotomy of sorts. The people presenting a different opinion than yours are not saying "NPCs only exist to be killed, NPCs should only have stats in order for them to be killed by PCs." You're refuting an argument that no one else is making. To invert it, I could present your viewpoint as "Players will not treat NPCs as anything but cannon fodder unless I hand them the NPC's character sheet." But that's not what you're saying either, is it?

I'm finding many good things in this discussion, but at many points I don't understand why people are refuting claims no one's making.

Now then, it appears that you feel most comfortable manifesting the abilities, traits, and talents that NPCs have through their stats, and that you're most comfortable generating those stats with a precise method: namely, that used by the PCs. If that helps you get into the method of the character, and helps you convey their actions within the world, then I applaud your efforts.

I play NPCs fast and loose, particularly outside of combat. I assume "NPCs are more than chunks of XP" the same as you. However, I consider that a reason to avoid giving them concrete stats. My NPCs are not in the game in order to get involved in combat; it's not a significant part of their existence. The PCs do get in combat a lot, and are built accordingly. I'm content to disagree on this dichotomy, but I do feel it's an important part of the metagame of D&D (and the Wizards designers seem to be applying the same idea).

When I have a big merchant guy, I think carefully about his brawn: what it allows him to do, how he's treated by others, how it affects his social standing, what he thinks of his "gift." I prefer these thought exercises to the exclusion of creating his stats (again, if I expect him to never see combat). If I want PCs to talk politics with a local ruler, I think about some of the recent crises he's handled, how he handled them, what priorities he chose over others, and what the noble class and working people thought of his choices. If you use stat-building as a framework to help brainstorm these ideas, then that's great! Don't let me hold you back. For me, the numbers get in the way sometimes, so I use them where needed only.

Like I've said a few times now, I just had issue with the idea that more numbers or rules made a better NPC. It's all in how they're played; numbers are but a tool to get there. It varies between people (and from situation to situation) how much those tools help.

[Tormsskull]

Easy, you just look at the spelling on the hat. the one with "Wizzzzzard" on the hat is 5th level, and the one with "Wizzzzzzzzzzard" on his hat is obviously the 10th level one.

hahahaha. That brightened my day :smallsmile:




Well, going by the community creation rules in the Dungeon Master's Guide, even a thorp of 20-80 people has:


Yeah, I've never been a big fan of those rules. Without a doubt, my campaign worlds are much less magical in nature than standard D&D. I think assuming that a level 1 character knows quite a bit about magic takes away a lot of the luster of magic. Instead of it being mysterious, and strange, and exotic, it is reduced to "Oh yeah he can cast magic missle. Does he know invisibility yet?" Not to mention the effect this has on new/inexperienced players of the game.

Also, if you go by the calculations in the DMG, there should be literally loads of high level spellcasters running around at all times. If you logically factor in the effects of having so many spellcasters around, the idea of the world resembling anything close to a Middle Ages type setting quickly fades away.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Yeah, I've never been a big fan of those rules. Without a doubt, my campaign worlds are much less magical in nature than standard D&D.
Well, then we are once again delving into setting-specific details that deviate from base rules assumptions.


I think assuming that a level 1 character knows quite a bit about magic takes away a lot of the luster of magic. Instead of it being mysterious, and strange, and exotic, it is reduced to "Oh yeah he can cast magic missle. Does he know invisibility yet?" Not to mention the effect this has on new/inexperienced players of the game.
But then again, magic doesn't have to be strange and exotic.

Personally, I feel that the excitement of magic is, "Oh, yeah! That's awesome! Let me do that!" and once you let your players do something, it's gonna lose all mystery to begin as it is. They'll be too close. You can't make magic both mysterious and accessible at the same time.


Also, if you go by the calculations in the DMG, there should be literally loads of high level spellcasters running around at all times.
Loads? Oh, no. Assuming the "Random Town Generation" can be taken as a recommendation of the distribution of town sizes, only 5% of all communities are absolutely guaranteed to have any spellcasters above 9th level. A full 70% of communities have no spellcaster above 6th level.

Nah, if we were to strictly follow those tables, there'd probably actually be fewer high level characters running around than seem to get depicted. In fact, strict adherance would make it damn near impossible to make a high-level campaign that revolves around primarily PHB-race antagonists.

See, the rules assume that members of every class are relatively common, but high level characters of any class are actually pretty rare.


If you logically factor in the effects of having so many spellcasters around, the idea of the world resembling anything close to a Middle Ages type setting quickly fades away.
And even with out all those spellcasters, the world depicted in the rules fails to resemble Earth's Middle Ages in any way... :smallwink:


When I have a big merchant guy, I think carefully about his brawn: what it allows him to do...
Given that the rules handle what a mass of brawn can do, it seems to me that knowing he has, say Strength 14 gives me a heck of a good idea what his brawn allows him to do. All that other stuff should then logically follow depending upon which of those things he actually does.

[RukiTanuki]

Given that the rules handle what a mass of brawn can do, it seems to me that knowing he has, say Strength 14 gives me a heck of a good idea what his brawn allows him to do. All that other stuff should then logically follow depending upon which of those things he actually does.

Ah, but that's exactly my point. The way I think about my NPCs, if the base assumption is "He's brawny like Fezzik," I don't answer "how much can he lift" with "well, he has a strength of 16, so Table 9-1 on PHB page 162 says he can lift 230 pounds." Instead, I choose how brawny he is and what he can lift, and make assumptions from there. If I never expect this guy to make a single melee attack roll, I don't really even need his Strength score.

My question wasn't "how much can he lift" so much as it was "what does he regularly lift; what does he achieve in a day with his strength; how does that affect his lot in life." Those questions are not directly answered by writing down a number in the Strength field. As I said, lots of people are accustomed to using those tables to figure out what their own characters can do; if that helps them flesh out non-rule details for NPCs, more power to them. I just don't find that better tools inherently make a better product, any more than a nicer car makes me a better driver. :)

(And now I sit to begrudgingly await the "Fezzik had waaay more than 16 strength" comment.)

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Ah, but that's exactly my point. The way I think about my NPCs, if the base assumption is "He's brawny like Fezzik," I don't answer "how much can he lift" with "well, he has a strength of 16, so Table 9-1 on PHB page 162 says he can lift 230 pounds." Instead, I choose how brawny he is and what he can lift, and make assumptions from there. If I never expect this guy to make a single melee attack roll, I don't really even need his Strength score.
A couple things come to mind here:

1.) Consistency. Pinning down the Strength helps adjucate what he can do with his Strength in all areas. Helps you avoid deciding he can lift a certain weight but then forget how strong this actually makes him and decide he can't break open a particular door should it be important.

2.) Expectations were made to be broken. Never hurts to be ready with some idea of his attack roll just as a matter of being prepared. The trick is learning to estimate the probability of said expectation being broken.

2a.) If you're already estimating what exactly he can do with his brawn, I would assume his brawn would actually be important during his on-screen time at some point in the game. In other words there's a good chance he'll get himself into a situation where you have adjucate his brawn by the rules, isn't there? Otherwise, why not just say, "He's Brawny. @ho cares how Brawny?" and be done with it?


(And now I sit to begrudgingly await the "Fezzik had waaay more than 16 strength" comment.)
Fezzik had waaay more than 16 strength!

(Happy to oblige! :smalltongue:)

[Yahzi]

Personally, I only stat important people out in depth, if then.
Well, of course. We all do.

But the question is whether ordinary, unexceptional NPCs follow rules radically different than PCs. Whether it makes the NPCs more or less powerful isn't the point; the point is that makes them different, which creates separation between the PCs and the NPCs.

That's my real beef. I don't want a game that encourages the players to think of themselves as gamers. I want an RPG that encourages players to think of themselves as people in a real world.

[EvilElitest]

This seems like a false dichotomy of sorts. The people presenting a different opinion than yours are not saying "NPCs only exist to be killed, NPCs should only have stats in order for them to be killed by PCs." You're refuting an argument that no one else is making. To invert it, I could present your viewpoint as "Players will not treat NPCs as anything but cannon fodder unless I hand them the NPC's character sheet." But that's not what you're saying either, is it?

No its not. However when i make a world, i want the PC to feel like the are inhabiting a world where other people like them are walking around, that the world makes sense and follows its own rules. When my characters or my character walk around and interact with the NPCs, the other guys are inherently inferior to them via rules, they just chose different classes or feats. It gives me a feeling that the fantasy world isn't some crud like DM of the rings, but instead a world.



I'm finding many good things in this discussion, but at many points I don't understand why people are refuting claims no one's making.

It has to do with WOTC's statements more than anything


Now then, it appears that you feel most comfortable manifesting the abilities, traits, and talents that NPCs have through their stats, and that you're most comfortable generating those stats with a precise method: namely, that used by the PCs. If that helps you get into the method of the character, and helps you convey their actions within the world, then I applaud your efforts.

thank you, however my most important concern is making sure i follow my own rules. I view my position as DM as a sacred one, i am not here to tell a story simply using the PCs as heroes, my job is to make a realistic world. The PCs make themselves the heros and trust me to make their world interesting, morally challenging, fun, and something they can enjoy playing in. If the world follows its own rules and doesn't seem like a fantasy novel with minor PC independence, then they get really attached to teh game and as it reacts realistically to their actions, they begin to view it as a real place to enjoy and rely on. THe players rely on the fact that the game is fair, and that things make sense, they trust me. If i started breaking those rules, then i'd be betraying their trust, i'd be breaking their emotional attachment to the world, it would simple become another video game styled thing.





I play NPCs fast and loose, particularly outside of combat. I assume "NPCs are more than chunks of XP" the same as you. However, I consider that a reason to avoid giving them concrete stats. My NPCs are not in the game in order to get involved in combat; it's not a significant part of their existence. The PCs do get in combat a lot, and are built accordingly. I'm content to disagree on this dichotomy, but I do feel it's an important part of the metagame of D&D (and the Wizards designers seem to be applying the same idea).

1. WOTC certainly isn't applying this way, your method is just another way of playing the game, theirs is something entirely different
2. That wouldn't pull in my world. When i first introduced pionics as something for an NPC posses, the PCs were freaked when it was apparent this guy wasn't anything they had seen before. After a few weeks of them trying to figure out why he had these special powers, they discovered the nature of the invisible art and everything made sense. However, if i just used some unique NPC because i felt like making their challenges more interesting they (and I if i were a player) would feel cheated, like the DM is abusing his power


When I have a big merchant guy, I think carefully about his brawn: what it allows him to do, how he's treated by others, how it affects his social standing, what he thinks of his "gift." I prefer these thought exercises to the exclusion of creating his stats (again, if I expect him to never see combat). If I want PCs to talk politics with a local ruler, I think about some of the recent crises he's handled, how he handled them, what priorities he chose over others, and what the noble class and working people thought of his choices. If you use stat-building as a framework to help brainstorm these ideas, then that's great! Don't let me hold you back. For me, the numbers get in the way sometimes, so I use them where needed only.

Personally, i prefer not to have teh world move with the PCs. If the PCs met with a local ruler, all of those thing would come into consideration, but so would his stats
however under teh 3.5 system, you can have fun doing things your way, enjoy your self, have a blast. I can have fun doing things my way and were both happy right? My problem with 4E is that i don't get to play my way no more without altering the way the game is played, and i don't like that.



Like I've said a few times now, I just had issue with the idea that more numbers or rules made a better NPC. It's all in how they're played; numbers are but a tool to get there. It varies between people (and from situation to situation) how much those tools help.
I view rules as something that keeps the world consistent and logical. Each to his own though
from
EE

[Dan_Hemmens]

Well, of course. We all do.

But the question is whether ordinary, unexceptional NPCs follow rules radically different than PCs. Whether it makes the NPCs more or less powerful isn't the point; the point is that makes them different, which creates separation between the PCs and the NPCs.

The thing is there *is* a difference between PCs and NPCs. The PCs are controlled by players, the NPCs aren't. The rules are specifically an abstraction designed to allow players to play their characters, not to simulate the vast ruck and run of humanity going about their daily lives.

[AKA_Bait]

The thing is there *is* a difference between PCs and NPCs. The PCs are controlled by players, the NPCs aren't.

Only true in a very strict sense. NPC's have a player as well, it just happens to be the DM. The fact that one set is controlled by one group of people with certian at table responsibilities doesn't indicated that they need a different set of mechanics from a diffrent group of people with differnent ones.


The rules are specifically an abstraction designed to allow players to play their characters, not to simulate the vast ruck and run of humanity going about their daily lives.

Is there some reason the rules can't do both?

[Dan_Hemmens]

Only true in a very strict sense. NPC's have a player as well, it just happens to be the DM. The fact that one set is controlled by one group of people with certian at table responsibilities doesn't indicated that they need a different set of mechanics from a diffrent group of people with differnent ones.

It's the different responsibilities that are the clincher. NPCs do not perform the same function in the game as PCs, so why should they use the same rules.


Is there some reason the rules can't do both?

First, the absurd example: if the same set of rules was used for PCs and NPCs, and the two were treated identically under the system, the DM would spend all his time rolling Profession and Craft checks for the millions of people out there trying to do their jobs. Even if you assume that 99% of people are "taking ten" there must be thousands of skill checks being made at any given moment. You don't roll for that sort of thing, you just assume that it happens.

Second, the slightly less absurd example: If you decide that the next town the players come to will have decided to support the BBEG, you probably don't bother to sit down and have the BBEG make opposed Bluff checks against the leaders of the town, you just say "these guys have decided to believe the BBEG".

PCs do stuff NPCs don't do, act in a way NPCs don't act, and fail at things NPCs never fail at. Functionally, they *already* follow different rules. 4E just codifies it.

[Jack Zander]

It's the different responsibilities that are the clincher. NPCs do not perform the same function in the game as PCs, so why should they use the same rules.



First, the absurd example: if the same set of rules was used for PCs and NPCs, and the two were treated identically under the system, the DM would spend all his time rolling Profession and Craft checks for the millions of people out there trying to do their jobs. Even if you assume that 99% of people are "taking ten" there must be thousands of skill checks being made at any given moment. You don't roll for that sort of thing, you just assume that it happens.

Second, the slightly less absurd example: If you decide that the next town the players come to will have decided to support the BBEG, you probably don't bother to sit down and have the BBEG make opposed Bluff checks against the leaders of the town, you just say "these guys have decided to believe the BBEG".

PCs do stuff NPCs don't do, act in a way NPCs don't act, and fail at things NPCs never fail at. Functionally, they *already* follow different rules. 4E just codifies it.

That's all DM fiat. It has nothing to do with them following different rules. Just because the DM can hand waive things doesn't mean the rules are different. Often times the DM will do that for PCs too.

Player: I pick his pocket for change.
DM: Don't bother rolling, he's not gonna notice. You find 2 cp and a string.

[AKA_Bait]

PCs do stuff NPCs don't do, act in a way NPCs don't act, and fail at things NPCs never fail at. Functionally, they *already* follow different rules. 4E just codifies it.

I think you are conflating DM handwaving dice rolling in certian situations with there being different rules. The DM doesn't roll millions of craft checks not because the rules don't support his doing so if he wants to but because it saves time during game play or for the sake of plot. Most DM's, myself included, also handwave all sorts of rules and checks that the players do also for the sake of expediency or plot.

[Dan_Hemmens]

That's all DM fiat. It has nothing to do with them following different rules. Just because the DM can hand waive things doesn't mean the rules are different. Often times the DM will do that for PCs too.

Player: I pick his pocket for change.
DM: Don't bother rolling, he's not gonna notice. You find 2 cp and a string.

It depends very much on what you mean by "rules".

If the game, as it is written and played, requires that the DM ignore the rules almost all the time for almost all the NPCs, then NPCs are de facto operating under a different rule system. It happens that at present the rule system they operate under is DM fiat, but that's a rule system none the less (if you don't believe me look at Amber Diceless).

The point is that there is absolutely no point in saying that all the rules which apply to PCs apply to NPCs when most of those rules will never actually affect any of the NPCs you're trying to apply them to.

If the DM actually *applied* PC rules to NPCs, the world would start to look actively silly. PC rules are designed to allow for unexpected successes and failures, far more frequently than is plausible. A world in which, one time in twenty, everybody fails to do their job would look completely ludicrous. Suppose that the ambassador from the Kingdom of Generica speaks to the King of Ludicrousia once a week. Every few months he *will* roll a natural 1 on his Diplomacy check and plunge the two nations into war. It's mad to assume that a set of rules designed to model the life-or-death struggles of heroic individuals should also model everybody those individuals meet.

[AKA_Bait]

It depends very much on what you mean by "rules".

If the game, as it is written and played, requires that the DM ignore the rules almost all the time for almost all the NPCs, then NPCs are de facto operating under a different rule system. It happens that at present the rule system they operate under is DM fiat, but that's a rule system none the less (if you don't believe me look at Amber Diceless).

The rule of a published system is what the published system says. The rules which change/ignore/modify those rulse are dubbed house rules for a reason. So, to dispense with the semantics here, you are arguing that because in some games the houserules make some changes no longer apply to NPCs then that is the way the actualy, published, printed rules of the system should be?



The point is that there is absolutely no point in saying that all the rules which apply to PCs apply to NPCs when most of those rules will never actually affect any of the NPCs you're trying to apply them to.

Actually, at one time or another I have had to apply pretty much everyrule that applied to a PC to an NPC. It's not as often, partly because NPC's are 'on screen' less, but to say that most of the rules will never apply to an NPC is just incorrect.


If the DM actually *applied* PC rules to NPCs, the world would start to look actively silly. PC rules are designed to allow for unexpected successes and failures, far more frequently than is plausible. A world in which, one time in twenty, everybody fails to do their job would look completely ludicrous. Suppose that the ambassador from the Kingdom of Generica speaks to the King of Ludicrousia once a week. Every few months he *will* roll a natural 1 on his Diplomacy check and plunge the two nations into war. It's mad to assume that a set of rules designed to model the life-or-death struggles of heroic individuals should also model everybody those individuals meet.

I don't think you understand how skills work. A natural 1 or a natural 20 on a skill check is not an automatic sucess or automatic failure. That silliness you are referencing doesn't exist. The king can roll a one, one twentieth of the time, and have an unproductive meeting, but not plunge the nation into war.

[Rutee]

I don't think you understand how skills work. A natural 1 or a natural 20 on a skill check is not an automatic sucess or automatic failure. That silliness you are referencing doesn't exist. The king can roll a one, one twentieth of the time, and have an unproductive meeting, but not plunge the nation into war.

As it references a crit failure and critical success on the skills chapter, if I'm not /very/ much mistaken, yes, a 1 would lead to deteriorating relations. That's about as critical failure as you get.

[Charity]

To make a skill check, roll 1d20 and add your character’s skill modifier for that skill. The skill modifier incorporates the character’s ranks in that skill and the ability modifier for that skill’s key ability, plus any other miscellaneous modifiers that may apply, including racial bonuses and armor check penalties. The higher the result, the better. Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure.
AKA_Bait is entirely correct.

[EvilElitest]

Saw this on another post, just felt like sharing


Nothing like imagination
By SEAN TWIST

It was another Saturday night at the Twist house. My gaming group was settling in around the dining room table, pulling out their dice, character sheets and unhealthy snack foods in that fastidiously loving way geeks employ when dealing with icons of their culture.

Sitting behind my Dungeon Master screen, I philosophically chewed a Twizzler, thinking the unthinkable: Has World of Warcraft (the online game) dealt Dungeons and Dragons (the tabletop game) a killing blow? Has WoW become the online asteroid hurtling toward dinosaurs like my gaming group, obliviously shining their multi-sided dice as their world comes to an end?

You see, these are the thoughts that roll around my head like Britney Spears at an after-hours party. It probably explains why I have no children and why I spend my Saturday nights chewing licorice behind a cardboard screen covered with dragons.

Yet it a question that is on the minds of gamers and geeks of a certain age (old enough to remember the first Battlestar Galactica, for instance, and that stupid robot dog Muffit).

At its core, the question isn't about comparing player numbers but about how the next generation will employ their imaginations. And when it comes to geeks, imagination is serious business. Without it, we may as well be sports fans.

With over eight million players worldwide, World of Warcraft has become a cultural force that is the gaming equivalent of Beatlemania. By giving players the traditional (and well designed) fantasy world of Azeroth (filled with gnomes, elves and oddly Scottish sounding dwarves), WoW has entranced people who love the genre and those who never gave it a second thought.

Companies like Coke have climbed on the WoW bandwagon, South Park dedicated an episode parodying it,and even Tyra Banks clumsily tackled the problem of Warcraft addiction on her talk show.

Yet as wonderful as WoW is -- and as a player myself, I have the sleep deprivation to attest to its glory -- it's not much of an imaginative workout. It does it all for you, unlike D&D, which makes you work. Makes you imagine. And read.

For example, rolling up a Night Elf in WoW can take less than 30 seconds. A series of mouse clicks, and you're good to geek. With D&D, you have to roll the appropriate dice for your various attributes, record them, check the players' manual for racial bonuses, record that, determine your starting gold, see what armour you can afford -- and you get the picture.

This is why geeks don't go out at night. They're too busy weighing the benefits of cured leather armour over chain mail (because there is the dexterity question, which is . . . OK, OK, I'll shut up.)

Things become even more challenging in combat. WoW? Click, repeat, pray the monster drops some decent loot. In D&D, you roll, check gaming rules, move miniatures, do some math to determine damage -- all the while imagining the plastic doll beside the Coke can is a fourth level barbarian in a lich king's dungeon. Which kind of stretches the imagination muscle like Suzanne Somer's Metaphysical Thighmaster (if there was something like that -- and it's a pity there isn't, really.)

As well, there is the social aspect of D&D, namely arguing and name calling. This is something I particularly enjoy. If a player tries something impossible -- like throwing his sword out of a burning chariot, through a window and into an ogre's astonished mouth -- there is a bibliophilic rapture as we grab our rule books to either (a) show how this could happen or (b) prove the player was dropped as a child.

And then there's the rollercoaster of going off on tangents. My players often get lost discussing movies, old comics or where you can get decent mead, while our characters check their watches in our shared, imaginative world.

And it's this that gives me hope. As wonderful as Warcraft is, there will always be a place for the labour-intensive dorkery of Dungeons and Dragons.

Chewing my Twizzler, I smile, watching my players get ready for another night of gaming. And I also realize -- if I'm quick --

I can probably level up my Blood Elf in Warcraft before they're ready.
enjoy
from
EE

[Yahzi]

NPCs do not perform the same function in the game as PCs, so why should they use the same rules.
That's my point.

The PCs are human beings with feelings and moral rights, and the NPCs are scenery.

That's precisely the attitude we're complaining about.


the DM would spend all his time rolling Profession and Craft checks for the millions of people out there trying to do their jobs.
You're assuming the DM makes the players make Profession and Craft checks for every mundane day. :smallbiggrin:


PCs do stuff NPCs don't do, act in a way NPCs don't act, and fail at things NPCs never fail at. Functionally, they *already* follow different rules. 4E just codifies it.
At least we agree that 4e codifies this attitude.

[Jack Zander]

Speaking from solely a gaming perspective, I can see Dan's point. In a video game townspeople simply don't need as much attention as the main character.

However, to some of us, DnD isn't anything like a video game. To some of us, DnD isn't even a game, it's a second life :smalltongue:

We want to get completely lost and immersed in the world, and when two humans are working off of fundamentally different rules, it breaks the mood for us.

[Dan_Hemmens]

That's my point.

The PCs are human beings with feelings and moral rights, and the NPCs are scenery.

That's precisely the attitude we're complaining about.


That's not the attitude I'm discussing.

The point is that "feelings" and "moral rights" don't appear anywhere on the character sheet. The rules which apply to PCs don't determine how they operate as human beings, they determine how they operate as game pieces.

In fact, I (and I think several others) would argue that *giving* NPCs PC stats actually makes them feel *more* like scenery - it's just that they're now *interactive* scenery instead of non-interactive scenery.

With PC creation rules, NPCs are little bundles of skills, hit-points and class levels. Without them they're people. Without PC creation rules your character's brother is your character's brother. With them he's a third level rogue.

[AKA_Bait]

With PC creation rules, NPCs are little bundles of skills, hit-points and class levels. Without them they're people. Without PC creation rules your character's brother is your character's brother. With them he's a third level rogue.

Now that's just silly. Were that the case the same logic would apply to PC's as well and if we want characters rather than little bundles of skills we should all just play free form. The bundle of skills represents your characters little brother in much the same way a physical and IQ test represents a person. That you have one done doesn't mean you stop having a personality.

[Darzil]

With the caveat that I've not played D and D in a long, long while, there is one thing that I've come across in other systems a lot.

A NPC built as a PC is more powerful than a PC built as a PC most of the time.

The reason is simple, a NPC typically faces one encounter a day - the PCs. A PC encounters many. As such the NPC will typically have all their abilities available, the PC will not. It may be that the current rules reflect that, it is also clear that some of the people making posts here don't think that.

If creating a NPC adventurer is your goal, use PC creation rules, that is what they are designed for. If creating a NPC non-adventurer is your goal, you may want to use a different set of creation rules, as that is not what they are designed for (Well, not in the old version I used - I mainly played between '81 and '92).

Darzil

[Jack Zander]

With the caveat that I've not played D and D in a long, long while, there is one thing that I've come across in other systems a lot.

A NPC built as a PC is more powerful than a PC built as a PC most of the time.

The reason is simple, a NPC typically faces one encounter a day - the PCs. A PC encounters many. As such the NPC will typically have all their abilities available, the PC will not. It may be that the current rules reflect that, it is also clear that some of the people making posts here don't think that.

If creating a NPC adventurer is your goal, use PC creation rules, that is what they are designed for. If creating a NPC non-adventurer is your goal, you may want to use a different set of creation rules, as that is not what they are designed for (Well, not in the old version I used - I mainly played between '81 and '92).

Darzil

Yeah, that doesn't apply any more. They've got NPC classes which are considerably weaker. We are arguing that NPCs should stay using these classes, rather than have random abilities and stats given to them.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Now that's just silly. Were that the case the same logic would apply to PC's as well and if we want characters rather than little bundles of skills we should all just play free form. The bundle of skills represents your characters little brother in much the same way a physical and IQ test represents a person. That you have one done doesn't mean you stop having a personality.

But neither does an IQ test *give* you a personality.

If you argue - as some are - that NPCs without stats are just scenery, then you're essentially dividing the world up into "game stats" and "stuff that doesn't matter". The idea that NPCs have to have PC stats in order to be important (which is what a lot of people seem to be arguing) seems to me to be founded on the assumption that the only things that matter in the game are the things which can be mechanically codified.

I'm not saying anybody actually *believes* that, I'm just saying that the "NPCs without stats are just scenery" argument strongly *implies* that.

[AKA_Bait]

But neither does an IQ test *give* you a personality.

I don't think anyone is claiming that it does.


If you argue - as some are - that NPCs without stats are just scenery, then you're essentially dividing the world up into "game stats" and "stuff that doesn't matter". The idea that NPCs have to have PC stats in order to be important (which is what a lot of people seem to be arguing)

I think you have it backwards. I, for example, would not argue that in order to be important they must have game stats but I would argue that if they are important they should have game stats. If they are important, you might need them and if they are noticably different from the PC's game mechanics/stats then it could potentially be weird.


seems to me to be founded on the assumption that the only things that matter in the game are the things which can be mechanically codified.

Actually, I think that's what many of us are trying to avoid. We are concerned that having different systems for PC's and NPC's will cause the mechanics to interfere with other important aspects of the game, namley versimilitude.


I'm not saying anybody actually *believes* that, I'm just saying that the "NPCs without stats are just scenery" argument strongly *implies* that.

I think you are arguing with people who don't exist... and you just admitted it.

[Matthew]

Yeah, that doesn't apply any more. They've got NPC classes which are considerably weaker. We are arguing that NPCs should stay using these classes, rather than have random abilities and stats given to them.

I don't think anybody is saying that NPCs should receive randomised stats and abilities without regard for what they are supposed to represent. If that is what you are arguing against, then you have misunderstood the whole point of not using the same rules to generate NPCs as PCs.

[RukiTanuki]

Yeah, that doesn't apply any more. They've got NPC classes which are considerably weaker. We are arguing that NPCs should stay using these classes, rather than have random abilities and stats given to them.

Though -- to defend the alternate viewpoint -- those accustomed to portraying realistic NPCs without PC stats are not making "random" choices in abilities in stats, any more than those who use PC stats as a foundation to portray their NPCs more consistently would run an NPC as a Half-Dragon Iron Golem Paladin/Barbarian/Pale Master.

To try and describe the two camps without passing judgement, we have:

PC-Based NPCs:
* Create NPCs using PC creation rules
* Non-racial abilities should have prerequisites that PCs could theoretically achieve if built properly
* NPC's actions are based on its character sheet
* DM has decided that NPC actions are managed through game mechanics as frequently and consistently as PC actions
* Tries to increase verisimilitude through consistent application of game mechanics

Freeform NPCs:
* Create NPCs without using PC creation rules
* NPCs frequently lack game-mechanic-based traits that are unintended to see use in play
* NPC actions are based primarily (if not entirely) on the roleplay context of the game world itself
* DM has decided that NPCs exist in the world that are not limited by the rules required to create balanced PCs
* Tries to increase verisimilitude through (1) presenting the game world itself as lifelike as possible, and (2) avoiding direct clashes with game mechanics

And, of course, both sides have individuals who differ slightly on each point.

Does that help?

[Dan_Hemmens]

I don't think anyone is claiming that it does.

They very explicitly are. Scroll back one page and you will see people claiming, quite explicitly, that if NPCs do not have PC stats, then the PCs will treat them as having no feelings or moral rights.


I think you have it backwards. I, for example, would not argue that in order to be important they must have game stats but I would argue that if they are important they should have game stats. If they are important, you might need them and if they are noticably different from the PC's game mechanics/stats then it could potentially be weird.

And if they aren't, it could be a good deal weirder. You wind up with a world where people chop down trees with clubs or spears, and pointing a crossbow at somebody is considered to be an almost entirely non-threatening gesture. You have a world with no beggars or servants, because anybody who wants to can put points into a Profession or Craft skill, and generate money for free. You have a world where anybody who is good at their job is also good in a fight, to the extent that it becomes impossible to kill a high-ranking diplomat with a dagger.

A world where the NPCs *actually* follow the same rules as PCs would be completely ludicrous.


Actually, I think that's what many of us are trying to avoid. We are concerned that having different systems for PC's and NPC's will cause the mechanics to interfere with other important aspects of the game, namley versimilitude.

This is one of those fundamental differences in assumptions.

Basically I view the game rules as just that: rules for a game. The players are playing the game in one way, the GM plays it in another. I absolutely *don't* think that they're supposed to be the physical reality of the game world.

Daggers do 1d4 damage because the game wants to give PCs a good chance of surviving being attacked with a dagger. I don't think it makes sense to assume that daggers really aren't dangerous in the game setting. If NPCs are assumed to follow PC rules, then the world stops making sense for me. I start asking myself why anybody takes levels of Commoner if they don't have to.


I think you are arguing with people who don't exist... and you just admitted it.

Actually, I'm just saying that the people I'm arguing with don't realise the implications of their arguments.

[AKA_Bait]

They very explicitly are. Scroll back one page and you will see people claiming, quite explicitly, that if NPCs do not have PC stats, then the PCs will treat them as having no feelings or moral rights.

I think they were saying having diffrent stats promotes a style of play in which PCs treat NPC's that way. Not the same thing.


A world where the NPCs *actually* follow the same rules as PCs would be completely ludicrous.

I've already addressed this point. It's incorrect. You are saying here that the mechanics dictate behavior rather than that the behavior dictates the representational mechanics.

The real difference is if the representational mechaincs should be the same for PC's and NPC's.


I start asking myself why anybody takes levels of Commoner if they don't have to.

I'm starting to suspect you don't have a very immersive game at all. In character no one takes a level of anything they just have things they do, skills they have learned (all of the PC classes are assumed to have had literally years of training before level 1). People don't choose to be a commoner, they are just born and live their lives and their most represetational mechanical skill set is that of a commoner. A PC Fighter, for example, trained to be a soldier and was better at it/had a better teacher than most of the other soliders for whom Warrior is most representitive.


Actually, I'm just saying that the people I'm arguing with don't realise the implications of their arguments.

Ah. I'd disagree that what you are asserting is actually logically implied in their positions but I don't really see it being producitve.

Also, please don't triple post.

[Rutee]

I think they were saying having diffrent stats promotes a style of play in which PCs treat NPC's that way. Not the same thing.
There have been repeated claims that without the same system, NPCs become big gooey bags of XP, actually. I thought they were farther back then one page, but they're certainly there.

[Jack Zander]

Holy Triplepost Batman!



Freeform NPCs:
* NPCs frequently lack game-mechanic-based traits that are unintended to see use in play

Actually, both sides are doing that. Just because my NPCs have to follow the same laws of creation doesn't mean I need to stat every little detail out. All I need to know is the level of each NPC and I can easily gauge everything else from there. For most of my NPCs, that's all they have listed next to them, their level. Everything else can be done on the fly as long as I am knowledgeable in my rules. If there is a 9th level or higher cleric in the town, I know the PCs can get their dead raised. If the highest level expert is level 7, he probably has about a +15 to craft (or whatever his expertise is).

What I don't have is an expert with a wizard template that gives him an x number of spell-like abilities. If he can do that, my PCs should be able to also.


And if they aren't, it could be a good deal weirder. You wind up with a world where people chop down trees with clubs or spears,

I don't think PC or NPCs can do this. In fact, the rules speficially say that the DM may rule certain weapons ineffective (bludgeoning to break rope it gives as an example).


and pointing a crossbow at somebody is considered to be an almost entirely non-threatening gesture.

Becuase obviously everyone in the world is level 5 and higher :smallamused:


You have a world with no beggars or servants, because anybody who wants to can put points into a Profession or Craft skill, and generate money for free.

That's nothing to do with rules. That's just a DM who can't make a beleivable world. Just because you have every option to take out of high school doesn't mean you take every one of them. That's why we have high school dropouts who haven't put any ranks into profession skills.


You have a world where anybody who is good at their job is also good in a fight, to the extent that it becomes impossible to kill a high-ranking diplomat with a dagger.

A high ranking diplomat might be a level 3 expert. Letsee, that's high enough to give him a +11 to diplomacy without synergies. He has an average of 10 hp (before Con mod) and only a +2 attack. Depending on how hardy this guy is, a dagger will be really threatening to him, as long as it's coming from someone moderately skilled enough to use it, and not some level 1 Farmer Joe. Most strikes with a dagger aren't that lethal until you can get a stab to the gut in (a critical hit). Most slashes are minor (unless a crit to the neck is scored) and only wound someone who will be okay as long as they can treat the injury afterwards. Also, most assassinations are preformed via coup-de-grace. Even a dagger is deadly then (the dreaded back stab).

Do you know how many stabs it took to kill Caeser?

Also, the combat rules were designed to assume that PCs and monsters are constantly on their toes, waiting for trouble. If someone was completely unaware of an attacker, an assassin type coup-de-grace wouldn't be unreasonable.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I think they were saying having diffrent stats promotes a style of play in which PCs treat NPC's that way. Not the same thing.

Functionally the same thing. It's the difference between "won't" and "can't".


I've already addressed this point. It's incorrect. You are saying here that the mechanics dictate behavior rather than that the behavior dictates the representational mechanics.

How does the behaviour dictate mechanics? When you swing a sword at somebody you use the combat rules, those rules are pre-written. They aren't dictated by your character's actions.

On the other hand, your understanding of the mechanics will most *certainly* inform your decisions about which sword you swing, how hard you swing it, and so on.


The real difference is if the representational mechaincs should be the same for PC's and NPC's.

Mechanics aren't representational, they're - for want of a better term - adjudicative. They don't model reality, not even a fictional reality, they just tell you who wins and who loses.


I'm starting to suspect you don't have a very immersive game at all. In character no one takes a level of anything they just have things they do, skills they have learned (all of the PC classes are assumed to have had literally years of training before level 1). People don't choose to be a commoner, they are just born and live their lives and their most represetational mechanical skill set is that of a commoner. A PC Fighter, for example, trained to be a soldier and was better at it/had a better teacher than most of the other soliders for whom Warrior is most representitive.

This is sort of exactly my point. In character the mechanics are invisible. In character nobody has a "level" or a "class" or anything else.

Suppose my character runs an NPC through with a sword, and they die in an enormous pile of blood on the floor. This could mean one of several things.

It could mean that the NPC was low level, and a single 1D8 + Strength Mod was enough to kill him.

It could mean that I was a rogue using some kind of uber-sneak-attack-combo, or even that I was an assassin using a death attack.

It could have been a coup-de-grace.

The DM could have just handwaved it because he felt it would be ludicrous and anticlimactic for somebody getting run through with a sword to come out as 4HP of damage.

Or the game system could simply have a rule which allows NPCs to be killed in one blow.

In character I do not know which, if any of those rules apply. Yet somehow people are claiming that if the rules for NPCs are different to the rules for PCs this will affect my *in character* reaction to those NPCs. And apparently I'm the one whose games aren't "immersive".


Ah. I'd disagree that what you are asserting is actually logically implied in their positions but I don't really see it being producitve.

Logically implied, as in "if A implies B then not-B implies not-A" then it probably isn't. Very few things are actually *logically* implied. But if you really don't think that "NPCs will be treated as juicy bags of XP unless they are mechanically identical to PCs" is not implied by "NPCs will be treated as juicy bags of XP unless they are mechanically identical to PCs" then you might want to tone back on the formal logic.


Also, please don't triple post.

Arse, sorry, internet connection went screwy.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Actually, both sides are doing that. Just because my NPCs have to follow the same laws of creation doesn't mean I need to stat every little detail out. All I need to know is the level of each NPC and I can easily gauge everything else from there. For most of my NPCs, that's all they have listed next to them, their level. Everything else can be done on the fly as long as I am knowledgeable in my rules. If there is a 9th level or higher cleric in the town, I know the PCs can get their dead raised. If the highest level expert is level 7, he probably has about a +15 to craft (or whatever his expertise is).

But you see in that case you aren't actually using the PC creation system, you're using the trappings of the PC creation system. Your 7th Level Expert is really just a +15 Craft check and nothing else.


What I don't have is an expert with a wizard template that gives him an x number of spell-like abilities. If he can do that, my PCs should be able to also.

"He" isn't doing anything. He's just a wizard who happens to be modelled under a different set of rules to a PC wizard.


I don't think PC or NPCs can do this. In fact, the rules speficially say that the DM may rule certain weapons ineffective (bludgeoning to break rope it gives as an example).

But that, as we have already determined, is just DM fiat. It's also DM fiat based on the assumption that the world works according to real-world logic, instead of the reality implied by the game mechanics.


Becuase obviously everyone in the world is level 5 and higher :smallamused:

If I recall correctly, 4th ed is going to introduce triple-HP at first level, much like SW Saga, in which case a D8 damage isn't even going to bother a Commoner. Also, even if you have 4 Hit Points you're way, way more resistant to crossbow fire than anybody in the real world. Even assuming it hits (which it only has a 50% chance of doing anyway) it has a 50% chance of doing insufficient damage to incapacitate you, at which point it *basically* doesn't hurt at all. You won't get any kind of infection, you will recover automatically from the injury even while working 12 hours a day in a field.


That's nothing to do with rules. That's just a DM who can't make a beleivable world. Just because you have every option to take out of high school doesn't mean you take every one of them. That's why we have high school dropouts who haven't put any ranks into profession skills.

Real people, though, don't follow the D&D rules, which is sort of my point. If NPCs and PCs follow the same rules, they should be allowed to put their skill points wherever they like, just like PCs are.

NPCs *functionally* follow different rules to PCs.


A high ranking diplomat might be a level 3 expert. Letsee, that's high enough to give him a +11 to diplomacy without synergies. He has an average of 10 hp (before Con mod) and only a +2 attack.

So he's still significantly tougher than, say, the average professional soldier? Also, since he's following PC design rules, he should have 13 HP (since he should be getting max HP at first level), potentially up to 25 in the new system.


Depending on how hardy this guy is, a dagger will be really threatening to him, as long as it's coming from someone moderately skilled enough to use it, and not some level 1 Farmer Joe.

Exactly. On the other hand a dagger in the hands of a level one warrior will present very little threat at all. At the very least the guy should survive long enough to go for help, particularly since he can run away from his attacker as fast as his attacker can come towards him.


Most strikes with a dagger aren't that lethal until you can get a stab to the gut in (a critical hit). Most slashes are minor (unless a crit to the neck is scored) and only wound someone who will be okay as long as they can treat the injury afterwards. Also, most assassinations are preformed via coup-de-grace. Even a dagger is deadly then (the dreaded back stab).

The problem is, of course, that a stab to the gut is actually trivially easy to achieve against an unarmed opponent. You force him against the wall and let him have it. D&D doesn't admit for that possibility.

And most assassinations aren't performed via coup-de-grace. The CdG rules are very restrictive. Kennedy wasn't killed via CdG, neither was John Lennon or, as you point out Julius Caesar. Remarkably few assassinations involve people who are incapacitated to the point at which a CdG would be permitted in D&D. You usually get a surprise round, which might be enough for you to get a single d4 damage in.


Do you know how many stabs it took to kill Caeser?

One. It's just that they kept stabbing him long after it stopped being necessary. In D&D, of course, he could once again have just run away and, so long as he was on positive HP by the end of combat, he would have recovered with no ill effects.


Also, the combat rules were designed to assume that PCs and monsters are constantly on their toes, waiting for trouble. If someone was completely unaware of an attacker, an assassin type coup-de-grace wouldn't be unreasonable.

If somebody was completely unaware of their attacker, the attacker would get a surprise round. That's what "surprise" means. If you start allowing concealed archers and surprise attackers to CdG their enemies, your BBEG is going to get snipered.

The point is that you don't run battles or murders or injuries from being run over by an ox cart using the actual game rules. NPCs operate under a functionally different rule system to PCs. They feel pain, for a start.

[AKA_Bait]

Functionally the same thing. It's the difference between "won't" and "can't".

Logically there is a world of difference. One entails logical implication the other merely claims that it creates a conducive situation. It's the difference bettwen causation and correlation. You are claiming people have the more position by dint of logical implication, which doesn't follow. The fact that you think functionally they are the same thing doesn't bear on if there actually is logical implication or not.



In character I do not know which, if any of those rules apply. Yet somehow people are claiming that if the rules for NPCs are different to the rules for PCs this will affect my *in character* reaction to those NPCs. And apparently I'm the one whose games aren't "immersive".

This is because the issue is not about stabbing a commoner in the face. It's about fighing enemies that are supposed to be roughly equivalent in power level. The main concern is a different potential result when you get stabbed and when they get stabbed. A different mechanical result (something more complex than is going to need a different in character description, which in turn would break versimilitude.


Logically implied, as in "if A implies B then not-B implies not-A" then it probably isn't. Very few things are actually *logically* implied.

Actually, lots of things are logically implied. Any if - then statement carries logical implication. The key is, in order for the implication to be valid, the thing implied by someones argument has to be logically contained in the argument and not just a possible extension thereof.

The whole point of logic as a representational system of reasoning within language is to break down true implication. If it isn't logically implied then you are just putting words in other peoples mouths.


But if you really don't think that "NPCs will be treated as juicy bags of XP unless they are mechanically identical to PCs" is not implied by "NPCs will be treated as juicy bags of XP unless they are mechanically identical to PCs" then you might want to tone back on the formal logic.

Those two statements are literally identical statement and do (obviously) imply eachother. However, "different mechanics for PCs and NPCs creates a conducive playing environment for PCs to treat NPC's as juicy bags of xp" does not imply "if PC's and NPCs do not have the same mechanics then PC's will treat them like juicy bags of xp". You might think that the arguments are similar, which they are, but they have different implications Please don't assert of other peoples arguments that they mean one or imply one thing when they don't say that and it is just your opinion of some similar position.

Rather than toning back on logic, I suggest you pick up some more. I can recommend some good books :smallannoyed:

[EvilElitest]

With the caveat that I've not played D and D in a long, long while, there is one thing that I've come across in other systems a lot.

A NPC built as a PC is more powerful than a PC built as a PC most of the time.

The reason is simple, a NPC typically faces one encounter a day - the PCs. A PC encounters many. As such the NPC will typically have all their abilities available, the PC will not. It may be that the current rules reflect that, it is also clear that some of the people making posts here don't think that.

If creating a NPC adventurer is your goal, use PC creation rules, that is what they are designed for. If creating a NPC non-adventurer is your goal, you may want to use a different set of creation rules, as that is not what they are designed for (Well, not in the old version I used - I mainly played between '81 and '92).

Darzil

Ironically that would happen more in 4E than 3E, an NPC in 3E has the pretense of existing for a reason other than fighting the PCs, and thus them being totally focused on a single fight (the one with hte PCs) would not make sense and the PCs might point that out (thus the DM would have to come up with a reason why this NPC is perfectly suited to fighting them). In 4E, this idea seems to be the norm


You have a world with no beggars or servants, because anybody who wants to can put points into a Profession or Craft skill, and generate money for free. You have a world where anybody who is good at their job is also good in a fight, to the extent that it becomes impossible to kill a high-ranking diplomat with a dagger
That is rather silly. PC classes may follow the same rules as NPC Classes and NPCs can have PC classes, but it is hard an dangerous. I mean, the average person would just be a commoner.


from
EE

[Yahzi]

The rules which apply to PCs don't determine how they operate as human beings, they determine how they operate as game pieces.
If the rules determine that as game pieces, they are different in their very interaction with the physical world than the PCs, then guess what... the rules determine they aren't the same kind of thing as the PCs.

And the PCs know they're people. So what does that make the NPCs? Not people. By the very rules.


In fact, I (and I think several others) would argue that *giving* NPCs PC stats actually makes them feel *more* like scenery - it's just that they're now *interactive* scenery instead of non-interactive scenery.
No, I don't think anyone else would argue this, anymore than anyone would argue that giving them names somehow reduces them to mechanics. The more information, the more significant, not the other way around.


With PC creation rules, NPCs are little bundles of skills, hit-points and class levels. Without them they're people. Without PC creation rules your character's brother is your character's brother. With them he's a third level rogue.
So what you're saying is that using rules at all inihibts your ability to role-play.

That's cool. There's lots of game systems that don't use statistics or character sheets or numbers for players.

But D&D isn't one of them. If writing your NPCs stats down dehumanizes them, then writing your PCs stats down dehumanizes them. It works both ways.

[Yahzi]

The whole point of logic as a representational system of reasoning within language is to break down true implication.


M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition

http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm
:smallbiggrin:

If Dan wants to move to the "Lessons in being hit on the head" room, let me know.

:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

[Yahzi]

There have been repeated claims that without the same system, NPCs become big gooey bags of XP, actually. I thought they were farther back then one page, but they're certainly there.
Yes, yes, that's my claim.

Or more accurately, that NPCs that are fundamentally different are invariably viewed as less human.

[Yahzi]

They very explicitly are.
No, they did not say anything about IQ tests. You might want to look up what "explicitly" means.

What they are saying is that having one set of rules for PCs and a different set of rules for NPCs makes the NPCs less like the PCs, and since the players are struggling to treat their characters like people, making it harder for them to identify with the NPCs can only make the problem worse.


Scroll back one page and you will see people claiming, quite explicitly, that if NPCs do not have PC stats, then the PCs will treat them as having no feelings or moral rights.
More to the point, if the rules present NPCs as being nothing more than "foes to kill," then chances are the players will treat NPCs that way.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Logically there is a world of difference. One entails logical implication the other merely claims that it creates a conducive situation. It's the difference bettwen causation and correlation. You are claiming people have the more position by dint of logical implication, which doesn't follow. The fact that you think functionally they are the same thing doesn't bear on if there actually is logical implication or not.

Which is exactly why Logical implication is not any use to us here.

Let's put it this way. If I say "I don't mean to sound like I'm calling you an idiot" then nothing I have said logically implies that you are an idiot. Quite the reverse in fact. However anybody who actually understands anything about communication in English realizes that saying "I don't mean to say [Blah]" directly and deliberately carries the implication of [Blah].

It's not implication in the formal, logical sense. That's not the point.


This is because the issue is not about stabbing a commoner in the face. It's about fighing enemies that are supposed to be roughly equivalent in power level. The main concern is a different potential result when you get stabbed and when they get stabbed. A different mechanical result (something more complex than is going to need a different in character description, which in turn would break versimilitude.

But you already have that and that's exactly the point I'm making.

Again, how are the following different:

I stab a man in the chest and he dies. I stab a second man in the chest and he does not die, or appear to suffer any ill effects whatsoever.

Now is that because (a) I rolled a crit on my first attack (b) the second man is higher level (c) the second man is operating under a different rules system? How do you distinguish between the three in character?


Actually, lots of things are logically implied. Any if - then statement carries logical implication. The key is, in order for the implication to be valid, the thing implied by someones argument has to be logically contained in the argument and not just a possible extension thereof.

Only if you are talking about formal logic. Which I am not. Because formal logic is not actually useful in this case.

When I say "implies" or "carries the implication" I mean that in the general English language sense of the word, "implies" as opposed to "explains". Implicit as opposed to explicit.

If a man points a gun at you and says "hand over all your money or there'll be trouble" he is implying that he will shoot you. If I say "I think I will take my umbrella with me when I walk to work today" I am implying that I think it will rain. Neither situation carries a formal, logical implication, but you're the only using the word "imply" in that way.


The whole point of logic as a representational system of reasoning within language is to break down true implication. If it isn't logically implied then you are just putting words in other peoples mouths.

And the flaw in logic as a representational system of reasoning within language is that the true implication of a piece of language is seldom something you can derive from formal logic.

Once again we get back to "I'm not calling you an idiot". It is logically impossible to construe the sentence "I'm not calling you an idiot" as carrying the slightest implication that you are an idiot.


Those two statements are literally identical statement and do (obviously) imply eachother. However, "different mechanics for PCs and NPCs creates a conducive playing environment for PCs to treat NPC's as juicy bags of xp" does not imply "if PC's and NPCs do not have the same mechanics then PC's will treat them like juicy bags of xp". You might think that the arguments are similar, which they are, but they have different implications Please don't assert of other peoples arguments that they mean one or imply one thing when they don't say that and it is just your opinion of some similar position.

How, exactly, can it be supportable to say that something "creates a conducive playing environment" for a particular thing to happen, and then to say that you are not implying that it will happen?

Again, that's like pointing a gun at somebody and telling him to give you all his money, but insisting that you never implied that you would shoot him.


Rather than toning back on logic, I suggest you pick up some more. I can recommend some good books :smallannoyed:

Your personal failure to misunderstand the proper application of formal logic is not my problem, and will not be fixed by my reading books.

[Dan_Hemmens]

No, they did not say anything about IQ tests. You might want to look up what "explicitly" means.

Oh dear me.

I know what the word "explicitly" means. It means "stated directly".

Perhaps you should look up what the words "metaphor" and "analogy" mean. In this exchange "IQ Test" was used as a stand-in for "Game Stats". People were, in fact, explicitly saying that giving people game stats gave them more personality, that it prevented them from being seen as just juicy bags of XP.


What they are saying is that having one set of rules for PCs and a different set of rules for NPCs makes the NPCs less like the PCs, and since the players are struggling to treat their characters like people, making it harder for them to identify with the NPCs can only make the problem worse.

Is your ability to identify with a character in a roleplaying game *really* based on their game stats?


More to the point, if the rules present NPCs as being nothing more than "foes to kill," then chances are the players will treat NPCs that way.

How does having different stats to PCs present the NPCs as "foes to kill"? The whole *point* of D&D stats is to determine how easy it is to kill something.

[Yahzi]

Oh dear me.

I know what the word "explicitly" means. It means "stated directly"."

Perhaps you should look up what the words "metaphor" and "analogy" mean. In this exchange "IQ Test" was used as a stand-in for "Game Stats". People were, in fact, explicitly saying that giving people game stats gave them more personality, that it prevented them from being seen as just juicy bags of XP.
You're defending your use of the word "explicitly" by referring to the definitions of "metaphor" and "analogy?"

Do you see any irony here?

My point was that no one said what you were claiming was made explicit. Then I repeated what I had originally stated. You chose to ignore that information and argue about word definitions instead.

For the sake of redundancy, it is not about giving NPCs stats. It is about NPCs living by the same rules as PCs.


Is your ability to identify with a character in a roleplaying game *really* based on their game stats?
Again, you are back to asserting that having any stats at all is irrelevant. In which case, why do the player characters have stats?

If having stats and levels makes the player characters easier for the players to identify and role-play, then why wouldn't this be equally true of NPCs?


How does having different stats to PCs present the NPCs as "foes to kill"?
Having NPCs generated by a rule system which explicitly generates them as "foes to kill," while PCs are generated by a rule system which explicitly generates them as "roles to play," cannot help but render NPCs as less of "roles to play" and more of "foes to kill."

(Note that I used the word explicitly correctly. :smallsmile: )

[AKA_Bait]

Which is exactly why Logical implication is not any use to us here.

It's of great use, as I explained, you would just prefer to put words in other peoples mouths than use it.


Let's put it this way. If I say "I don't mean to sound like I'm calling you an idiot" then nothing I have said logically implies that you are an idiot. Quite the reverse in fact. However anybody who actually understands anything about communication in English realizes that saying "I don't mean to say [Blah]" directly and deliberately carries the implication of [Blah].

Actually, no, they don't. Statements can be taken literally or figuratively. That statement, explicitly, is not saying that the person it is directed to is an idiot. For most utterances in the English language, the only real method of determining informal implication rather than formal implication is tone of voice, speech pattern or the context of the rest of the discussion. Oddly, here on the net, we don't have the benefit of the intrapersonal cues and in the interest of actually understanding one another and having a reasonable and fair discussion we would be well served not to jump to conclusions.

Additionally, you were talking about someone’s argument not an offhand statement. Arguments, unless they are going to be like the Monty Python one above, are guided by logic. When you say of an argument that it implies something you are implying (in your informal sense) that it does so logically. If you mean it the other way, you are just blowing smoke.

So, now that I've wasted a portion of my life that I shall never recoup on this inanity, I'm going to kiss this thread goodbye (as wiser posters seem to have already done) and look for a thread with a reasonable discussion.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

If the rules determine that as game pieces, they are different in their very interaction with the physical world than the PCs, then guess what... the rules determine they aren't the same kind of thing as the PCs.

And the PCs know they're people. So what does that make the NPCs? Not people. By the very rules.
Of course those who wish to think further on this may realize that something can not be the same "kind" as another in one way while still being the same "kind" in another.

For instance, a St. Bernard, Toy Poodle, and German Shepherd are all different "kinds" of domestic dog, but they all remain domestic dogs. They differ at the breed level but not at the subspecies level.

Likewise, you could go up further. Dogs and Cats are both carnivorans. But once you reach the Family level of taxonomy, they are different kinds of creature.

The same thing could happen with NPCs, but I doubt it will. Largely because few people think things all the way through in that fashion without an incentive that is beyond the scope of most casual games. Secondly because NPCs and PCs as people is a problem that strikes me as a problem that is a bit more fundamental. Mechanically, you work out a certain way to define what qualifies as a person. The definition has to be broad enough to encompass both representations but specific enough to be meaningful at whatever level of definition you are working. If there's nothing in common with either representation, then there is no way to obtain such a definition and the two groups become different "kinds" at that particular level of definition. And when dealing with pretty basic attitudes and gut reactions, the level of definition for "people" can be very unforgiving.


Let's put it this way. If I say "I don't mean to sound like I'm calling you an idiot" then nothing I have said logically implies that you are an idiot. Quite the reverse in fact. However anybody who actually understands anything about communication in English realizes that saying "I don't mean to say [Blah]" directly and deliberately carries the implication of [Blah].
Or, you know, you could literally mean it because you need to point out about some silly mistake the person made and you can think of no other way to convey this message that doesn't run the risk of carrying the same soft implication.


I stab a man in the chest and he dies. I stab a second man in the chest and he does not die, or appear to suffer any ill effects whatsoever.

Now is that because (a) I rolled a crit on my first attack (b) the second man is higher level (c) the second man is operating under a different rules system? How do you distinguish between the three in character?
A lot of your points on people getting stabbed seems to rely only upon hit points as a representation of the actual meat factor rather than the combination of meat, luck, and skill at reducing the severity of attacks that they are meant to represent. If you manage to kill someone with a given stab, then, sure, you've managed to run them through. If a particular attack doesn't kill, then you clearly haven't actually stabbed the victim in the chest. Maybe just scraped the arm.

Among other things, this does tend to indicate that at 1st level, you only track serious injuries, whereas at 20th level, you're tracking every minor scrape and cut.

Does D&D do a good job at representing this? No. In fact, it rather sucks. But it's a general starting point and part of the larger abstraction.

[Yahzi]

Of course those who wish to think further on this may realize that something can not be the same "kind" as another in one way while still being the same "kind" in another.
You've analyzed it past the point of meaningfulness.

My assertion is this: if the NPCs are constructed by rules that explicitly define them as "foes to kill," then they will be less likely to be viewed by players as "roles being played."

[Charity]

*kicking himself hard*

How is it the players know how the npc's stats were generated so they can make this differentiation?
If you are presented with a stat block in a published adventure do you check all the feats/skill points etc are allocated correctly?
I am very strongly of tthe opinion that the process of generating an npc has nothing to do with the experience the players have when encountering said npc.
All this Verisimilitude guff, all relies on the players knowing details of the npc that their characters would not and should not.
I know it is banging my head on a brickwall, but for the life of me despite reading pages of this... stuff, I cannot fathom it.

[Muyten]

I know it is banging my head on a brickwall, but for the life of me despite reading pages of this... stuff, I cannot fathom it.

Yeah I can't fathom it either and my brickwall is starting to look pretty worn out...not to mention my head.

[Matthew]

As far as I can tell, the main proponents of that view either play with very visible mechanics or else are imagining situations where they cannot help but be visible [i.e. A Player wants his Character to mechanically emulate something *very* unusual that he saw an NPC do]. Just different playing styles, perhaps.

Alternatively, it may be the case that their versimillitude as a DM is being broken by things not being perfectly consistant or as a Player if they know the game works in that way [i.e. they just plain don't like the idea that NPCs don't have to jump through the same hoops as PCs, possibly feeling it unfair].

Claims that Characters without explicit Attributes, Hit Dice, Class, Level, Feats, etc.. are just 'bags of experience points' are (over)reactionary and, in my opinion, unsustainable. Some people want every character to explicitly have those things and to have obtained them in a tightly structured way, whilst others don't think it necessary or even desirable. Opinions differ, but they are clearly subjective to preference.

The only argument I have seen that carries any water at all is the one whereby a Player identifies a mechanic that he thinks should be available to his Character, but the DM/System hasn't provided a way for them to mechanically acquire the ability by means of Class/Race/Prestige Class/Feat/Skill Trick, etc... This is usually countered by saying "Well, if it comes up, make it up." Obviously, that's not a comfortable situation for everyone and I think it does come down to a divide between people who like to see all the options and rules laid out from the get go and those for whom the rule is 'make it up.'

I can appreciate both points of view, but I don't see one as absolutely better than another.

[Dan_Hemmens]

You're defending your use of the word "explicitly" by referring to the definitions of "metaphor" and "analogy?"

Do you see any irony here?

Umm ... no?


My point was that no one said what you were claiming was made explicit. Then I repeated what I had originally stated. You chose to ignore that information and argue about word definitions instead.[/wuote]

Except that they did say that. They exiplicitly said it. They explicitly said that more stats = more detail = better characters. They haven't literally said "IQ tests", but that's the difference between "explicit" and "literal."

[quote]For the sake of redundancy, it is not about giving NPCs stats. It is about NPCs living by the same rules as PCs.

PCs don't "live" by the rules, they interact with the *game* by the rules. This I think is the heart of the issue. When I look at things like Classes, Levels, Feats and the like I think "hmm, these are clearly game mechanical constructs designed to allow an element of strategic choice in character creation". You seem to believe that they map to something which literally exists in character.


Again, you are back to asserting that having any stats at all is irrelevant. In which case, why do the player characters have stats?

To determine, amongst other things, whether they kill their foes in combat, whether they find the information they want, when they get killed, how much stuff they can carry and all the other things that PCs need rules for. NPCs don't need rules for the same things.


If having stats and levels makes the player characters easier for the players to identify and role-play, then why wouldn't this be equally true of NPCs?

It would be equally true, if it were true of PCs. I don't think it is. PC stats make it easier for players to know what their characters are capable of doing. It in no way makes it easier to identify with or role-play them.


Having NPCs generated by a rule system which explicitly generates them as "foes to kill," while PCs are generated by a rule system which explicitly generates them as "roles to play," cannot help but render NPCs as less of "roles to play" and more of "foes to kill."

Where, exactly does "abbreviated stat block" or "NPC creation rules" imply "foes to kill"?

Yes, NPCs only need combat stats if they're going to fight the PCs. If they're just going to fight each other off camera, having them roll dice is a collossal waste of time and energy. Similarly, in D&D, some NPCs really *do* exist only to fight the PCs - wandering monsters for example - and there's nothing wrong with admitting that.

[TheElfLord]

Again, how are the following different:

I stab a man in the chest and he dies. I stab a second man in the chest and he does not die, or appear to suffer any ill effects whatsoever.

Now is that because (a) I rolled a crit on my first attack (b) the second man is higher level (c) the second man is operating under a different rules system? How do you distinguish between the three in character?


How do you know you are stabbing a man in the chest? If the DM is describing a killing shot, a critical, and a wound by using the same phrase (you stab him in the chest) then it may be a problem of communication.

For example:

Killing shot:
Player: I stab at the man. I roll a 16 to hit and do 7 damage if I hit him.
DM: Your spear sinks into his chest and he collapses.

Critical hit:
Player: I stab the man and... Awesome natural 20, and I confirm.
DM: You drive your spear through his throat, blood spurts everywhere and he goes down in a gurgling heap.

Wound:
Player: I stab at the man. I roll a 16 to hit and do 7 damage if I hit him.
DM: He almost evades you, but your spear pierces his leg. Its bleeding a lot, and he's readying his sword to strike

Players don't say, I stab the guy in the chest. There are no called shots in normal 3.5. It is up to the DM to vary descriptions based on what kind of hit it was.

As to how stated out NPCs should be, I stat out NPCs that will be "rolling dice" with my players. This includes enemies, allies who are fighting beside them, or people they will be interacting with in intrigue. I normally don't stat out shopkeepers beyond the basics, because I can do that mostly on the spur of the moment if they want to haggle. If the NPCs aren't going to be "rolling dice" with the PCs I just decide whether they succeed or fail off screen based on the story.

[Dan_Hemmens]

How do you know you are stabbing a man in the chest? If the DM is describing a killing shot, a critical, and a wound by using the same phrase (you stab him in the chest) then it may be a problem of communication.


This, if anything, only supports my point. There's no way I can conceive of that you could ever notice *in character* that the NPCs were running off of different rules to you.

[EvilElitest]

This, if anything, only supports my point. There's no way I can conceive of that you could ever notice *in character* that the NPCs were running off of different rules to you.

Yeah you could, D&D runs under the assumption that the world has a bunch of classes and that is how you get your power. When those rules are broken the characters in the world would begin to suspect that this world is not in fact consistent but seems to revolve around them
from
EE

[Dan_Hemmens]

Yeah you could, D&D runs under the assumption that the world has a bunch of classes and that is how you get your power. When those rules are broken the characters in the world would begin to suspect that this world is not in fact consistent but seems to revolve around them
from
EE

That might be true in Order of the Stick, where people throw around terms like "Class" and "Level" in character all the time. It's not actually true in, well, any sensibly run game. If it was - as I think I point out above - there wouldn't be any Commoners, because nobody would take such an underpowered class.

[EvilElitest]

That might be true in Order of the Stick, where people throw around terms like "Class" and "Level" in character all the time. It's not actually true in, well, any sensibly run game. If it was - as I think I point out above - there wouldn't be any Commoners, because nobody would take such an underpowered class.

In D&D you get your powers from what ever class you go into. People become commoners and the like because it is easy, it makes money and it requires little special training (and you won't die horrible). A wizard cats arcane spells using a spell book, clerics can wear armor and cast divine spells after memorizing them, a binder summon beings from another world and binds them to his will ect. That is how the world works. So when it seems like only six dudes are even following these rules, the characters would notice something going on
from
EE

[Rutee]

In D&D you get your powers from what ever class you go into. People become commoners and the like because it is easy, it makes money and it requires little special training (and you won't die horrible). A wizard cats arcane spells using a spell book, clerics can wear armor and cast divine spells after memorizing them, a binder summon beings from another world and binds them to his will ect. That is how the world works. So when it seems like only six dudes are even following these rules, the characters would notice something going on
from
EE

Um, no. Commoners make 1sp a day, which is enough to feed and clothe them with heavy work done to supplement it. No commoner would be a commoner. He would be an Expert, at worst. "Class" is an Abstraction that is often used in-character in some senses. However, an assassin might train as a Rogue at first; Would they identify themselves as a Rogue, or as an assassin?

Unless the setting is akin to Disgaea, or OotS, or similar parody works, people don't consciously speak of "Levels" or "Class" in-character.

[EvilElitest]

Um, no. Commoners make 1sp a day, which is enough to feed and clothe them with heavy work done to supplement it. No commoner would be a commoner. He would be an Expert, at worst. "Class" is an Abstraction that is often used in-character in some senses. However, an assassin might train as a Rogue at first; Would they identify themselves as a Rogue, or as an assassin?

1. Yeah but commoners would be have a higher chance of living. Adventures die 95% of the time before reaching the point where they are willing to retire, and even then old enemies might kill them.
2. Um, why wouldn't commoners be commoners? Farmer and peasents would be commoners, while scribes, heralds and craftsmen would be experts
3. maybe but they would be aware of the difference in training. If one assassin could cast fireball whenever he wanted for no explained reason we would have a problem no?




Unless the setting is akin to Disgaea, or OotS, or similar parody works, people don't consciously speak of "Levels" or "Class" in-character.
no but people would be aware of the different forms of magic or professions. If a dude in my games could cast both divine, arcane, ToB, Binder, and psionic magic while wearing armor and doing so spontaneously my players would want to know how he can do that. And they would lynch me if i said "he doesn't follow the same rules as you do"
from
EE

[Jack Zander]

What's this silly idea that commoners only make 1 sp a day? I don't believe that's in their description. Unskilled laborer (i.e. though without the profession skill) only make 1 sp a day. A commoner represents someone who isn't educated except for in their basic job of being a peasant. NPCs take the commoner class all the time, not because it's optimal, but because their lives didn't give them the same opportunities that the PCs are assumed to have.

...sheesh, get some better examples... Just because PCs have the free will to take up PC classes doesn't mean everyone in the entire world does either.

And no, that has nothing to do with rules of the game. That has everything to do with the DM creating a believable world.





Also, once everyone buys the books, they are going to realize that NPCs work on different stats than PCs. So whether you make it obvious or not, they will know. and if they are like me, it will bother them. A lot.

Of course, not everyone is like me, so you other people go enjoy 4th edition while I homebrew something fun to play.

[EvilElitest]

Is it just me or do the DMs seem more pissed off than the players at this rule
from
EE

[Jack Zander]

Is it just me or do the DMs seem more pissed off than the players at this rule
from
EE

It seems like it and it makes sense. After all, it could be possible for a good DM to completely mask any inconsistencies from his players, but then he still has to deal with the fact that his fantasy game is actually a game, and not a very believable world on his part. This is what irks me.

[EvilElitest]

It seems like it and it makes sense. After all, it could be possible for a good DM to completely mask any inconsistencies from his players, but then he still has to deal with the fact that his fantasy game is actually a game, and not a very believable world on his part. This is what irks me.

And they don't like handing all of those random powers to the PCs
from
EE

[Rutee]

What's this silly idea that commoners only make 1 sp a day? I don't believe that's in their description. Unskilled laborer (i.e. though without the profession skill) only make 1 sp a day. A commoner represents someone who isn't educated except for in their basic job of being a peasant. NPCs take the commoner class all the time, not because it's optimal, but because their lives didn't give them the same opportunities that the PCs are assumed to have.
Wait wait, who's beneath a commoner in terms of unskilled labor?

[horseboy]

Wait wait, who's beneath a commoner in terms of unskilled labor?
Ditch diggers? :smallconfused:

[EvilElitest]

Wait wait, who's beneath a commoner in terms of unskilled labor?

Other commoners. Not all commoners (aka the class) will only be payed 1 sp. It depends on their job, their land, their value ect.
from
EE

[Rutee]

Alright, out of PvP. Let's see here.



...sheesh, get some better examples... Just because PCs have the free will to take up PC classes doesn't mean everyone in the entire world does either.

And no, that has nothing to do with rules of the game. That has everything to do with the DM creating a believable world.
I'm aware. Thing is, the posts you're responding to? Are in response to someone treating Class as an IC reality, not just a mechanical construct.




Also, once everyone buys the books, they are going to realize that NPCs work on different stats than PCs. So whether you make it obvious or not, they will know. and if they are like me, it will bother them. A lot.
Uh, the 4e Pit Fiend stat block appeared to work like players' in SWSE. How are you so sure that NPCs work on different stats?


Of course, not everyone is like me, so you other people go enjoy 4th edition while I homebrew something fun for me to play.
Fixed slightly to make less offensive. God forbid that people treat their preferences as preferences.


Ditch diggers?
Is not a ditch digger's class "Commoner"?

[horseboy]

Is not a ditch digger's class "Commoner"?
He failed in class. That's why he's a ditch digger. :smallwink: But there are a lot of professions that constitute "commoner." Some are better off than others.

[Matthew]

Yeah you could, D&D runs under the assumption that the world has a bunch of classes and that is how you get your power. When those rules are broken the characters in the world would begin to suspect that this world is not in fact consistent but seems to revolve around them

I think that you are confusing the 'rules of D&D' with the 'imaginary world that they help players to interact with'. Rules can be broken without affecting the consistancy of the imaginary world and they can be broken in such a way that they do affect the consistancy of that world. Using different rules to create NPCs from PCs doesn't have to affect the consistancy of the world. It could, if you wanted it to, but you could also do that by using the Player Character rules; simply give every Commoner inappropriate Skills, Feats and Equipment, such as Profession (Sailor) to a bunch of Desert Nomads.

The idea in using different rules to create NPCs is that it gives the DM more freedom to create characters as they are imagined without having to play the meta game of 'character building' (and, according to Mearls, more quickly/easily). With that freedom comes the responsibility to actually build believable NPCs and not abuse the rules of the game. It's a trade off.



Also, once everyone buys the books, they are going to realize that NPCs work on different stats than PCs. So whether you make it obvious or not, they will know. and if they are like me, it will bother them. A lot.

This is a basic misunderstanding. The fact that NPCs work on different rules from PCs isn't some sort of secret being kept from the players. The question was how would their characters know? In any case, what we're discussing here is why DMs and players might like or not like this approach and whether it can work; we're not starting with the assumption that they won't and that it can't, as then there's nothing to discuss.



And they don't like handing all of those random powers to the PCs

As has been said a number of times, there is nothing about using different rules to create NPCs that suggests that 'powers' are going to be handed out 'randomly'. They are constructed 'differently', and that's pretty much all we know about it.



He failed in class. That's why he's a ditch digger. :smallwink: But there are a lot of professions that constitute "commoner." Some are better off than others.

Bah! Ditch digging is laudable occupation with a proud tradition. The best ditch diggers are Experts in their field with Profession (Ditch Digger)...

Seriously, though, D20 is a bit confused on the issue of how much money a Commoner can make. It ports over the AD&D charts that indicate 1 SP per day is normal and then it introduces Professions, which bases pay on a Skill Check. There are quite a few threads on the subject. Logically, and assuming a sustainable economy, most Commoners will have just about enough resources to live and pay their taxes with a modest amount left over for non essentials; exactly how much money that might involve depends entirely on the campaign setting and the whim of the DM.

[Jack Zander]

I think the major fallacy of your commoner argument, Rutee, is that you said all commoners receive 1 sp a day. This is not true, only commoners without ranks in profession (or unable to get a job in their profession), or any other class in the same boat will receive only 1 sp a day.

[Rutee]

This is also the exact wording of the DMG. Logically possible or not, this is the wording of the Core Books.



The economic system in the DnD game based on the silver piece (sp). A common laborer earns 1 sp a day. That's just enough to allow his family to survive, assuming that this income is supplemented with food his family grows to eat, homemade clothing, and a reliance on self sufficiency for most tasks (personal grooming, health, animal tending, and so on).

I don't see anything in that that suggests this is what unskilled labor onry receives. It seems pretty explicit that this is the norm. And they'd still need Profession Skillpoints in things like farming, animal tending, etc, if you read the text, because they need to grow some of their own food, tend their own livestock, etc.

But that's impossible! They could just ply their professions to make more, outside of a bear economy! If I rolled the dice for Profession, I bet on average, even with /1/ rank, it'd turn out better then this...

[Jack Zander]

Do I need ranks in gardening to grow plants? No more than I need ranks in Ride to ride a horse down the street.

Also note that is says common laborer, not the commoner class. Unskilled laborers are the same exact thing. Forgive me for not using the exact same wording that's in the DMG.





...are we arguing just for the sake of arugment at this point?

[Rutee]

I'm sorry, but that pretty explicitly says "Most people in the DnD world who work make 1sp/day." You can argue semantics, but the intent seems clear to me. Especially since my argument is based on my interpretation, not the other way around. These books are not written in legalese or Lojban, so if you want some sort of medal for finding an alternate reading, well, whoopy. And if I don't need points in Profession: Farming, or Craft: Tailoring, that just means I can put more into my profession, and make more money in the first place.

[Matthew]

This ground has been covered many times before. Check page 105 of the 3.5 DMG to find typical pay for Hirelings. The argument about how Profession and Craft Skills interact with that table may be best left for another Thread, rather than rehashing it all here. The up and down of it is that a Labourer is unskilled or 'relatively' unskilled, but that even skilled personages only earn about 3 SP per day.

[Jack Zander]

Do you realize that most people in a medieval society were in fact, untrained laborers?

Do you realize that just because profession is on the commoner skill list doesn't mean that every commoner can put ranks into Profession: Brain Surgeon?

DnD assumes that the PCs have every opportunity they need to start their career and take their skill points. NPCs don't have that luxury.

EDIT: Rutee, I've seem some pretty good arguments from you in this thread and others, but not this one...

[horseboy]

Personally, I think the problem is they failed to define "labourers". It is a consistent problem in 3.X, them not defining their terms (ex dead). For a counter example logging. Logging is certainly "labour" intensive. Yet a logger wouldn't be able to sustain themselves on the stated 1sp per day. They don't have the time to grow their own food, so they'd have to buy it. If they couldn't afford food, then their only chance for income will be to buy 10' ladders and split them into poles.

[Rutee]

I was under the very distinct impression that most Commoners were farmers as the default seems to be a medieval, agrarian world. Granted that this isn't modern farming as we know it, but I'm relatively sure it doesn't count as "Unskilled" labor.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Do you realize that most people in a medieval society were in fact, untrained laborers?

Do you realize that just because profession is on the commoner skill list doesn't mean that every commoner can put ranks into Profession: Brain Surgeon?

That's sort of the issue, though. The fact that PCs can put their skill points wherever they like, take whatever classes they choose, and so on and NPCs can't is, itself, evidence that PCs already operate under different rules to PCs. Certainly it seems to be evidence that "classes" and "skill points" are not literal, in-character concepts. If they were they should work for PCs the same way they work for NPCs.


DnD assumes that the PCs have every opportunity they need to start their career and take their skill points. NPCs don't have that luxury.

So ... you're saying that D&D assumes that PCs and NPCs follow different rules?

[Jack Zander]

No, they still operate under the same rule set. They both gain experience and level up in their classes and gain skill points, etc. Letting PCs be a bit more powerful doesn't make the NPCs operate under different rules. The basics are all there.

If your DM wanted, (s)he could give every single commoner ranks in a profession skill, because the option is there. Most strive for a little bit more realism than that though.

It's the difference between DM fiat and completely different ways of improving oneself.

[Rutee]

PCs can spend their skill points as they please. Wouldn't any NPC put points into what'll make them money? Don't go "That's not realistic". PCs can put their skill points into whatever they want; NPCs can too, following the same rules. They should very clearly go into smithing in at the /least/ greater numbers then we see. Weapons' costs are measured in GP, and I don't believe it's less profitable to make them as opposed to other things.

[EvilElitest]

That's sort of the issue, though. The fact that PCs can put their skill points wherever they like, take whatever classes they choose, and so on and NPCs can't is, itself, evidence that PCs already operate under different rules to PCs. Certainly it seems to be evidence that "classes" and "skill points" are not literal, in-character concepts. If they were they should work for PCs the same way they work for NPCs
Nothing stops NPCs from taking PCs classes, they just don't normally (it requires a lot of work, a lot of time, a high chance of risk and a sense of ambition that most average people lack). But that is just the difference between a PC and a random farmer/dock worker/porter ect, not hte difference between NPCs and PC





I think that you are confusing the 'rules of D&D' with the 'imaginary world that they help players to interact with'. Rules can be broken without affecting the consistancy of the imaginary world and they can be broken in such a way that they do affect the consistancy of that world. Using different rules to create NPCs from PCs doesn't have to affect the consistancy of the world. It could, if you wanted it to, but you could also do that by using the Player Character rules; simply give every Commoner inappropriate Skills, Feats and Equipment, such as Profession (Sailor) to a bunch of Desert Nomads.

Why do we have clases. We have classes because certain professions focus in different areas. Wizards cast arcane magic with a spell book, Clerics use divine magic via praying, bards can cast both ect. The idea of these classes is that each class has a different set of abilities that are already established and hte PCs just choose on and go with it. Presumable, everyone else would have these classes as well, from Commoner, to wizard, to cleric. however if nobody else follows these rules, then ask yourself, why aren't you playing GURPS? Logically, if nobody follows the class rules except half a dozen dudes, what kinda world is being run here? Are they just discovering these new classes or what? Why are they limited when nobody else is. In 3.5, a cleric can't just randomly cast cure spells, there has to be a reason for it. He is using a magical item, he has multi classed, he has a prestige class, a template, a special race, a natural power you name it, but their has to be a reason. The world follows rules in terms of magic, magic A and Magic B, it isn't just some annoying story telling whim


The idea in using different rules to create NPCs is that it gives the DM more freedom to create characters as they are imagined without having to play the meta game of 'character building' (and, according to Mearls, more quickly/easily). With that freedom comes the responsibility to actually build believable NPCs and not abuse the rules of the game. It's a trade off.


Not a good one, nor one i will ever trust. The world of D&D relays on rules, and now these rules are no longer consistent, why do we need them? Any DM worth his salt can create any character to suit his needs within the rules without breaking the game. From a mechanics perspective it is bad form, from a fluff perspective it ruins the world's consistency





As has been said a number of times, there is nothing about using different rules to create NPCs that suggests that 'powers' are going to be handed out 'randomly'. They are constructed 'differently', and that's pretty much all we know about it.


What about the quote from the book? PCs are fundamentally more powerful than the random monster, who seems to exist simple for combat. When you monster exist for the sole purpose of fighting the PCs, then it pretty much is Diablo



Seriously, though, D20 is a bit confused on the issue of how much money a Commoner can make. It ports over the AD&D charts that indicate 1 SP per day is normal and then it introduces Professions, which bases pay on a Skill Check. There are quite a few threads on the subject. Logically, and assuming a sustainable economy, most Commoners will have just about enough resources to live and pay their taxes with a modest amount left over for non essentials; exactly how much money that might involve depends entirely on the campaign setting and the whim of the DM.

The real issue is the culture and the economy that they live in, how they are doing with their jobs ect. A palace servent could get payed quite well and still be a commonor
from
EE

[Matthew]

Why do we have clases. We have classes because certain professions focus in different areas. Wizards cast arcane magic with a spell book, Clerics use divine magic via praying, bards can cast both ect. The idea of these classes is that each class has a different set of abilities that are already established and hte PCs just choose on and go with it. Presumable, everyone else would have these classes as well, from Commoner, to wizard, to cleric.

That rather depends on your point of view. For you, Classes may serve this purpose, but for me they don't. All a Class is to me is a discrete assemblage of abilities intended to reflect a fantasy archetype. It could just as well be created via a point based classless system. I think Commoners, Experts, and all other NPC Classes were a terrible idea and have been poorly executed. However, the point is that we have different views on the purpose, meaning and point in Classes. In having those different views we're obviously going to have different opinions on the consequences of altering how NPCs interact with Classes.


However if nobody else follows these rules, then ask yourself, why aren't you playing GURPS?

Well, I might as well ask you why you aren't playing RoleMaster or RuneQuest. Seriously, though, you may have to accept that 4e is going to be a different game from 3e. Those of us who play AD&D and like how it works had to accept that about D20. It just isn't the same game. D&D is just a brand. To put it another way, a game isn't made invalid by being a hybrid of Classed/Classless system, it's just a different sort of game from a fully Classed System or an entirely Classless System. D20 is the only version of D&D to use a fully classed system as its model. People who like fully Classed systems will like it better than a hybrid Classed/Classless system, whilst people who like Classless systems will regard both as inferior to their own preferences.



Logically, if nobody follows the class rules except half a dozen dudes, what kinda world is being run here? Are they just discovering these new classes or what? Why are they limited when nobody else is. In 3.5, a cleric can't just randomly cast cure spells, there has to be a reason for it. He is using a magical item, he has multi classed, he has a prestige class, a template, a special race, a natural power you name it, but their has to be a reason. The world follows rules in terms of magic, magic A and Magic B, it isn't just some annoying story telling whim.

Your thinking in terms of mechanics again, though, and trying to force them to fit your conception of how they interact with the world. What you need to stop to consider is that if the rules don't fit your model of how they should work to suspend your disbelief, it may not actually be the rules that are the problem, but your expectations of what they are supposed to represent. This isn't a criticism, I'm just saying 4e isn't going to operate by the same rules as 3e anymore than 3e operates by the same rules as AD&D 2e. And yet, bear in mind that the actual fantasy worlds work more or less the same under the 2e rules as they do under the 3e rules. Indeed, many people play in those same fantasy worlds using True20 or even Savage Worlds. perhaps more relevantly for me, these worlds are being played in using Castles & Crusades, which is a modern hybrid system that explicitly uses a different system for PCs and Monsters.



Not a good one, nor one i will ever trust. The world of D&D relays on rules, and now these rules are no longer consistent, why do we need them? Any DM worth his salt can create any character to suit his needs within the rules without breaking the game. From a mechanics perspective it is bad form, from a fluff perspective it ruins the world's consistency

Not for you, perhaps, but for me it's fine. As far as I'm concerned any DM worth his salt should discard the rules whenever they do not serve his purpose (which is running a fun game). The rules are your servant, they are not your master.



What about the quote from the book? PCs are fundamentally more powerful than the random monster, who seems to exist simple for combat. When you monster exist for the sole purpose of fighting the PCs, then it pretty much is Diablo

That doesn't make them random, though; in fact, for the PCs to be consistantly more powerful than a Monster of the same [Experience Level or whatever term will come into use], abilities have to be assigned rationally and with a purpose.



The real issue is the culture and the economy that they live in, how they are doing with their jobs ect. A palace servent could get payed quite well and still be a commonor.

Amongst other things, yes.

[EvilElitest]

That rather depends on your point of view. For you, Classes may serve this purpose, but for me they don't. All a Class is to me is a discrete assemblage of abilities that reflect a fantasy archetype. I think Commoners, Experts, and all other NPC Classes were a terrible idea and have been poorly executed. However, the point is that we have different views on the purpose, meaning and point in Classes. In having those different views we're obviously going to have different opinions on changing how NPCs use them.

1. If they are just a reflection of archetypes, why do they even follow any rule?
2. Except under 3.5 we can both play and be fine, not under 4E. I enjoyed 3.5 because of the way the class system worked, and my ideas of how they worked was integrated into the world, and now a totally different system is being shoved down my throat



Well, I might as well ask you why you aren't playing RoleMaster or RuneQuest. Seriously, though, you may have to accept that 4e is going to be a different game from 3e. Those of us who play AD&D and like how it works had to accept that about D20. It just isn't the same game. D&D is just a brand. To put it another way, a game isn't made invalid by being a hybrid of Classed and Classless system, it's just a different sort of game from a fully Classed System or Classless System.

Because i enjoyed my way of playing under 3.5, and i am still the target audience for 4E. And yet they are ditching a well established and important part of the game, as well as shooting world consistency in the head for no real reason. Hell, in the monster book they said that they don't like to stat things that hte PCs won't likely fight (aka good creatures)



Your thinking in terms of mechanics again, though, and trying to force them to fit your conception of how they interact with the world. What you need to stop to consider is that if the rules don't fit your model of how they should work to suspend your disbelief, it may not actually be the rules that are the problem, but your expectations of what they are supposed to represent. This isn't a criticism, I'm just saying 4e isn't going to operate by the same rules as 3e anymore than 3e operates by the same rules as AD&D 2e. And yet, bear in mind that the actual fantasy worlds work more or less the same under the 2e rules as they do under the 3e rules.

Why have classes? If they aren't in fact world professions, then why would half a dozen guys follow a set of rules different from everybody else? It doesn't make sense, and is totally unnecessary to change. True some thing will be changed in 4E, no duh, but instead of expanding on already established ideas and just fixing things up (more magic types other than divine and arcane, balancing the classes, new general rules ect) that everybody would like, they destroyed the point of one of D&D's fundamental ideas and not only alienated many of their players, they also ruined their own world consistency and made the game like a video game





That doesn't make them random, though; in fact, for the PCs to be more powerful, abilities have to be assigned rationally and with a purpose.



Why do they have these super powers? Why do they get extra powers around 11th level? Why do they have so many unique super powers and options that everybody else lacks? From a world point unless every single PC is a chosen one, it is random
from
EE

[horseboy]

1. If they are just a reflection of archetypes, why do they even follow any rule?
2. Except under 3.5 we can both play and be fine, not under 4E. I enjoyed 3.5 because of the way the class system worked, and my ideas of how they worked was integrated into the world, and now a totally different system is being shoved down my throat Welcome to an edition change.

Because i enjoyed my way of playing under 3.5, and i am still the target audience for 4E. And yet they are ditching a well established and important part of the game, as well as shooting world consistency in the head for no real reason. Hell, in the monster book they said that they don't like to stat things that hte PCs won't likely fight (aka good creatures)It never seemed weird that all the monster manuals were filled with top predators, but never any prey species? It's the same thing. Practically every edition of every RPG is the same way. (I say practically because if I say EVERY then someone will pull out something obscure, like Pelicar or something that didn't.)

[EvilElitest]

Welcome to an edition change.

An edition change does not need to totally the concept of the game, just the nature


It never seemed weird that all the monster manuals were filled with top predators, but never any prey species? It's the same thing. Practically every edition of every RPG is the same way. (I say practically because if I say EVERY then someone will pull out something obscure, like Pelicar or something that didn't.)
I was under the impression that the prey were
1. The normal animals
2. Smaller predators
3. Humans
from
EE

[Rutee]

1. If they are just a reflection of archetypes, why do they even follow any rule?
2. Except under 3.5 we can both play and be fine, not under 4E. I enjoyed 3.5 because of the way the class system worked, and my ideas of how they worked was integrated into the world, and now a totally different system is being shoved down my throat
1. Because the archetype still needs a representation.
2. Why can't you still class everything? According to developer information, the game is still balanced if you give NPCs classes.


Because i enjoyed my way of playing under 3.5, and i am still the target audience for 4E. And yet they are ditching a well established and important part of the game, as well as shooting world consistency in the head for no real reason. Hell, in the monster book they said that they don't like to stat things that hte PCs won't likely fight (aka good creatures)
Matthew is correct. 4e is not the same game as 3.5e. Technically, they /can't/ ditch an 'important, established part of the game' with 4e because they're making something new, just as they did when 3e was released.


Why have classes? If they aren't in fact world professions, then why would half a dozen guys follow a set of rules different from everybody else? It doesn't make sense, and is totally unnecessary to change. True some thing will be changed in 4E, no duh, but instead of expanding on already established ideas and just fixing things up (more magic types other than divine and arcane, balancing the classes, new general rules ect) that everybody would like, they destroyed the point of one of D&D's fundamental ideas and not only alienated many of their players, they also ruined their own world consistency and made the game like a video game
Dude. Were you not reading when it was explained that "Everyone has a class" is NOT one of DnD's founding principals? It's a 3.0 thing, not a brand thing. And they have not made the world like a video game by exalting the PCs; They have made the world like the lion's share of fiction. Protagonists break rules. THat's sort of the point.



Why do they have these super powers? Why do they get extra powers around 11th level? Why do they have so many unique super powers and options that everybody else lacks? From a world point unless every single PC is a chosen one, it is random
Why do wizards get new spell levels every odd numberred level? Isn't that just as arbitrary as a larger increase in power at levels 11 and then 21?


An edition change does not need to totally the concept of the game, just the nature
I would laugh if this didn't demonstrate such a lack of understanding on your part. The concept is unchanged; DnD is still a medieval fantasy-based Tabletop RPG, presumably still intended for use across a wide variety of genres within medieval fantasy worlds. An aspect of that has changed. The concept is intact, I assure you.

[Matthew]

1. If they are just a reflection of archetypes, why do they even follow any rule?

In order for it to be a game the primary game pieces [the PCs] have to have some rules attached to them.



2. Except under 3.5 we can both play and be fine, not under 4E. I enjoyed 3.5 because of the way the class system worked, and my ideas of how they worked was integrated into the world, and now a totally different system is being shoved down my throat

No, we can't. If we could, then I wouldn't play other editions. As Horse Boy says, this is what edition change is all about now. They could have done an AD&D 1e to AD&D 2e type revision, but it doesn't make them as much money.



Because i enjoyed my way of playing under 3.5, and i am still the target audience for 4E. And yet they are ditching a well established and important part of the game, as well as shooting world consistency in the head for no real reason. Hell, in the monster book they said that they don't like to stat things that hte PCs won't likely fight (aka good creatures)

Basically, tough luck. The editions I prefer to play are no longer officially supported either. Luckily, I now have OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord and Castles & Crusades, all of which are producing new material. Just say goodbye to Wizards and play the edition you prefer.



Why have classes? If they aren't in fact world professions, then why would half a dozen guys follow a set of rules different from everybody else? It doesn't make sense, and is totally unnecessary to change. True some thing will be changed in 4E, no duh, but instead of expanding on already established ideas and just fixing things up (more magic types other than divine and arcane, balancing the classes, new general rules ect) that everybody would like, they destroyed the point of one of D&D's fundamental ideas and not only alienated many of their players, they also ruined their own world consistency and made the game like a video game

Your just basically wrong about this. They're not recreating D20, but that's not the same thing as destroying D&D. As far as the company is concerned, they've already exhausted the potential of expansions to produce revenue. When they no longer make money, it becomes a labour of love, and that's for fans, not businesses. You are looking into the mirror and seeing me staring back at you. You might not like what you see, but that's the reality of your situation. In about five years time you may well be having this exact conversation with somebody who only knows 4e about how 5e is returning to a fully Classed system and how it's going to wreck his sense of verismillitude and consistancy.

Actually, I would advise against going anywhere near a 4e Forum and talking about 3e for a couple of years at least. You're going to hear a lot of 'crazy' sounding things from 4e sycophants, mainly about how 4e is the best version of D&D ever, how they can't understand why anybody would ever play D20 given the option of playing 4e and then list about twenty reasons why 3e sucked (most of which you won't agree with).



Why do they have these super powers? Why do they get extra powers around 11th level? Why do they have so many unique super powers and options that everybody else lacks? From a world point unless every single PC is a chosen one, it is random
from

Because edition change means power creep. From where I'm standing in AD&D land, D20 looks exactly how 4e looks to you, like it's full of ridiculous super powered PCs.

[Rutee]

Because edition change means power creep. From where I'm standing in AD&D land, D20 looks exactly how 4e looks to you, like it's full of ridiculous super powered PCs.

Forgive the young and cheeky, but in 1e, wasn't a sick, lame kobold a valid threat to a party of first levels?

[Matthew]

A Kobold is always a threat... :smallwink:

[horseboy]

A sickly kobold had 1 hp, a buff, healthy kobold had 2 hp.

It's just that there were 300 of them. Yeah, you ran into them even at 10th level.

[EvilElitest]

1. Because the archetype still needs a representation.
2. Why can't you still class everything? According to developer information, the game is still balanced if you give NPCs classes.


1. You don't need classes for that, look at GURPS, they get along fine
2. But NPCs in general are following totally different rules, and their classes will be fundamentally different then the PCs. Unlike 3.5, NPCs can't take ether cruddy NPC classes or PC classes depending on their abilties, but PCs will be the only people in the world except maybe a Big Bad who have PC classes in that function. Monsters get it even worst, they seem to only exist for the sake of a single encounter (according to the quote) and good monsters aren't expected to be stated because they won't fight hte PCs (what about evil PCs? Or misunderstandings? Or when they help the PCS against something else? How do they act when fighting evil ect?)





Matthew is correct. 4e is not the same game as 3.5e. Technically, they /can't/ ditch an 'important, established part of the game' with 4e because they're making something new, just as they did when 3e was released.

4E is a new edition of the same game, changes will be made, but old ideas should be improved upon, not ditched



Dude. Were you not reading when it was explained that "Everyone has a class" is NOT one of DnD's founding principals? It's a 3.0 thing, not a brand thing.


What is a class?
A class is a fantasy arch type with a set list of abilties and powers gained over time
Why do you have a class?
A class exists to give the world a rule system, Magic works like X. Class X can use powers Y with abilities P using the force of J. Each class is a specific manner of study of a set power. As such, each class works in a specific manner. Unlike a system where you simple put points into what ever you want (you'd have a dude who was good with swords but also good with a fire ball, cure, and invisibility spell) you have a set list of powers. So rule wise, what so this mean?

This means that in the rules of the world magic functions under certain assumption that everything works out based upon classes. Wizards for example can cast arcane spells by memorizing their spells books. They use arcane magic and harass it via magical study. They memorize a set of spells at the beginning of the game, then they these spells. They can cast more spells per day than sorcerer but they have to choose them at the start of the day an can't fight like a fighter ect. The impression of the classes is that each has specific powers and weakness. That i how the world works. And yet these only seem to apply to have a dozen blokes? WFT?



And they have not made the world like a video game by exalting the PCs; They have made the world like the lion's share of fiction. Protagonists break rules. THat's sort of the point.
1. Why the hell should protagonists break the rules? Why bother making classes at all then
2. A fiction book and an RPG are very different, if i wanted to have a railroad plot i'd read Eragon
3. Ok i play Final Fantasy right? Now i'm walking around an i have a random encounter and fight random monsters. Now i'm wondering, what do these monsters dow when they aren't attacking me? Why is this bunch working together? why are they carrying so may random useful items? how intelligent are they? Monsters exist to die at the hands of me, end of story. Also all of the players are classes (black mage, white mage, red mage ect) and yet very few of the people i fight follows these rules.

Also in FF, their is a major difference between mechanics and story-line. When i can get literally hundreds of nifty items from random encounters, so presumable other adventures could do so. And yet, why aren't cure spells being used to heal the pouplace? Why is death still a problems when phonix downs are in such large supply? Why don't i bring back some of my party members with it when they are killed? Even if the game game a hand-waved answer i could understand that, but they don't even bother to pretend to explain it

When i play diablo, do the monsters have a point outside my killing them. Well, kinda, but not really. When i play Legend of Zelda, do all of the dungeons perfectly suit all of my needs and Gannon never comes after me personally instead of letting me build up all of my power?

Now this is ok, because it is a video game. Ok, FF is a bit annoying, but still, its a video game, i expect to be constricted. But when i play a role playing game i want things to make sense. I want the option of becoming the Big Bad if i had those specific qualifications. That wizard has a cool spell? I want to be able to learn it. That foe is a cleric? When he fights me i want it to make sense.



Why do wizards get new spell levels every odd numberred level? Isn't that just as arbitrary as a larger increase in power at levels 11 and then 21?

you misunderstand, it isn't the fact that wizard get more powerful, it i the fact that NPCs don't get these special. In 3.5, an NPC who's class is wizard will also have the same power at that level



I would laugh if this didn't demonstrate such a lack of understanding on your part. The concept is unchanged; DnD is still a medieval fantasy-based Tabletop RPG, presumably still intended for use across a wide variety of genres within medieval fantasy worlds. An aspect of that has changed. The concept is intact, I assure you.

No, D&D is losing the qualities that makes it a good roleplaying game, maybe a good hack and slash, but not a role playing game in the sense of "I can do anything if i put my mind to it" "This is a world, not a novel that i fill out" or a logical world. The game is becoming like a video game, or a game that is only enjoyable for fans of Exalted (which isn't a bad game, just one that is pased on one particular style of gaming).


For the record, yes i do tend to stat out any NPC the PCs react with in more than a "that guy" relationship



as for edition change, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, that is my beef with 4E. 3.5 is broken, i realize this. I understand the need for change. But many things are being changed ether to A) make D&D more "cool" (i'm aware of the irony here) and by cool i mean like WOW cool B) Because of the options of a vocal minority C) because they deem certain things unpopular, based upon things i've never even heard of and seem to be just personal option D) because they want to change the arch types they set up, and make their stuff more 'unique' despite them setting the stereotype

Personally? I think that WOTC is using those books as a goad to get the pissed off people talking about what they expect so they can work on their marketing tatics and they are in fact monitering forums like these to poll thoughts
from
EE



from
EE

[horseboy]

Also in FF, their is a major difference between mechanics and story-line. When i can get literally hundreds of nifty items from random encounters, so presumable other adventures could do so. And yet, why aren't cure spells being used to heal the pouplace? Why is death still a problems when phonix downs are in such large supply? Why don't i bring back some of my party members with it when they are killed? Even if the game game a hand-waved answer i could understand that, but they don't even bother to pretend to explain itWhere did I see that list of reasons why Cloud is a ****? Like why is Red's dad still a statue when I have 99 softs in my inventory?

No, D&D is losing the qualities that makes it a good roleplaying game, maybe a good hack and slash, but not a role playing game in the sense of "I can do anything if i put my mind to it" "This is a world, not a novel that i fill out" or a logical world. The game is becoming like a video game, or a game that is only enjoyable for fans of Exalted (which isn't a bad game, just one that is pased on one particular style of gaming). There is a strong argument to be made that D&D already doesn't have the qualities that make it a good roleplaying game, and is good only for hack and slash.:smallamused:

[Rutee]

1. You don't need classes for that, look at GURPS, they get along fine
2. But NPCs in general are following totally different rules, and their classes will be fundamentally different then the PCs. Unlike 3.5, NPCs can't take ether cruddy NPC classes or PC classes depending on their abilties, but PCs will be the only people in the world except maybe a Big Bad who have PC classes in that function. Monsters get it even worst, they seem to only exist for the sake of a single encounter (according to the quote) and good monsters aren't expected to be stated because they won't fight hte PCs (what about evil PCs? Or misunderstandings? Or when they help the PCS against something else? How do they act when fighting evil ect?)
1. Do you.. actually read other systems? GURPS doesn't care much about dramatic archetypes, but 'accurate' reflections of the world.
2. It's a staple of fiction, dood. Wake up and smell the gloss on a hardcover. And there's ALWAYS been a lack of Good creatures to slay. There's even an OotS strips that highlights this. Did you not criticize 3.0 or 3.5e under any lens?



4E is a new edition of the same game, changes will be made, but old ideas should be improved upon, not ditched
No. No it isn't. I didn't really play 2nd ed, but it was not the same game as 3rd ed. Seriously, dood, look at history here.


What is a class?
A class is a fantasy arch type with a set list of abilties and powers gained over time
Why do you have a class?
You ask a simple question, you get a simple answer: So that Players have a condensed, easy to understand system by which their characters get more powerful and more skilled, and thus, have an easier time relating to this when it happens.



A class exists to give the world a rule system,
No. No it doesn't. If the class was to give the world a rule system, they would be recognized IC concepts. Characters would understand Class, and probably level, and understand what they mean. The character could say "This person is a level 10 Monk, and therefore, his abilities WILL be as follows.."

Classes are a construct by which we as players interact with the game world, not an aspect of the rules that create the world.



Magic works like X. Class X can use powers Y with abilities P using the force of J. Each class is a specific manner of study of a set power. As such, each class works in a specific manner.
So there are only 9 methods by which to fight within the world? All Rogues practice the same fighting style?



Unlike a system where you simple put points into what ever you want (you'd have a dude who was good with swords but also good with a fire ball, cure, and invisibility spell) you have a set list of powers. So rule wise, what so this mean?
You know, you should give Mutants and Masterminds 2e a shot. It uses mechanics you're familiar with, but in different ways. You might like it.


This means that in the rules of the world magic functions under certain assumption that everything works out based upon classes. Wizards for example can cast arcane spells by memorizing their spells books. They use arcane magic and harass it via magical study. They memorize a set of spells at the beginning of the game, then they these spells. They can cast more spells per day than sorcerer but they have to choose them at the start of the day an can't fight like a fighter ect. The impression of the classes is that each has specific powers and weakness. That i how the world works. And yet these only seem to apply to have a dozen blokes? WFT?
"May not an ass know when the cart draws the horse?"



1. Why the hell should protagonists break the rules? Why bother making classes at all then
2. A fiction book and an RPG are very different, if i wanted to have a railroad plot i'd read Eragon
3. Ok i play Final Fantasy right? Now i'm walking around an i have a random encounter and fight random monsters. Now i'm wondering, what do these monsters dow when they aren't attacking me? Why is this bunch working together? why are they carrying so may random useful items? how intelligent are they? Monsters exist to die at the hands of me, end of story. Also all of the players are classes (black mage, white mage, red mage ect) and yet very few of the people i fight follows these rules.

Also in FF, their is a major difference between mechanics and story-line. When i can get literally hundreds of nifty items from random encounters, so presumable other adventures could do so. And yet, why aren't cure spells being used to heal the pouplace? Why is death still a problems when phonix downs are in such large supply? Why don't i bring back some of my party members with it when they are killed? Even if the game game a hand-waved answer i could understand that, but they don't even bother to pretend to explain it
You really need to change your screen name to Illiterate Elitist or something, if the sole of your interaction with fiction is Eragon, Lord of the Rings, and Video Games.

Luke Skywalker becomes a near-even match for his father as a pilot and a duelist, with perhaps 3 years of real experience under his belt. His father was an extremely skilled jedi with almost two times the experience his son had, with legions of jedi kills. How can one possibly posit that Luke Skywalker followed the same, or even similar, rules to Darth Vader? Sherlock Holmes is only in his 40s or so, but has almost lifetimes of knowledge in his head, as well as skill with some forms of expression and sport (And some drug addictions to boot). Far moreso then the other inhabitants of London, or anywhere else, really. Or Ed Greenwood Elminster. Do you /really/ think anyone tabulated his kills and placed him at the appropriate amount of XP for them? What if he's really only 'earned' less of a level then your average 10th level? 4ed will not be the first piece of fiction that is not a video game that put people on different rules.


Now this is ok, because it is a video game. Ok, FF is a bit annoying, but still, its a video game, i expect to be constricted. But when i play a role playing game i want things to make sense. I want the option of becoming the Big Bad if i had those specific qualifications. That wizard has a cool spell? I want to be able to learn it. That foe is a cleric? When he fights me i want it to make sense.
This betrays a lack of understanding of game mechanics, to me. Do you know why I've supported the inclusion of a growing number of retributive counters for monsters? Do you understand how the 'action penalty' (That is, the vastly reduced number of actions one enemy can take compared to the party) can really make balancing a dramatic BBEG fight against the party difficult?



you misunderstand, it isn't the fact that wizard get more powerful, it i the fact that NPCs don't get these special. In 3.5, an NPC who's class is wizard will also have the same power at that level
No, he won't. He'll have worse ability scores, in all probability, and less WBL. He's going to be less powerful.


No, D&D is losing the qualities that makes it a good roleplaying game, maybe a good hack and slash, but not a role playing game in the sense of "I can do anything if i put my mind to it" "This is a world, not a novel that i fill out" or a logical world. The game is becoming like a video game, or a game that is only enjoyable for fans of Exalted (which isn't a bad game, just one that is pased on one particular style of gaming).
.....You really, /really/ think you could do whatever you wanted in DnD before? You poor thing. Here's a quick disabusing of this notion.

Recreate Dizzy's fighting style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4st6xUh_XY) in DnD. And be effective, mechanically. If I wasn't disabused before trying, I was there! (Fight starts at 0:50)

[horseboy]

Luke Skywalker becomes a near-even match for his father as a pilot and a duelist, with perhaps 3 years of real experience under his belt. His father was an extremely skilled jedi with almost two times the experience his son had, with legions of jedi kills. How can one possibly posit that Luke Skywalker followed the same, or even similar, rules to Darth Vader?
Well, Darth Vader's immense power was drastically reduced due to the extensive cybernetic implants that were necessary to maintain his existence. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go hang my head in shame at my dorketry.

[Rutee]

Well, Darth Vader's immense power was drastically reduced due to the extensive cybernetic implants that were necessary to maintain his existence. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go hang my head in shame at my dorketry.

It's cool, because I knew that most of his jedi kills came after the circuitry. There's no shame in dorkery on the intertubes.

[horseboy]

It's cool, because I knew that most of his jedi kills came after the circuitry. There's no shame in dorkery on the intertubes.
Clearly all that XP went into how to actually sword fight instead of jumping around waving your glow stick like a raver.

[Jack Zander]

Luke wasn't anywhere near his father in power. Anakin probably made just as much progress as Luke did in 3 years, but due to the fact that there are so few high level people to farm exp from, you begin to level a lot slower at the higher levels. So while Vader had 2-3 times the amount of time under his belt, he was probably only 3-5 levels above Luke at that point.

Not to mention, Luke did a lot more impressive fights than Anakin (aside from the lightsaber duels).

Really, the only reason Luke won was because he got enraged and the plot demanded it.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Nothing stops NPCs from taking PCs classes, they just don't normally (it requires a lot of work, a lot of time, a high chance of risk and a sense of ambition that most average people lack). But that is just the difference between a PC and a random farmer/dock worker/porter ect, not hte difference between NPCs and PC

Except that's exactly the point. Classes are all the same. It requires no more "work" to become a Commoner than a Rogue, and it is no more "dangerous", because classes have no in-character learning requirement.

Being an *adventurer* is more dangerous than being a farmer, but there's absolutely no reason that a farmer can't be a Fighter or indeed a Wizard. That's how the class system *works*. If your thesis is that Classes are a real, concrete part of the setting which works according to the rules published in the PhB then NPCs should be able to choose their classes and allocate their skills just like PCs, because you don't *learn* a class, you just pick it.

There should be no "unskilled laborers" in the world of D&D, because everybody gets the same number of Skill Points and there is no reason *not* to put them into a Craft skill, which will of course allow you to generate money from thin air, just by making weekly skill checks.

[Jack Zander]

Except that's exactly the point. Classes are all the same. It requires no more "work" to become a Commoner than a Rogue, and it is no more "dangerous", because classes have no in-character learning requirement.

Being an *adventurer* is more dangerous than being a farmer, but there's absolutely no reason that a farmer can't be a Fighter or indeed a Wizard. That's how the class system *works*. If your thesis is that Classes are a real, concrete part of the setting which works according to the rules published in the PhB then NPCs should be able to choose their classes and allocate their skills just like PCs, because you don't *learn* a class, you just pick it.

There should be no "unskilled laborers" in the world of D&D, because everybody gets the same number of Skill Points and there is no reason *not* to put them into a Craft skill, which will of course allow you to generate money from thin air, just by making weekly skill checks.

I think you've taken meta-gaming to a new level of extreme.

[Yahzi]

2. It's a staple of fiction, dood.
I was going to complain that it's a staple of bad fiction, but then I noticed you were discussing Star Wars, so I realized you already knew that. :smallbiggrin:


If the class was to give the world a rule system, they would be recognized IC concepts.
And they are: everyone knows that Wizards cast spells and don't wear armor, and Clerics cast spells and wear armor. Everyone knows that Druids shape-change. And everybody knows that the older/smarter/more powerful you are in these roles, the more you can do. Surely people recognize the distinction between those who can Remove Disease and those who can't.

The line between profession and abilities is blurred in D&D. It's always been odd that you can make a 1st level wand that can tell whether or not a person is a Wizard, but you can't make a 5th level trap that can make the same distinction.


Classes are a construct by which we as players interact with the game world, not an aspect of the rules that create the world.
Which is fair enough. But the problem remains that creating NPCs by rules explicitly intended to make them as "foes to kill" will reduce their moral status as "roles to be played." There is a reason players come to view every NPC as a possible addition to their XP pool, regardless of the NPC's alignment, status, or relationship with the characters. This reason is encoded into the game mechanics. And it is that mechanic that makes D&D feel like a video game, where the NPCs on the screen really are just foes to kill.

[Dan_Hemmens]

And they are: everyone knows that Wizards cast spells and don't wear armor, and Clerics cast spells and wear armor. Everyone knows that Druids shape-change. And everybody knows that the older/smarter/more powerful you are in these roles, the more you can do. Surely people recognize the distinction between those who can Remove Disease and those who can't.

No. Everybody doesn't know that.

You're still assuming that everybody goes around with their Class and Level tattoed on their face, and that everybody somehow knows everybody's class features, even the ones they never use.

How are you supposed to know that a local priest who never dresses in anything but a robe is proficient in Heavy Armour? How are you supposed to know that the Dark Lord who can cast spells in armour quite happily has some funky Prestige Class which makes him different from a normal Wizard, and most of all why are you supposed to *care*?

Do you really think that people in D&D settings sit down and think "Gosh, isn't it interesting that a priest and a thief, both equivalently skilled by the lights of their own craft, are equally well able to strike another man a telling blow with a simple weapon".


Which is fair enough. But the problem remains that creating NPCs by rules explicitly intended to make them as "foes to kill" will reduce their moral status as "roles to be played." There is a reason players come to view every NPC as a possible addition to their XP pool, regardless of the NPC's alignment, status, or relationship with the characters. This reason is encoded into the game mechanics. And it is that mechanic that makes D&D feel like a video game, where the NPCs on the screen really are just foes to kill.

Please, please, please tell me where you are getting this "foes to kill" thing from.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I think you've taken meta-gaming to a new level of extreme.

Not me, just the people who insist that levels and classes refer to real in-character concepts.

[EvilElitest]

[QUOTE=Rutee;3944529]1. Do you.. actually read other systems? GURPS doesn't care much about dramatic archetypes, but 'accurate' reflections of the world.
2. It's a staple of fiction, dood. Wake up and smell the gloss on a hardcover. And there's ALWAYS been a lack of Good creatures to slay. There's even an OotS strips that highlights this. Did you not criticize 3.0 or 3.5e under any lens?

1. Um, that wasn't what i was talking about. In GURPS they are no classes, you don't need them. You make your own dramatic archtypes using a set of skills and powers, no need for classes
2. Don't misquote me Rutee it is bad form. I've never said 3rd edition was perfect, nor have i said it was a perfect system, nor that its way of handling good creatures was perfect. But they did give good creatures stats despite the fact they are very few of them, they are still given stats, something that 4th doesn't seem eager to do, their philosophy seems to be "If it is not going to fight hte PCs, don't bother to stat it"





You ask a simple question, you get a simple answer: So that Players have a condensed, easy to understand system by which their characters get more powerful and more skilled, and thus, have an easier time relating to this when it happens.

World wise what is a class? It is a profession that grants you a set of abilities now why do half a dozen dudes get special powers that nobody else has? It kill constancy, it is bad form, and it isn't needed


No. No it doesn't. If the class was to give the world a rule system, they would be recognized IC concepts. Characters would understand Class, and probably level, and understand what they mean. The character could say "This person is a level 10 Monk, and therefore, his abilities WILL be as follows.."
However a person in the world can say this when asked what is a wizard "A wizard uses Arcane power, he harness this power through intense study and the power of his mind. He uses this power with a spell book and memorizes series of spells at the start of the day that he later casts. A shadowcaster harnesses the powers of the plane of shadow, clerics draw their powers from deities using the raw power of belief. Ect ect ect



Classes are a construct by which we as players interact with the game world, not an aspect of the rules that create the world.

why is that? Why should the exist only for half a dozen guys? What is a wizard, what is a cleric, what is a fighter, swordsage, warblade ect. They are particular professions with many separate abilities. Why should half a dozen guys get these powers and limitations and nobody else does?


So there are only 9 methods by which to fight within the world? All Rogues practice the same fighting style?

no but all rouges have smilier traits, they aren't as good in melee as fighters, they are better fighters than most casters, they have back stab, stealth, find traps, no spells ect. All clerics get their powers from belief in a deity ect. Classes have distinct qualities, that is how they work


You know, you should give Mutants and Masterminds 2e a shot. It uses mechanics you're familiar with, but in different ways. You might like it.

Is it midevil fantasy?



"May not an ass know when the cart draws the horse?"


what now?


You really need to change your screen name to Illiterate Elitist or something, if the sole of your interaction with fiction is Eragon, Lord of the Rings, and Video Games.

only if your replace your screen name with "Rutee, she who misquotes others" in bold with dramatic background music
Really, how could even possible interpret my point that i only have knowledge of a few things?
1. I used Eragon as an example because it has a really cliche railroad plot
2. I was pointing out the difference between a book and a roleplaying game
3. and you seem to have totally misunderstood my video game post


Luke Skywalker becomes a near-even match for his father as a pilot and a duelist, with perhaps 3 years of real experience under his belt. His father was an extremely skilled jedi with almost two times the experience his son had, with legions of jedi kills. How can one possibly posit that Luke Skywalker followed the same, or even similar, rules to Darth Vader? Sherlock Holmes is only in his 40s or so, but has almost lifetimes of knowledge in his head, as well as skill with some forms of expression and sport (And some drug addictions to boot). Far moreso then the other inhabitants of London, or anywhere else, really. Or Ed Greenwood Elminster. Do you /really/ think anyone tabulated his kills and placed him at the appropriate amount of XP for them? What if he's really only 'earned' less of a level then your average 10th level? 4ed will not be the first piece of fiction that is not a video game that put people on different rules.


1. Those are all stories, not roleplaying games. In a story it is totally ok if you have a chosen/super special awesome unique dude if handled right (Eragon, you didn't handle that right, you fail) But in a roleplaying game, it simple doesn't make sense if your main dudes are all super special awesome unique dudes. As i said, like a video game.
2. Well Vader was old and mostly machine, while Luke was young and still relatively whole (the hand didn't hinder him)
3. Holmes takes place in real life, and he gained most of his skill via the realistic way, training, study ect. However he is naturally smart, but that is the idea of the character, he is special, that is noted upon quite a few times.
4. Elminister is a mary sue and Greenwood is bad writer (though Elminster did get most of his power via study or from the goddess of magic herself but whatever)




This betrays a lack of understanding of game mechanics, to me. Do you know why I've supported the inclusion of a growing number of retributive counters for monsters? Do you understand how the 'action penalty' (That is, the vastly reduced number of actions one enemy can take compared to the party) can really make balancing a dramatic BBEG fight against the party difficult?
1. Thank you for ignoring what i said by the way
2. How does that potray a lack of understanding, i've never had a problem with actions with my BBEGs, but to be fair, my BBEG are hardly ever prone to play fair and take on six dudes at once



No, he won't. He'll have worse ability scores, in all probability, and less WBL. He's going to be less powerful.

not nessaricly. NPCs generally have lower scores, but those dudes tend to become Adepts instead of full wizards. nothing stops an NPC wizard from being equal to a PC wizard



.....You really, /really/ think you could do whatever you wanted in DnD before? You poor thing. Here's a quick disabusing of this notion.

Did you read the part where i said 3.5 isn't perfect and needs a fix up? I tweak things normally, but it does have a good PC NPC relationship. Don't misquote me, i've never said 3.5 is perfect


Recreate Dizzy's fighting style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4st6xUh_XY) in DnD. And be marginally effective, mechanically. If I wasn't disabused before trying, I was there! (Fight starts at 0:50)

I most likely could if i had more data on what the hell they are doing ( i'm not interesting in Guilty Gear generally) with tweaking.


Except that's exactly the point. Classes are all the same. It requires no more "work" to become a Commoner than a Rogue, and it is no more "dangerous", because classes have no in-character learning requirement.

It does actually , you need
1. The time to become said class
2. The money, situation, and background to support said training
3. The motivation
4. The ability scores to pull it off
5. The knowledge of these classes


Being an *adventurer* is more dangerous than being a farmer, but there's absolutely no reason that a farmer can't be a Fighter or indeed a Wizard. That's how the class system *works*. If your thesis is that Classes are a real, concrete part of the setting which works according to the rules published in the PhB then NPCs should be able to choose their classes and allocate their skills just like PCs, because you don't *learn* a class, you just pick it.
But NPCs can choose their class and allocate their skills in 3.5, thats a given



There should be no "unskilled laborers" in the world of D&D, because everybody gets the same number of Skill Points and there is no reason *not* to put them into a Craft skill, which will of course allow you to generate money from thin air, just by making weekly skill checks.
*cough, ability scores cough*


You're still assuming that everybody goes around with their Class and Level tattoed on their face, and that everybody somehow knows everybody's class features, even the ones they never use.
no were not, you are claiming we are and misquoting us out of a semi radical misinterpretation of what we are saying, very different issue


Please, please, please tell me where you are getting this "foes to kill" thing from
races and classes p. 14, the quote that has been proved like half a dozen times now


from
EE

[horseboy]

World wise what is a class? It is a profession that grants you a set of abilities now why do half a dozen dudes get special powers that nobody else has? It kill constancy, it is bad form, and it isn't neededOutside of Earthdawn, world wise, classes don't exist, professions do.


why is that? Why should the exist only for half a dozen guys? What is a wizard, what is a cleric, what is a fighter, swordsage, warblade ect. They are particular professions with many separate abilities. Why should half a dozen guys get these powers and limitations and nobody else does?
Because that's their traditions trade off for ultimate power.


only if your replace your screen name with "Rutee, she who misquotes others" in bold with dramatic background music Because every hero has to have his own theme music. That's why we allow bards. :smallwink:


1. Those are all stories, not roleplaying games. In a story it is totally ok if you have a chosen/super special awesome unique dude if handled right (Eragon, you didn't handle that right, you fail) But in a roleplaying game, it simple doesn't make sense if your main dudes are all super special awesome unique dudes. As i said, like a video game.Well, you could always make everyone unique.

[Rutee]

1. Um, that wasn't what i was talking about. In GURPS they are no classes, you don't need them. You make your own dramatic archtypes using a set of skills and powers, no need for classes
2. Don't misquote me Rutee it is bad form. I've never said 3rd edition was perfect, nor have i said it was a perfect system, nor that its way of handling good creatures was perfect. But they did give good creatures stats despite the fact they are very few of them, they are still given stats, something that 4th doesn't seem eager to do, their philosophy seems to be "If it is not going to fight hte PCs, don't bother to stat it"
1. That doesn't matter. You said GURPS is just as good at the recreation of dramatic archetypes. It doesn't care. At all. That means it's not as good.
2. I didn't misquote you. Those are your exact words, and if you meant to say something else, you should edit or rephrase. The thing is, you're levelling criticisms against 4e as if they don't exist in 3rd ed. That, and you have still failed to answer a very important question; If it isn't going to be an encounter in some fashion for the PCs, do you stat it?


World wise what is a class? It is a profession that grants you a set of abilities now why do half a dozen dudes get special powers that nobody else has? It kill constancy, it is bad form, and it isn't needed
Classes are nothing more or less then ability sets by which players can create what they see as their character; A way to bring the living concept to mechanical life. If only half a dozen people are particularly special, that's up to the players to justify. Are you aware of why I've brought up various forms of fiction? Because of this repeated claim that it kills consistency. No, it doesn't, and past fiction is the proof of this.



However a person in the world can say this when asked what is a wizard "A wizard uses Arcane power, he harness this power through intense study and the power of his mind. He uses this power with a spell book and memorizes series of spells at the start of the day that he later casts. A shadowcaster harnesses the powers of the plane of shadow, clerics draw their powers from deities using the raw power of belief. Ect ect ect
No, the average person in the world can't say any of that, with the exception of "Clerics draw their powers from deities". The average commoner is going to know exactly this much about Wizards: They're scary. You're confusing the class giving rules to the world with the class giving rules by which we understand the setting's magic system; The magic system is what sets those rules. Hence the King Lear quote; You're confusing the order of operations here. You're treating the setting as existing for the mechanical rules, not the other way around (Which, since you're such a fan of making pejorative comparisons to video games, is typically how such games work.)


why is that? Why should the exist only for half a dozen guys? What is a wizard, what is a cleric, what is a fighter, swordsage, warblade ect. They are particular professions with many separate abilities. Why should half a dozen guys get these powers and limitations and nobody else does?
Two big reasons. The first, protagonists are special, always. That's the point. Read fiction, EE. Or watch it, I don't care. Protagonists, whether or not they're declared Chosen Ones, are almost always different and special, especially in fantasy. Second, because these particular characters /have actual players/. THough, I wonder if you could use the NPC creation rules to make PCs, since it's more customized.. hm...


no but all rouges have smilier traits, they aren't as good in melee as fighters, they are better fighters than most casters, they have back stab, stealth, find traps, no spells ect. All clerics get their powers from belief in a deity ect. Classes have distinct qualities, that is how they work
See, you're making assumptions. "They're worse combatants then fighters of the same level" is true when they're the same level, but who recognizes level? Do all Rogues hide? You're treating a class as a badge of identification



Is it midevil fantasy?
With a name like that? Of course not. The default is Silver and Golden age comics, but it can be applied to literally any genre. Look through it, seriously.


What now?
As I said above, you're treating the setting as a vehicle for the mechanics, rather then the mechanics as a vehicle for the setting.


only if your replace your screen name with "Rutee, she who misquotes others" in bold with dramatic background music
Why do you see in myself your own traits? I suppose it's true what they say, "A liar never trusts others."


Really, how could even possible interpret my point that i only have knowledge of a few things?
1. I used Eragon as an example because it has a really cliche railroad plot
2. I was pointing out the difference between a book and a roleplaying game
3. and you seem to have totally misunderstood my video game post
I didn't misunderstand your game post, EE. It's just irrelevant. You're acting like only video games treat the protagonists and the antagonists differently. That's why I keep bringing up fiction; I'm showing to you consistent, or mostly consistent, worlds where the protagonists and the antagonists are very clearly not working on the same rules as each other. You cling to a few video games as proof that it makes DnD like a video game; I point to the much larger mass of fiction that has existed since long before your birth.


1. Those are all stories, not roleplaying games. In a story it is totally ok if you have a chosen/super special awesome unique dude if handled right (Eragon, you didn't handle that right, you fail) But in a roleplaying game, it simple doesn't make sense if your main dudes are all super special awesome unique dudes. As i said, like a video game.
2. Well Vader was old and mostly machine, while Luke was young and still relatively whole (the hand didn't hinder him)
3. Holmes takes place in real life, and he gained most of his skill via the realistic way, training, study ect. However he is naturally smart, but that is the idea of the character, he is special, that is noted upon quite a few times.
4. Elminister is a mary sue and Greenwood is bad writer (though Elminster did get most of his power via study or from the goddess of magic herself but whatever)
1. As I said above; Just because your limited experience means that to you, DnD is becoming like a video doesn't make it fact; The simple truth of the matter is that protagonists don't usually operate on the same bylaws as antagonists, we just don't usually have mechanical proof of this.
2. And? Even as mostly machine and old, he defeated more skilled and trained jedi then Luke (And I don't /just/ mean Obi-wan.) Why could Luke succeed where those other Jedi failed? Jack Zander hit on it; Because the plot demanded it. Yes. Yes that is exactly why Luke works on different rules from the other NPCs.
3. He's special. He's not like other people. He can manage so much more in so much less time. This doesn't strike you as operating on different rules? This doesn't seem like a reason why PCs can be different from NPCs?
4. He gained it (Partially) through study? Really? Remind me, can PC Wizards gain exp by studying in an ivory tower?




1. Thank you for ignoring what i said by the way
2. How does that potray a lack of understanding, i've never had a problem with actions with my BBEGs, but to be fair, my BBEG are hardly ever prone to play fair and take on six dudes at once
1. What do I care about your mass of irrelevant video game examples?
2. Sometimes, however, it's just more dramatic if the BBEG faces off with them alone. Except the action penalty, as DnD currently stands, is crippling; One /must/ have them operate on different rules. Why do you think Dragons are so easy to take down for their CR compared to a party of classed NPCs?


not nessaricly. NPCs generally have lower scores, but those dudes tend to become Adepts instead of full wizards. nothing stops an NPC wizard from being equal to a PC wizard
Actually, the rules as printed do. Check WBL; WBL is higher for PCs then NPCs. And no, just because the NPC has lower ability scores then a PC doesn't make them an Adept; Adept is a lack of formal training, not a lack of ability, going by the fluff.


Did you read the part where i said 3.5 isn't perfect and needs a fix up? I tweak things normally, but it does have a good PC NPC relationship. Don't misquote me, i've never said 3.5 is perfect
3.5 as is has most of the problems you hurl at 4.0 as we believe it will be. You're either not cognizant of them, or you're willfully ignoring them. Either way, this doesn't seem very wise.



I most likely could if i had more data on what the hell they are doing ( i'm not interesting in Guilty Gear generally) with tweaking.
Not unless the new splats made it different. DnD simply can't handle mobile combatants without deliberate jobbing, and Guilty Gear is one of the more mobile fighting games out there.


It does actually , you need
1. The time to become said class
2. The money, situation, and background to support said training
3. The motivation
4. The ability scores to pull it off
None of these are requisites for PCs, by RAW.

5. The knowledge of these classes
You recognize that the way you act, this is possessed by literally everyone, right?


But NPCs can choose their class and allocate their skills in 3.5, thats a given
Then why do they choose to be commoners?


no were not, you are claiming we are and misquoting us out of a semi radical misinterpretation of what we are saying, very different issue
No, this is taking you at your words. What you claim to be "misquoting" is probably a communication error on your end.



races and classes p. 14, the quote that has been proved like half a dozen times now
The Races and Classes quote isn't a reflection of new design philosophy. It's exactly as they've been acting for 3 editions previously. I can probably find the quote in the DMG that says roughly the same thing.


Outside of Earthdawn, world wise, classes don't exist, professions do.
Well, it's not /just/ Earthdawn, but yesh, most systems just don't give a damn.

[Dan_Hemmens]

No, the average person in the world can't say any of that, with the exception of "Clerics draw their powers from deities".

Not even that. It's totally possible for somebody who is, in character, a "Cleric" (that is to say, a priest or clergyman) to be of any class at all. A warrior-priest could easily be represented by a Fighter with a few ranks in Knowledge: Religion.

[horseboy]

Two big reasons. The first, protagonists are special, always. That's the point. Read fiction, EE. Or watch it, I don't care. Protagonists, whether or not they're declared Chosen Ones, are almost always different and special, especially in fantasy. Second, because these particular characters /have actual players/. THough, I wonder if you could use the NPC creation rules to make PCs, since it's more customized.. hm...Well, they did say you could put a little elbow grease in there and fully declass the system and still have it work. Of course, they said 3.5 fixed the problems too.


I didn't misunderstand your game post, EE. It's just irrelevant. You're acting like only video games treat the protagonists and the antagonists differently. That's why I keep bringing up fiction; I'm showing to you consistent, or mostly consistent, worlds where the protagonists and the antagonists are very clearly not working on the same rules as each other. You cling to a few video games as proof that it makes DnD like a video game; I point to the much larger mass of fiction that has existed since long before your birth.
Not to mention things like being able to journey to see the Oracle to find out what needs be done, and not have the oracle already be powerful enough that she could just cast the right spell or two and have the great curse not be such a burden. Or have wandering vagrants that can toss about nasty curses of theranthropy but not just phantasmal killer the crew. Of course it'll be interesting to see how WotC screws it up.


1. As I said above; Just because your limited experience means that to you, DnD is becoming like a video doesn't make it fact;Or indeed that it's only now just becoming.


3.5 as is has most of the problems you hurl at 4.0 as we believe it will be. You're either not cognizant of them, or you're willfully ignoring them. Either way, this doesn't seem very wise.Ditto.


Then why do they choose to be commoners?Apathy?



Well, it's not /just/ Earthdawn, but yesh, most systems just don't give a damn.Yeah, WW does that as well, for pretty much the same reasons.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Apathy?


If you're apathetic, you want to be a Cleric. Why work the land when you can just cast Create Food and Water once a day?

[Rutee]

Not even that. It's totally possible for somebody who is, in character, a "Cleric" (that is to say, a priest or clergyman) to be of any class at all. A warrior-priest could easily be represented by a Fighter with a few ranks in Knowledge: Religion.

This.. is true, though I hadn't thought of it. They could just be Experts with a parish who lead the parish in worship, I guess.


Or indeed that it's only now just becoming.

Ditto.
I don't follow.


Apathy?
But it's just as much work, by RAW!


Yeah, WW does that as well, for pretty much the same reasons.
I was thinking more like parody settings, like the ones in OotS or the Disgaea-verse, where the characters recognize class/level in-character

[Dan_Hemmens]

This.. is true, though I hadn't thought of it. They could just be Experts with a parish who lead the parish in worship, I guess.


Of course that would imply that the role of a priest in D&D is in any way related to actually worshiping a god, rather than healing, turning undead irrespective of a deity's actual stance on necromancy, and bashing things with blunt weapons.

[horseboy]

I don't follow.
The first was the implication of the decades of video games based off of D&D rule sets, the second was me agreeing with you. I can see why you'd be confused by such things.


I was thinking more like parody settings, like the ones in OotS or the Disgaea-verse, where the characters recognize class/level in-character
Oh, like Paranoia, where your level is part of your name. Oh yeah, forgot those.

[Rutee]

The first was the implication of the decades of video games based off of D&D rule sets, the second was me agreeing with you. I can see why you'd be confused by such things.
Something about the wording, sorry.


Oh, like Paranoia, where your level is part of your name. Oh yeah, forgot those.

Yeah, something like that XD


Of course that would imply that the role of a priest in D&D is in any way related to actually worshiping a god, rather than healing, turning undead irrespective of a deity's actual stance on necromancy, and bashing things with blunt weapons.
Madness, I know.

[EvilElitest]

1. That doesn't matter. You said GURPS is just as good at the recreation of dramatic archetypes. It doesn't care. At all. That means it's not as good.
2. I didn't misquote you. Those are your exact words, and if you meant to say something else, you should edit or rephrase. The thing is, you're levelling criticisms against 4e as if they don't exist in 3rd ed. That, and you have still failed to answer a very important question; If it isn't going to be an encounter in some fashion for the PCs, do you stat it?

1. Um, you can make any dramatic arch Type in GURPS, you just need to spend your points right
2. You accused me of not critising 3E, when i am quite aware of its short comings
3. Well i did you know, already answer this here


Monsters get it even worst, they seem to only exist for the sake of a single encounter (according to the quote) and good monsters aren't expected to be stated because they won't fight hte PCs (what about evil PCs? Or misunderstandings? Or when they help the PCS against something else? How do they act when fighting evil ect?)
also fighting isn't the only way that NPCs and PCs interact. You don't need to make their stats exist only for them fighting. For example, even if the PCs aren't going to fight the arch angle, i want to know what he can do, what powers he has, how great he is, what abilities he can use ect.



Classes are nothing more or less then ability sets by which players can create what they see as their character; A way to bring the living concept to mechanical life. If only half a dozen people are particularly special, that's up to the players to justify. Are you aware of why I've brought up various forms of fiction? Because of this repeated claim that it kills consistency. No, it doesn't, and past fiction is the proof of this.

1. You havn't really brought up that may forms of fiction
2. And fiction and a RPG are fundimentally different
3. And world inconsistency is in fact not good for consistency even in fiction if it isn't explained
4. Why are these half dozen dudes (and anyone who happens to meet up with them after one dies) special? Why do all of the monsters in the world seem to exist for the sole purpose of dying at their hands? Why are the NPCs totally useless? As a said like a video game
5. I'm aware you've brought this up, you just haven't proved to be very convicing, nor addressed the issues i want to know most




No, the average person in the world can't say any of that, with the exception of "Clerics draw their powers from deities". The average commoner is going to know exactly this much about Wizards: They're scary. You're confusing the class giving rules to the world with the class giving rules by which we understand the setting's magic system; The magic system is what sets those rules. Hence the King Lear quote; You're confusing the order of operations here. You're treating the setting as existing for the mechanical rules, not the other way around (Which, since you're such a fan of making pejorative comparisons to video games, is typically how such games work.)

Why not? Define average? The elven commoner who lived in an urban area could figure things out by watching or talking to the local city cleric and wizard. The average expert who studies in a library would know this. The average cleric, wizard or adept could figure this out, or anyone who talks to them. The average historian, or scholar would be aware of this. Magic is a real force in D&D, and like any real force, people will study it, research it, try to understand how it works. Now if magic in D&D was free form that would be fine, but it isn't. Divine magic and arcane magic are fundamentally different, Wizards and Binders are very different because of these rules, in the same way that Clerics and Favored Souls are different. Magic has rules, almost Academic you might say (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA)
The more high powered your magic is, the more likely that people will try to understand and harass it. Now why would half a dozen dudes do that? The only justification for it is because "They are the PCs". And frankly, that is a total BS, it is like when a character in the book gets super powers or gets a special coincidence/Deus Ex Machina "Because he is the Hero"
Logically in a magic high world, why would people now try to study, understand and harass it.




Two big reasons. The first, protagonists are special, always. That's the point. Read fiction, EE. Or watch it, I don't care. Protagonists, whether or not they're declared Chosen Ones, are almost always different and special, especially in fantasy.
For somebody who tells me to read fiction, you seem to not understand some of the tenants of good writing, AKA that is a total BS reason. In Fiction and in Roleplaying game, "They are the main characters" doesn't cut it an excuse for them to be special, you need a better reason than that, at least a hand waved reason. In fiction it is cliche and bad writer, in Roleplaying Games it is annoying, inconsistent and normally just blood stupid. Sure if you play a game and the PCs are particularly the chosen ones, however if every single game i like this this gets absurd.

And in fiction, we can wind up with the Designated Hero (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DesignatedHero) or the Mary Sue (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue) and nobody wants that

Second, because these particular characters /have actual players/. THough, I wonder if you could use the NPC creation rules to make PCs, since it's more customized.. hm...
That shouldn't matter. When the half dozen group shows up, there should be other blokes out their like them. Why are these half dozen better. Well presumable, they just do better and earn the fame and glory that they are accounted to. In a fantasy world i'd expect other NPCs like our group wandering around. If casters are fairly common (because our of the group of six, most will be casters of some sort) i'd expect other people to be casters and they will make a difference in the world. Otherwise things are just silly



See, you're making assumptions. "They're worse combatants then fighters of the same level" is true when they're the same level, but who recognizes level? Do all Rogues hide? You're treating a class as a badge of identification
In a realistic world people won't be going "oh that guy is a level 10 rogue) but anyone who focuses their energy on becoming a rouge simple won't be as good as a full fighter



With a name like that? Of course not. The default is Silver and Golden age comics, but it can be applied to literally any genre. Look through it, seriously.


is this what your talking about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutants_and_Masterminds



As I said above, you're treating the setting as a vehicle for the mechanics, rather then the mechanics as a vehicle for the setting.

No, i want the mechanics to be a setting, not like this http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameplayAndStorySegregation,it ruins the willing suspension of disbelief


Why do you see in myself your own traits? I suppose it's true what they say, "A liar never trusts others."

Most likely because making these unfounded accusations and insults against me, you reveal a good deal about your self? now how am i liar?


I didn't misunderstand your game post, EE. It's just irrelevant. You're acting like only video games treat the protagonists and the antagonists differently. That's why I keep bringing up fiction; I'm showing to you consistent, or mostly consistent, worlds where the protagonists and the antagonists are very clearly not working on the same rules as each other. You cling to a few video games as proof that it makes DnD like a video game; I point to the much larger mass of fiction that has existed since long before your birth.
except video games, unlike fiction, have mechanics. If we played some sort of storytelling imagination game then that would be exactly like a book i suppose, but both video game and mechanics have player control (the reader has no control over where the story goes, ever. No matter how many times i scream at my copy of Death Note for L to not trust Light, it will never change. I have no control over a novel. In a video game i, the player have power over the world. But the mechanics of the world don't match with the world




1. As I said above; Just because your limited experience means that to you, DnD is becoming like a video doesn't make it fact; The simple truth of the matter is that protagonists don't usually operate on the same bylaws as antagonists, we just don't usually have mechanical proof of this.
2. And? Even as mostly machine and old, he defeated more skilled and trained jedi then Luke (And I don't /just/ mean Obi-wan.) Why could Luke succeed where those other Jedi failed? Jack Zander hit on it; Because the plot demanded it. Yes. Yes that is exactly why Luke works on different rules from the other NPCs.
3. He's special. He's not like other people. He can manage so much more in so much less time. This doesn't strike you as operating on different rules? This doesn't seem like a reason why PCs can be different from NPCs?
4. He gained it (Partially) through study? Really? Remind me, can PC Wizards gain exp by studying in an ivory tower?
1. Why di you say i have limited experience, recognizing the difference between a novel and roleplaying game doesn't mean i don't read fiction, don't misquote me Rutee. As for Protagonists not operating on the same laws as antagoinists, to the contrary, they often do, but the two of them are different. Give specific examples
2. Um, in case your not aware, Star Wars isn't a rolplaying game, and even as a piece of fiction the power of the plot still tends to be bad form. There are no NPCs in Star Wars. however, it is worth pointing out that Vader wasn't fighting very well in any of his sword duels in the old trilogy. You really are helping our point, because Luke defeated Vader, that does nothing to prove your point really
3. This might come as a surprise, but the real world isn't like D&D, and books don't have mechanics. Holmes is a mental genius, that has nothing to do with him being a "PC" because it is a book, not a game. holmes is special, he is unique, that is an established concept in the books.
4. I think that Elminster also adventured for a while, but if you assign Roleplaying or Quest EXP, then yes a Wizard can gain levels/spells in an irony tower



1. What do I care about your mass of irrelevant video game examples?
2. Sometimes, however, it's just more dramatic if the BBEG faces off with them alone. Except the action penalty, as DnD currently stands, is crippling; One /must/ have them operate on different rules. Why do you think Dragons are so easy to take down for their CR compared to a party of classed NPCs?

1. Because it addresses the issues far more than your rant about literature, as Video games unlike Literature are like roleplaying games in that they are both Games, not books
2. Well if a villain is going to fight six dudes alone for the sake of drama, they he better be powerful or he is pretty damn stupid. However the deal with dragons, that i because the game's mechanics aren't balanced enough.


Actually, the rules as printed do. Check WBL; WBL is higher for PCs then NPCs. And no, just because the NPC has lower ability scores then a PC doesn't make them an Adept; Adept is a lack of formal training, not a lack of ability, going by the fluff.

Not all NPCs, just the random dudes. Nothing keeps an NPC from having the same stats as the PCs, nor the same classes nor the same power. you could have a wizard with natrual 18's in everything i suppose, PC or NPC (freaking weird though)


3.5 as is has most of the problems you hurl at 4.0 as we believe it will be. You're either not cognizant of them, or you're willfully ignoring them. Either way, this doesn't seem very wise.


No, because NPCs can and do have NPCs classes, they function using hte same rules and NPCs and they are given stats. NPCs and PCs both can have the same classes. 3E had problems, but not those problems



None of these are requisites for PCs, by RAW.

Be realistic. Check the starting age for each class. Also, realistically random people would need to have those things to want to become wizards or whatnot. If your town doesn't have a wizard, why would you Commonor Bob Become one?


You recognize that the way you act, this is possessed by literally everyone, right?
and the way you act, only half a dozen guys are aware of it


Then why do they choose to be commoners?

Because it is easier to become? Because the many people with bad scores can become them. Because they helps solve problems now instead of later. Because to become a PC class you'd need special training and time



No, this is taking you at your words. What you claim to be "misquoting" is probably a communication error on your end.


Why on my end? Bias aren't you?



The Races and Classes quote isn't a reflection of new design philosophy. It's exactly as they've been acting for 3 editions previously. I can probably find the quote in the DMG that says roughly the same thing.


1. Um, yes it is, that is why its under the whole "new ideas" part
2. Go ahead

from
EE

[horseboy]

4. Why are these half dozen dudes (and anyone who happens to meet up with them after one dies) special?Talent. Some people would have talent in adventuring, some wouldn't. Granted RAW doesn't really acknowledge such a thing, but combine it with drive and it's a perfectly easy explanation between "Why can the PC's do things everyone else can't". Anyone with talent and drive can be an equal to PC's, but few actually do.
Why do all of the monsters in the world seem to exist for the sole purpose of dying at their hands? Why are the NPCs totally useless? Bad GMing.


Why not? Define average? The elven commoner who lived in an urban area could figure things out by watching or talking to the local city cleric and wizard.Oh, he could try, but if they're anything like real world academics they'd just tell you "because I said so, now go read a book before you can speak to me. T


That shouldn't matter. When the half dozen group shows up, there should be other blokes out their like them. Why are these half dozen better. Well presumable, they just do better and earn the fame and glory that they are accounted to. In a fantasy world i'd expect other NPCs like our group wandering around. If casters are fairly common (because our of the group of six, most will be casters of some sort) i'd expect other people to be casters and they will make a difference in the world. Otherwise things are just silly
Well, that's things we haven't seen yet about 4th. As far as I'm concerned WotC will fail in almost every way imaginable way possible. But I'm willing to let them have the benefit of the doubt in that a group of NPC's must be able to challenge the PC's.


In a realistic world people won't be going "oh that guy is a level 10 rogue) but anyone who focuses their energy on becoming a rouge simple won't be as good as a full fighterIf a rogue can kill a person faster than a fighter (sneak attack damage) how is he a worse fighter than a full fighter?


2. Um, in case your not aware, Star Wars isn't a rolplaying game, and even as a piece of fiction the power of the plot still tends to be bad form. There are no NPCs in Star Wars. however, it is worth pointing out that Vader wasn't fighting very well in any of his sword duels in the old trilogy. You really are helping our point, because Luke defeated Vader, that does nothing to prove your point reallyAnd here's where a new edition war flares up. Vader actually learned how to sword fight between 3 and 4. Anakin just flipped around like a spaz on a fish line and burned his force points. Vader actually knew what a doublee was.

If your town doesn't have a wizard, why would you Commonor Bob Become one?Because it beats farming and apparently there's an opening.

[Rutee]

1. Um, you can make any dramatic arch Type in GURPS, you just need to spend your points right
2. You accused me of not critising 3E, when i am quite aware of its short comings
3. Well i did you know, already answer this here
1. You /can/... it's not built to support specifically dramatic archetypes though. It's exactly like what I was talking about with Dizzy; DnD might be able to handle truly mobile.. with jobbing and potentially, vast ineffectiveness.. but it's not /meant/ to do so.
2. Then why do you bring up things that aren't new problems to DnD?



also fighting isn't the only way that NPCs and PCs interact. You don't need to make their stats exist only for them fighting. For example, even if the PCs aren't going to fight the arch angle, i want to know what he can do, what powers he has, how great he is, what abilities he can use ect.
Why do you want to know what the Arch Angel can do? I for one, couldn't care less what his combat capabilities are if he's not going to fight, and if he's not going to be an encounter on any level (I use the word "Encounter" because there are conflicts that are not fighting), I just don't care about his numbers.



1. You havn't really brought up that may forms of fiction
2. And fiction and a RPG are fundimentally different
3. And world inconsistency is in fact not good for consistency even in fiction if it isn't explained
4. Why are these half dozen dudes (and anyone who happens to meet up with them after one dies) special? Why do all of the monsters in the world seem to exist for the sole purpose of dying at their hands? Why are the NPCs totally useless? As a said like a video game
5. I'm aware you've brought this up, you just haven't proved to be very convicing, nor addressed the issues i want to know most
1. Gee, excuse me for not expecting you to know what a Radio Drama is. Books, TVs, and Movies are the big mediums.
2. No, not necessarily. What /you/ want out of an RPG isn't what you get out of 99% of all fiction, true, but that doesn't mean it's the only purpose to an RPG; What /I/ want out of an RPG is storytelling opportunities. In other words, the opportunity to make fiction with anywhere from 1-6 other people, generally. They're only fundamentally different if you want them to be; And it's perfectly valid for you to want them to be different.
3. World inconsistency isn't automatically ruined because there are a few truly exceptional people. It's only ruined if there's no reason whatsoever. But I cover that below.


4. Why are these half dozen dudes (and anyone who happens to meet up with them after one dies) special? Why do all of the monsters in the world seem to exist for the sole purpose of dying at their hands? Why are the NPCs totally useless? As a said like a video game
In order:
The reasons (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CursedWithAwesome) for why a (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppliedPhlebotinum) hero is exceptional (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharlesAtlasSuperpower) are almost as (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PsychicPowers) legion as the (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LamarckWasRight) number of heroes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FreakLabAccident) who will rise to answer (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IKnowMortalKombat) The Call (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JumpedAtTheCall). Why are all the monsters only there to die? Because your GM sucks, frankly. All NPCs shoudl be there because they're relevant to y'all's story, for whatever reason, not as random encounters. Why are NPCs useless? There are lots of reasons; Maybe your GM is sadistic likes to have you pull escort duty. Maybe the NPC just isn't supposed to be useful because he's not powerful. Maybe the GM, of all the horrible things in the world that she could do, /doesn't want to overshadow the PCs/.


Why not? Define average? The elven commoner who lived in an urban area could figure things out by watching or talking to the local city cleric and wizard. The average expert who studies in a library would know this. The average cleric, wizard or adept could figure this out, or anyone who talks to them. The average historian, or scholar would be aware of this. Magic is a real force in D&D, and like any real force, people will study it, research it, try to understand how it works. Now if magic in D&D was free form that would be fine, but it isn't. Divine magic and arcane magic are fundamentally different, Wizards and Binders are very different because of these rules, in the same way that Clerics and Favored Souls are different. Magic has rules,
Average /is/ tricky, actually, but within the default medieval world that DnD uses, the honest answer is "Because the average commoner is an uneducated slob who's lucky he can tie his shoes together in the morning and probably can't read". People in the middle ages were freaking stupid from a lack of education. Average Int, they have; Knowledge skills, they ain't got. A DC 10 Knowledge: Arcana check might tell you about a few weak spells, but it isn't going to be much. And no, the average cleric, wizard, or adept is only going to be levels 1-4. If the commoner is lucky, this friendly cleric/wizard/adept has Spellcraft +10 or so, and can on average tell them at /absolute most/ about 5th level spells. That's assuming you got a smart one, who's also maxed out spellcraft, which I don't think a village anything can do. They'll likely have professions and whatnot that also eat away at the limitted skill points of the class.. In-setting, Arcane and Divine Magic can be different for reasons far and away beyond "The rulebook says so", to boot. Magic has rules, sure, but if higher spell levels indicate a greater understanding of the rules, even the village wizard (Paragon of might that he is) is not going to understand them that well.


The more high powered your magic is, the more likely that people will try to understand and harass it. Now why would half a dozen dudes do that? The only justification for it is because "They are the PCs". And frankly, that is a total BS, it is like when a character in the book gets super powers or gets a special coincidence/Deus Ex Machina "Because he is the Hero"
Logically in a magic high world, why would people now try to study, understand and harass it.
First off, you've made this typo repeatedly; The word is "Harness", as in, "To make use of", not "Harass", as in, "To cause irritation; To frustrate the plans of".

That said, you're a fan of Lord of the Rings, are you not? Are not Aragorn, Legolas, Gandalf, and Gimli exceptional people? It's 'DEM', sure, but the simple fact is, no matter how consistent you make it, it comes back to the fact that PCs are better. And not every DnD game is a high magic world; It /has/ awesome, powerful magic, but that magic isn't /common/.


For somebody who tells me to read fiction, you seem to not understand some of the tenants of good writing, AKA that is a total BS reason. In Fiction and in Roleplaying game, "They are the main characters" doesn't cut it an excuse for them to be special, you need a better reason than that, at least a hand waved reason. In fiction it is cliche and bad writer, in Roleplaying Games it is annoying, inconsistent and normally just blood stupid. Sure if you play a game and the PCs are particularly the chosen ones, however if every single game i like this this gets absurd.
My bad. I guess the tale of King Arthur was utter ****. And for that matter, Chaucer and Homer failed at writing epics. Thanks for the enlightenment, random teenager on the internet. Oh wait..

Everything is cliche. It's usually just not addressed, or it just comes down to "The character is more talented, and more capable". Why is anyone more talented or capable then anyone else in the real world? Why are Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and Gandalf better then anyone (I freaking know, I'm not asking for an explanation) I know why those characters are better; Fact of the matter is, whether the heroes are special because they're heroes, or whether the special people become heroes, the end result is the same. Major protagonists are special. (I'm aware the Hobbits aren't /terribly/ so, but even they turned out to be more useful then the average halfling)


And in fiction, we can wind up with the Designated Hero (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DesignatedHero) or the Mary Sue (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue) and nobody wants that
Designated Hero is a /morality/ trope. Read them before you grab stuff that sounds right from Eragon's TV Tropes page. Mary Sue happens when you're astronomically, untouchably better, not "better", or everyone who won a fight would be a Mary Sue (Because the end result is, the 'better' combatant won)


That shouldn't matter. When the half dozen group shows up, there should be other blokes out their like them. Why are these half dozen better. Well presumable, they just do better and earn the fame and glory that they are accounted to. In a fantasy world i'd expect other NPCs like our group wandering around. If casters are fairly common (because our of the group of six, most will be casters of some sort) i'd expect other people to be casters and they will make a difference in the world. Otherwise things are just silly
Maybe a few. But I already went over why, in principle, the PCs would be better. They obviously need equals, but it's not like they'd be commonplace.


In a realistic world people won't be going "oh that guy is a level 10 rogue) but anyone who focuses their energy on becoming a rouge simple won't be as good as a full fighter
How can you as a character possibly glean this from other people? All you can really know is BAB/Demonstrated martial abilities (EG Maneuvers, Sneak Attack, etc). A level 8 Rogue has just as much BAB as a level 6 fighter. Comparing against each other, you should figure it out, but this isn't information you can strictly know from an NPC.


is this what your talking about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutants_and_Masterminds
Yes. Pretty spiffy system, and you're used to D20 already.


No, i want the mechanics to be a setting, not like this http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameplayAndStorySegregation,it ruins the willing suspension of disbelief
See, that's just it; You want the mechanics established first (Or seem to), and then want the setting written to those mechanics. This is exactly how video games handle it, and it's not a bad way to go. That's what I'm talking about. Personally, I prefer writing the setting first, then matching the mechanics to it, but either way.



Most likely because making these unfounded accusations and insults against me, you reveal a good deal about your self? now how am i liar?
I didn't call you a liar. That was an adage, to be taken in Metaphor.



except video games, unlike fiction, have mechanics. If we played some sort of storytelling imagination game then that would be exactly like a book i suppose, but both video game and mechanics have player control (the reader has no control over where the story goes, ever. No matter how many times i scream at my copy of Death Note for L to not trust Light, it will never change. I have no control over a novel. In a video game i, the player have power over the world. But the mechanics of the world don't match with the world
You're placing too much importance on the mechanics. Mechanics are only there so we have something less arbitrary then "GM says X wins" the majority of the time.

Either way, this doesn't address the fact that video games are not alone in implicitly having the protagonists work differently from the antagonists.




1. Why di you say i have limited experience, recognizing the difference between a novel and roleplaying game doesn't mean i don't read fiction, don't misquote me Rutee. As for Protagonists not operating on the same laws as antagoinists, to the contrary, they often do, but the two of them are different. Give specific examples
I'm not misquoting you. I'm drawing conclusions from your statements. And here's the kicker; I've already listed several examples. Here's another; anything with a Red Shirt Army.


2. Um, in case your not aware, Star Wars isn't a rolplaying game, and even as a piece of fiction the power of the plot still tends to be bad form. There are no NPCs in Star Wars. however, it is worth pointing out that Vader wasn't fighting very well in any of his sword duels in the old trilogy. You really are helping our point, because Luke defeated Vader, that does nothing to prove your point really
Oh right, you're young; You don't understand that trope-makers get some askance from /using the tropes they made/. There are tons of NPCs in star wars, regardless; It's called "Every Red Shirt on both sides of the firing line". Wedge Antilles (Within the movies). Admiral Ackbar. Admiral Ozzel. They were /legion/, as armies and navies battled constantly. At any rate, Luke beating Vader was a half-trained, inexperienced young'un nearly matching an extremely experienced (Albeit aged somewhat), superbly powerful Sith. There's no way you could claim they 'followed the same rules'. Logically, that shouldn't have happened at all.


3. This might come as a surprise, but the real world isn't like D&D, and books don't have mechanics. Holmes is a mental genius, that has nothing to do with him being a "PC" because it is a book, not a game. holmes is special, he is unique, that is an established concept in the books.
Dear, I'm aware books don't have mechanics. Thing is, that's not important to me. The mechanics aren't, in any sense, the point, as far as I'm concerned. The mechanics are there to serve the story, not the other way around.



4. I think that Elminster also adventured for a while, but if you assign Roleplaying or Quest EXP, then yes a Wizard can gain levels/spells in an irony tower
By RAW, a Wizard can't get exp from studying though, despite the logical fact that they /should/; After all, they'll learn more about the arcane laws burying themselves in their studies then they would wanderring the world. Most clerics would probably commune better with their God through constant communication (And some holy quests). Fighters don't get it from training in the yard, even though that's a good way to understand what they do. The only real way to get exp is to farm mobs until they're gray go adventuring, whatever that means to your GM, within the book.




1. Because it addresses the issues far more than your rant about literature, as Video games unlike Literature are like roleplaying games in that they are both Games, not books
No. No it doesn't. It theoretically explains your concerns, but in no manner does it adress them; In any case, your examples /are still irrelevant/. You're basing the worst possible cases off the worst possible reading of the preview material.


2. Well if a villain is going to fight six dudes alone for the sake of drama, they he better be powerful or he is pretty damn stupid.
You just don't get drama, do you? I mean, I know why you say they're stupid; In any realistic sense, that is. But it's dramatic, and as it stands, nigh impossible to properly pull off, in a mechanics sense, if you build an NPC under the PC rules.


However the deal with dragons, that i because the game's mechanics aren't balanced enough.
And they never will be, if they're limitted to only taking one action per turn as they are now. The action penalty is a problem that can turn battles into "Save or TPK", which isn't interesting.



Not all NPCs, just the random dudes. Nothing keeps an NPC from having the same stats as the PCs, nor the same classes nor the same power. you could have a wizard with natrual 18's in everything i suppose, PC or NPC (freaking weird though)
Those are the rules for NPCs. They have less WBL then the PCs. That keeps them from having the same power by itself. And nothing /still/ keeps them from having that same power in 4e, aside from the WBL (Potentially, but it'd be smart, and be like 3e). That's what you keep on missing.


No, because NPCs can and do have NPCs classes, they function using hte same rules and NPCs and they are given stats. NPCs and PCs both can have the same classes. 3E had problems, but not those problems
....Neither does 4e! I suppose there's no problem then, thread over!




Be realistic. Check the starting age for each class. Also, realistically random people would need to have those things to want to become wizards or whatnot. If your town doesn't have a wizard, why would you Commonor Bob Become one?
RAW isn't realistic though, or places no importance on that realism. You're debating the rules, are you not?



and the way you act, only half a dozen guys are aware of it
Not true. You're the one who put forth the claim that only the PCs know of it. I'm just not acting like the knowledge would be commonplace; There /are/ middle grounds.


Because it is easier to become? Because the many people with bad scores can become them. Because they helps solve problems now instead of later. Because to become a PC class you'd need special training and time
RAW has none of this as a requisite, you know..



Why on my end? Bias aren't you?
....The irony! She is delicious! It's bias when I say the problem's on your end, but when you say the problem's on mine, it's perfectly natural!


1. Um, yes it is, that is why its under the whole "new ideas" part
2. Go ahead
1. Putting it under "New ideas" doesn't make it new, dear.
2. Go look at the MM. There are 3 Angels, 3 Archons, and a big bootload of Demons and Devils. Most listings in the MM are either evil, or stupid (Constructs, Beasts).

[Crow]

You realize EE is actually an AI spawned from these boards, right? You can go on endlessly with him, but can never win. Eventually your frail flesh will require sleep.

Anyhow, as to why he might want to know what the Arch-Angel can do, I will plug in my own answer. Because my players will somehow turn the situation into a fight.

[EvilElitest]

Talent. Some people would have talent in adventuring, some wouldn't. Granted RAW doesn't really acknowledge such a thing, but combine it with drive and it's a perfectly easy explanation between "Why can the PC's do things everyone else can't". Anyone with talent and drive can be an equal to PC's, but few actually do.

Exactly, PC classes are signs of talented people. However, that would mean that there would still be plenty of talented people. however only a half dozen? that isn't talent, that is freaking chosen one right their. I'd expect maybe a quarter of the population to be "talented" maybe less depending on the world, but not only a half dozen


Bad GMing.
Or 4E apparently


Oh, he could try, but if they're anything like real world academics they'd just tell you "because I said so, now go read a book before you can speak to me. T
You apperenlty haven't studied philosophy, or miltary matters. People do want to understand how the world works


Well, that's things we haven't seen yet about 4th. As far as I'm concerned WotC will fail in almost every way imaginable way possible. But I'm willing to let them have the benefit of the doubt in that a group of NPC's must be able to challenge the PC's.
Quick question, by challenge do you mean in the "Oh look is a group of NPCs who have been specially tailored to fight the PCs" or "Hey it is bunch of NPCs who are similarity's made to the PCs and just as dangerous"


If a rogue can kill a person faster than a fighter (sneak attack damage) how is he a worse fighter than a full fighter?
In straight fighting? No? In killing quickly. Hell yeah


And here's where a new edition war flares up. Vader actually learned how to sword fight between 3 and 4. Anakin just flipped around like a spaz on a fish line and burned his force points. Vader actually knew what a doublee was.


Exactly



1. You /can/... it's not built to support specifically dramatic archetypes though. It's exactly like what I was talking about with Dizzy; DnD might be able to handle truly mobile.. with jobbing and potentially, vast ineffectiveness.. but it's not /meant/ to do so.
2. Then why do you bring up things that aren't new problems to DnD?
1. I don't think Dizzy is an archtype, but i imagine you could make a class for her
2. Except 3E doesn't have the NPCs and Pcs following different rules, that was an improvement from 2E


Why do you want to know what the Arch Angel can do? I for one, couldn't care less what his combat capabilities are if he's not going to fight, and if he's not going to be an encounter on any level (I use the word "Encounter" because there are conflicts that are not fighting), I just don't care about his numbers.
how simplistic. If i saw one, i'd want to know
What can it do
How does it fight evil
What does it do
How does it use its powers
How could it use its powers
What traits are innate to arch angles
Simple saying it or any other creature exist for the sole purpose of interacting with the PCs then fading away is silly, it should interact with the PCs yes, but i want it to exist outside their world. I want, in case the situation comes up, for it to have powers. I want it to have abilities of its own that make sense. Otherwise we have the Drench, Lemure problem

1. Gee, excuse me for not expecting you to know what a Radio Drama is. Books, TVs, and Movies are the big mediums.
2. No, not necessarily. What /you/ want out of an RPG isn't what you get out of 99% of all fiction, true, but that doesn't mean it's the only purpose to an RPG; What /I/ want out of an RPG is storytelling opportunities. In other words, the opportunity to make fiction with anywhere from 1-6 other people, generally. They're only fundamentally different if you want them to be; And it's perfectly valid for you to want them to be different.
3. World inconsistency isn't automatically ruined because there are a few truly exceptional people. It's only ruined if there's no reason whatsoever. But I cover that below.
1. I find it funny that you call me insulting, when you have just said i have no understanding of fiction, basing that accusation upon nothing, and then accuse me of only listening to Radio Dramas. Stop wasting time and misquoting me Rutee
2. Fiction and RPGs are different. What i want out of a fiction book is far different than what i want out of an RPG. If you want a story telling game, drop mechanics totally
3. their is a difference between Talent and Chosen one skills


NPCs totally useless? As a said like a video game
In order:

The reasons for why a hero is exceptional are almost as legion as the number of heroes who will rise to answer The Call.
what should this be limited to a half dozen guys then


Why are all the monsters only there to die? Because your GM sucks, frankly.
Or 4E is going for the whole "hack and slash kill it" approach all over again, because monsters aren't suppose to exist outside combat and seem to exist only for one fight with the PCs. How does that not scream Random Encounter?



All NPCs shoudl be there because they're relevant to y'all's story, for whatever reason, not as random encounters. Why are NPCs useless? There are lots of reasons; Maybe your GM is sadistic likes to have you pull escort duty. Maybe the NPC just isn't supposed to be useful because he's not powerful. Maybe the GM, of all the horrible things in the world that she could do, /doesn't want to overshadow the PCs/.
1. I"m the DM
2. They should be more than just relevant to the story, they should exist outside the story.
3. Overshadow? That depends, if handled properly the PCs shouldn't feel constricted unless they are arrogant bastards who demand to be super from the get go in a manner similar to DM of the Rings. You can have powerful NPC who don't overshadow the PCs, it is rather simple. However if the PCs do something stupid like attacking them directly at low levels, then they should expect to get owned



Average /is/ tricky, actually, but within the default medieval world that DnD uses, the honest answer is "Because the average commoner is an uneducated slob who's lucky he can tie his shoes together in the morning and probably can't read". People in the middle ages were freaking stupid from a lack of education. Average Int, they have; Knowledge skills, they ain't got. A DC 10 Knowledge: Arcana check might tell you about a few weak spells, but it isn't going to be much. And no, the average cleric, wizard, or adept is only going to be levels 1-4. If the commoner is lucky, this friendly cleric/wizard/adept has Spellcraft +10 or so, and can on average tell them at /absolute most/ about 5th level spells. That's assuming you got a smart one, who's also maxed out spellcraft, which I don't think a village anything can do. They'll likely have professions and whatnot that also eat away at the limitted skill points of the class..
In-setting, Arcane and Divine Magic can be different for reasons far and away beyond "The rulebook says so", to boot. Magic has rules, sure, but if higher spell levels indicate a greater understanding of the rules, even the village wizard (Paragon of might that he is) is not going to understand them that well.
Right, but the rules still exist. They are established, and the more intellegent NPCs, and the PCs will know them. So why aren't people following the rules?



That said, you're a fan of Lord of the Rings, are you not? Are not Aragorn, Legolas, Gandalf, and Gimli exceptional people? It's 'DEM', sure, but the simple fact is, no matter how consistent you make it, it comes back to the fact that PCs are better. And not every DnD game is a high magic world; It /has/ awesome, powerful magic, but that magic isn't /common/.
1. Ever read DM of the Rings?
2. I'm a fan of LOTRS yes, but i realize it isn't a role playing game, it is a novel, and I expect totally different things from it. The main characters are the PCs, because they aren't Player Characters, they are really NPC is you think about it, because nobody is playing them
3. Legolas, Gimli and Aragorn have been training for years proir to the books to become badass and Gandalf is a good apparently
4. D&D can be high, low, or mid magic technically, but magic will and does make a massive difference.



My bad. I guess the tale of King Arthur was utter ****. And for that matter, Chaucer and Homer failed at writing epics. Thanks for the enlightenment, random teenager on the internet. Oh wait..
some day Rutee, you will be able to read an comprehend what i say without misinterpreting things (i feel like i should make a freaking podcast and just link it). King Arthur is powerful, but he has a reason for being so powerful. It isn't "Duh your the chosen one" or "he lived through that because he is the hero" he becomes good over the course of the adventure. And he screws up a lot to. He isn't relying on Deus Ex Machina, he isn't super from the get go, he works hard, trains, become a king, becomes great, and dies horrible, very epic
And Holmes may be a genius, but he still follow logical thought in his books. he is unique, because he is the main character of a book, not an RPG. Now in RPGs you are going to have half a dozen dudes, why would you have half a dozen Holmes, who don't even act like him?



Everything is cliche. It's usually just not addressed, or it just comes down to "The character is more talented, and more capable". Why is anyone more talented or capable then anyone else in the real world? Why are Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and Gandalf better then anyone (I freaking know, I'm not asking for an explanation) I know why those characters are better; Fact of the matter is, whether the heroes are special because they're heroes, or whether the special people become heroes, the end result is the same. Major protagonists are special. (I'm aware the Hobbits aren't /terribly/ so, but even they turned out to be more useful then the average halfling)
1. not everything is cliche, that is like saying there are no new ideas.
2. Protagonists can be special, whey their is reason. Aragorn has been training for a few hundred years, and is unique from everyone else, because he is one dude and is a character in a book. However the PCs in a game will not be the super chosen ones necessarily (unless 4E is adding something) unless they say so in their background, they will be a normal guys who are becoming powerful. Over time they get stronger and become real heroes and everybody loves them. However in 4E they are starting out special and super from the get go. And yet no reason is given other than "they are being played by PCs)


Designated Hero is a /morality/ trope. Read them before you grab stuff that sounds right from Eragon's TV Tropes page. Mary Sue happens when you're astronomically, untouchably better, not "better", or everyone who won a fight would be a Mary Sue (Because the end result is, the 'better' combatant won)

Do some reading Rutee, it is actually aCharacter as a Device (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharactersAsDevice). They are the heros and are super special awesome, for no given reason


Maybe a few. But I already went over why, in principle, the PCs would be better. They obviously need equals, but it's not like they'd be commonplace.
The PCs are more talented than the average joe, but they are special, other NPC wizards simliar to them would be expected to be in the world.


How can you as a character possibly glean this from other people? All you can really know is BAB/Demonstrated martial abilities (EG Maneuvers, Sneak Attack, etc). A level 8 Rogue has just as much BAB as a level 6 fighter. Comparing against each other, you should figure it out, but this isn't information you can strictly know from an NPC.
A better example would be caster, but you could tell he wasn't a trained fighter from the sneaking bit. Rouges are tricky of course, and you could go "Oh he is a rouge" but a character would be thinking he was a scout (not the class) or a stealthy dude or something to that effect


See, that's just it; You want the mechanics established first (Or seem to), and then want the setting written to those mechanics. This is exactly how video games handle it, and it's not a bad way to go. That's what I'm talking about. Personally, I prefer writing the setting first, then matching the mechanics to it, but either way.
no no no, that isn't it. I want the mechanics, the storyline, the fluff, the characters, the world, the realism, the plot, the people, the cultures, the magic and everything all neatly made into one package. I want have a written setting and mechanics that match the setting, not two separate things.


You're placing too much importance on the mechanics. Mechanics are only there so we have something less arbitrary then "GM says X wins" the majority of the time.
Mechanics are how the PCs physically effect the world, and they should be going hand and hand with meat (fluff), not separately


Either way, this doesn't address the fact that video games are not alone in implicitly having the protagonists work differently from the antagonists.
um, yes it does, because books/movies/radio shows don't have PCs as i said


except video games, unlike fiction, have mechanics. If we played some sort of storytelling imagination game then that would be exactly like a book i suppose, but both video game and mechanics have player control (the reader has no control over where the story goes, ever. No matter how many times i scream at my copy of Death Note for L to not trust Light, it will never change. I have no control over a novel. In a video game i, the player have power over the world. But the mechanics of the world don't match with the world


Oh right, you're young; You don't understand that trope-makers get some askance from /using the tropes they made/. There are tons of NPCs in star wars, regardless; It's called "Every Red Shirt on both sides of the firing line". Wedge Antilles (Within the movies). Admiral Ackbar. Admiral Ozzel. They were /legion/, as armies and navies battled constantly. At any rate, Luke beating Vader was a half-trained, inexperienced young'un nearly matching an extremely experienced (Albeit aged somewhat), superbly powerful Sith. There's no way you could claim they 'followed the same rules'. Logically, that shouldn't have happened at all.
um, those are fiction tropes, and as i said, movies and Games are two entirely different genres. Books and movies don't have NPCs, nor PCs they have characters, which are totally different. You can't make that distinction apparently, because a movie and a video game are very different mediums


Dear, I'm aware books don't have mechanics. Thing is, that's not important to me. The mechanics aren't, in any sense, the point, as far as I'm concerned. The mechanics are there to serve the story, not the other way around.
When i play D&D, i know my mechanical actions will effect the story. If i cast dire charm on a king, i can influence the world. So i ask my self, why hasn't anyone else done this before. When i see a city wall, i ask my self "Why don't they have any defenses against magic?" I expect Mechanics to work with the world to influence it. Wizards are wizards, clerics are clerics, psions are psions that is how the mechanics work, and thus the laws of magic work.


By RAW, a Wizard can't get exp from studying though, despite the logical fact that they /should/; After all, they'll learn more about the arcane laws burying themselves in their studies then they would wanderring the world. Most clerics would probably commune better with their God through constant communication (And some holy quests). Fighters don't get it from training in the yard, even though that's a good way to understand what they do. The only real way to get exp is to farm mobs until they're gray go adventuring, whatever that means to your GM, within the book.

I think their is an alternate rule that allows them too actually, but even if their wasn't, Elminister is a Mary Sue anyways


No. No it doesn't. It theoretically explains your concerns, but in no manner does it adress them; In any case, your examples /are still irrelevant/. You're basing the worst possible cases off the worst possible reading of the preview material.
1. prove this irrelevance then. All you have done is try to enlighten me on the nature of stories, and ignore the fact that games, unlike books have mechanics and that makes all of the difference
2. No, i'm pretty much just reading it as written.



You just don't get drama, do you? I mean, I know why you say they're stupid; In any realistic sense, that is. But it's dramatic, and as it stands, nigh impossible to properly pull off, in a mechanics sense, if you build an NPC under the PC rules.
1. I get drama, i just realize that any smart villain wouldn't do that for the sake of drama. You can have drama without stupid villains by the way, personally i think it is enhanced because the PCs realize that when they won,they were the ones who won through their own skill, not me being nice. Drama is not an excuse for the villain to be stupid, unless he is natrualy dramatic and/or tactically impaired
2. Well lets look at this logically, when you are up against six guys, it makes perfect sense that you would be hit six or more times before you could hit back. That is kinda the nature of going up against more people, hence why it is generally a bad idea


Those are the rules for NPCs. They have less WBL then the PCs. That keeps them from having the same power by itself. And nothing /still/ keeps them from having that same power in 4e, aside from the WBL (Potentially, but it'd be smart, and be like 3e). That's what you keep on missing.
1. WBl only applies to untalented NPCs, logically there would be plenty of NPCs who are basically PCs (read the sample NPCs in many books for example.)
2. No because a NPC exist simple as plot devices or one time combat encounters.


....Neither does 4e! I suppose there's no problem then, thread over
so p.14 must be a massive type i take it?


RAW has none of this as a requisite, you know..
A realistic world does


....The irony! She is delicious! It's bias when I say the problem's on your end, but when you say the problem's on mine, it's perfectly natural!
your the one who went against me without the addressing the issues



1. Putting it under "New ideas" doesn't make it new, dear.
2. Go look at the MM. There are 3 Angels, 3 Archons, and a big bootload of Demons and Devils. Most listings in the MM are either evil, or stupid (Constructs, Beasts).
1. It is the new direction 4E is going in, which i don't like
2. Um, that has nothing to do with the point, that is the nature of the monsters. They still follow the same rules as the PCs, how smart they are isn't the issue

And crow, insulting aren't you
from
EE

[Rutee]

Crow's sadly correct; He's just repeating the exact same things, and reminding me of why he's on ignore. And before you get to be a wise-aleck, it's not because you disagree with me. Note that Jack Zander and, uh, I guess Gaymer_Seattle aren't on ignore, despite disagreeing with me.

His screen name's ironic because he's not elite!

[Poison_Fish]

Actually, EE, crow has a fair point. You defy logic with your own, often enough, subjective logic and claim it for truth.

For instance, most of this argument's points are entirely on your subjective reasoning. Some quickly summed examples would be: Your views on how villains should act. The mechanics being tantamount for making a role-playing game's fluff (Please look up White Wolf sometime). Mechanics being high priority for a character decision(Did we even bring character personality into the issue? Does your character have a personality?).

It's why I usually do not bother fighting with you on most points.

In addition, because I really hate to get into an epistemological argument about philosophy but it's to juicy.


You apperenlty haven't studied philosophy, or miltary matters. People do want to understand how the world works[

Please be aware that the who and the how changes through out our own historic time when exploring for an explanation of how the world works. These same ideas of any age can be applied to when writing a fiction based background. Thus, a commoner could know all about magic, or he could not.

Oh, and one little bite to add into there EE


some day Rutee, you will be able to read an comprehend what i say without misinterpreting things

Someday, you'll use a spell check/other devices to accurately state what your saying rather then sum those who don't understand you as a failure on their part. Seriously, think about why communication fails rather then defaulting to that.

[Jack Zander]

Someday, you'll use a spell check/other devices to accurately state what your saying rather then sum those who don't understand you as a failure on their part. Seriously, think about why communication fails rather then defaulting to that.

Hey, he's been getting a lot better lately. I hear he got his spell checker back.

[Yahzi]

No. Everybody doesn't know that.
Everybody knew that in the real world.

The people who were proficient in heavy armor were obvious, because they were called "Sir." The skinny, old wizard types were equally obvious. The priests, who were often Sirs who had taken the cloth, were obvious.


You're still assuming that everybody goes around with their Class and Level tattoed on their face, and that everybody somehow knows everybody's class features, even the ones they never use.
I confess that I am assuming that people in the D&D world have a passing knowledge of the world that governs their life. I assume that everyone knows who can cure disease, and who cannot; that everyone has noticed that Sir Gallant can fall off the top of the castle and walk away from it; that everyone has noticed that some wizards are capably of flying and others aren't.


How are you supposed to know that the Dark Lord who can cast spells in armour quite happily has some funky Prestige Class which makes him different from a normal Wizard, and most of all why are you supposed to *care*?
Now you're off on the tangent of prestige classes again. To repeat: nobody objected to NPCs having special classes or even unknown classes. What we objected to was the notion that NPCs could not, or on a regular basis did not, have PC classes.


Do you really think that people in D&D settings sit down and think "Gosh, isn't it interesting that a priest and a thief, both equivalently skilled by the lights of their own craft, are equally well able to strike another man a telling blow with a simple weapon".
Since so much of D&D revolves around killing things, yes, I do. People talk like that about baseball. Everybody knows pitchers can't hit, and when you find a pitcher with a .750 batting average, people start asking if he's on steriods.


Please, please, please tell me where you are getting this "foes to kill" thing from.
It's a direct quote from WotC.



Not even that. It's totally possible for somebody who is, in character, a "Cleric" (that is to say, a priest or clergyman) to be of any class at all. A warrior-priest could easily be represented by a Fighter with a few ranks in Knowledge: Religion.
You don't think the other priests wouldn't notice that he can't cast healing spells?

It's no good to claim that classes are an abstraction, and then assign a specific set of abilities that cannot be duplicated by any other means.

In GURPS, "priest" is a profession. You can be a priest that heals or not. That's because healing is an ability which is not tied to a profession. I.e., GURPS is a classless system.

In D&D, all priests can heal. Even evil necromancer priests of the god of death can heal. If you can heal, you're a priest; if not, then you aren't. I.e., D&D is a class-based system.

People in the D&D world are going to notice this difference. People in the D&D world are going to know a lot about classes, just like people today know a lot about doctors, lawyers, and Marine Commandos. They know who can get what job done.



Why are all the monsters only there to die? Because your GM sucks, frankly.
No, Rutee. It's because your GM is playing the game the way it is written.

Time to drag out that actual quote, again:



We’ve talked elsewhere about some of the bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design—such as all monsters having to follow character creation rules, even though they’re supposed to be foes to kill, not player characters—
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080201a&pf=true

We all agree that NPCs are supposed to be real people, not just video-game puppets stuffed with XP. The difference is whether we think the rules should help us do that, or whether we think it's up to the DM to take a system with rules explicitly designed to subvert that process and yet still make it work.

Honestly, the only people who don't get it are WotC. Even Rutee-the-anything-goes can't believe in the gameworld WotC is trying to write.

We'd be happier if they let Rutee write 4e. It would probably come out more realistic. :smallbiggrin:

[EvilElitest]

Actually, EE, crow has a fair point. You defy logic with your own, often enough, subjective logic and claim it for truth.

Whine, whine, whine, can we get down to some real points please? we could spend all day exchanging various insults, and not a single point will get addressed, and quite frankly, i don't care what you people think of me, i don't care if you burn effigies of me at your house every day at midnight chanting Nightwish Lyrics (you aren't doing that right?) i care about the points. Any complaint about me not sitting down and surrendering to you "superior" arguing ability comes to mean nothing because frankly, it proves nothing and comes across as "I'd prove you wrong, but i'm to important"



For instance, most of this argument's points are entirely on your subjective reasoning.
Subjective?

one of 3rd Edition's advances was to model monsters using the same tools used to model player characters. 3rd Edition player characters and monsters calculate ability scores, hit points, saves, attack bonuses, and skill ranks using the same mechanical structure. 4th Edition recognizes the value of using the same tools for PCs and monsters, but opts to turn the tools to a new purpose.

The parameters and basic game mechanics for 4th Edition player characters are not identical to the rules and powers used by the world's monsters and nonplayer characters. The PCs are going to be on center stage for the life of the campaign and deserve all the power options and customization features that the system can bear. Monsters and most NPCs are lucky to appear more than once, particularly if they're encountered in combat situations.

So we've made 4th Edition simpler to run and play by simplifying monsters and NPCs. The new system is not overly concerned with simulating interactions between monsters and nonplayer characters when the PCs are not on stage. 4th Edition orients monster design (and, to some extent, NPC design) around what's fun for player characters to encounter as challenges. Intricate lists of abilities and multiple significant exceptions-based powers are reserved for the PCs rather than handed out to every monster.
Wow, now that i re-read that, how could i have possibly seen that as a message saying that monsters and PCs are different? Wow, i mean, it isn't like they said that monsters and NPCs are lucky if they appear more than once. Wow, i'm glad you enlightened me


Some quickly summed examples would be: Your views on how villains should act. The mechanics being tantamount for making a role-playing game's fluff (Please look up White Wolf sometime). Mechanics being high priority for a character decision(Did we even bring character personality into the issue? Does your character have a personality?).

1. Any villain who goes six on one in a fight is ether a drama queen, very confident in his abilities, or stupid. One of the basics of tactics, don't go up against six dudes at once unless you are really confident. As for actions, well what the hell do you expect when you go up against six dudes, they'd hit six times for everyone 1-3 hits you pull off
2. Character Personality isn't an issue, hence it didn't come up. My characters have personalties, and mechanics to back that up
3. Mechanics make a difference on the character, it effects what the character can do. It is really bad form to have a character be able to use powers only when the power of the plot demands it, and incredible bad form to have major inconsistencies
4. Um, what makes 3E broken? The mechanics. If you ignore the mechanics of 3E, then you could make it a perfect system i suppose, but what ruined it is the mechanics, because we have wizards being overpowered, CoDVilla, Pun-pun (doesn't really count but) diplomacy, ect. If you simple ignore mechanics or only use them as part of the plot, then hell, do that with 3E and your good


It's why I usually do not bother fighting with you on most points.

The same reason Napoleon didn't bother fighting after Waterloo basically. Enjoy st. Helena then:smallwink:

In addition, because I really hate to get into an epistemological argument about philosophy but it's to juicy.




Please be aware that the who and the how changes through out our own historic time when exploring for an explanation of how the world works. These same ideas of any age can be applied to when writing a fiction based background. Thus, a commoner could know all about magic, or he could not.
If magic existed, i'd expect they would be an accurate explanation. Trial and Error, and the various magic classes will eventually figure it out



Oh, and one little bite to add into there EE



Someday, you'll use a spell check/other devices to accurately state what your saying rather then sum those who don't understand you as a failure on their part. Seriously, think about why communication fails rather then defaulting to that.
1. My spell check is working again, it isn't a good one but it is something. I doubt you'd be willing to donate to the cause
2. Except nobody mentioned what the miscommunication was caused by, only that it happened. No details




Crow's sadly correct; He's just repeating the exact same things, and reminding me of why he's on ignore. And before you get to be a wise-aleck, it's not because you disagree with me. Note that Jack Zander and, uh, I guess Gaymer_Seattle aren't on ignore, despite disagreeing with me.

And you haven't been repeating arguments? hell your trying to make a case that fiction has NPCs and PCs, which is frankly totally absurd unless you say every character is an NPC
You generally go with the whole "You must be wrong" without siting real reason, not addressing points or countering mine.
And inevitably, when any reistence/ differing option is shown to be stubborn enough to resist you will, you ignore them or resort to the whole "your a troll" aspect, and that gets silly
I also recall that you put Warty Goblin and Rowan on your ignore list, so have fun. Yahzi might have that honor to if he is persistent enough


His screen name's ironic because he's not elite!

1. How so?
2. Technically, i'm an Elitest, not an Elitist, very different concepts


Now can we end the whole "ohmygoshyoursoincorrectthati'mnotevengoingtobother tocounteryou" and get to the real points?
from
EE

[Thane of Fife]

I don't know if it's worth coming in, but....


Wow, i mean, it isn't like they said that monsters and NPCs are lucky if they appear more than once.

Actually, it says "monsters and most NPCs" (emphasis mine).

First, the inclusion of 'most' there means that some NPCs certainly will appear more than once, just not most of them. I would agree with this - only important NPCs are likely to appear multiple times - Knight A, Farmer B, and Assisstant Chef C are unlikely to show up more than in passing. This does not imply that they are expected to be mercilessly slaughtered, simply that that they are so insignificant in the scheme of things that they don't need an entire character sheet to be played correctly for the 4 or 5 minutes of fame.

More important NPCs, say, Archwizard Periwinkle, may need stats, but they still don't need as many options as the PCs. It's easier for the DM to simply sketch the character and decide on details as he feels they'll become important. Things like Sense Motive, Personality, and Level will probably need to be known from the beginning, at least roughly, anyway. If he needs to make a save, the DM can estimate the value based on level and probable ability score, and then write it down for the future.

Secondly, you appear to be reading "more than once" as meaning 'in more than one encounter'. I disagree; I think it means 'in more than one adventure.' I.E. I think that solving a mystery involving complex interactions with a town full of NPCs still only counts as those NPCs appearing once. Taken this way, somewhere around 90% (at least) of NPCs only appear once.


Any villain who goes six on one in a fight is ether a drama queen, very confident in his abilities, or stupid.

But the villain isn't fighting them six-on-one because he thinks it's dramatic. It's happening because it increases overall drama. It increases the villain's fearfulness for him to fight alone. Fighting the Evil Priest is significantly less intimidating if it seems like he needs a bunch of kobolds around to help him.


You don't think the other priests wouldn't notice that he can't cast healing spells?
...
In D&D, all priests can heal. Even evil necromancer priests of the god of death can heal. If you can heal, you're a priest; if not, then you aren't. I.e., D&D is a class-based system.

Except that not all priests are necessarily clerics. Or adepts. You're assuming that it's impossible to be a clergyman without being a spellcaster. That's not necessarily the case. An expert with a number of ranks in Knowledge (religion) could easily be the spiritual advisor for town. There's no reason why the townsfolk would know anything about divine magic in such a scenario. Indeed, this could be the norm, with adepts being the remarkable clergy, and clerics being the even more exceptional.

Class does not necessarily equal profession - class is closer to skill set. A fighter with ranks in Hide and Move Silently could be a thief, while a rogue might serve as an archer in the army. People don't get to pick the class which best suits their profession - they get stuck with the one which suits their abilities.


We all agree that NPCs are supposed to be real people, not just video-game puppets stuffed with XP. The difference is whether we think the rules should help us do that, or whether we think it's up to the DM to take a system with rules explicitly designed to subvert that process and yet still make it work.

For one thing, your quote specified monsters, rather than NPCs, which carry two very different implications. 'Monsters' implies those entities without much characterization. How can rules prevent you from characterizing your NPCs?

Finally, not relating to any specific quote, but directed at those who say that mechanics are the rules of the gameworld:

You do realize that the end result of this insistence is that, in the future of such a world, you would get things like 'The Bohr Model of the Character Sheet' and 'Schrodinger's Charisma Score,' right?

[Rutee]

We’ve talked elsewhere about some of the bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design—such as all monsters having to follow character creation rules, even though they’re supposed to be foes to kill, not player characters—
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x...80201a&pf=true
Again, look at the MM, Yahzi; Do you really think this is new philosophy, or recognizing what they've been doing the whole time and trying to make it sound fancy? Wise up, people. I doubt they're going to be any less evil-centric then they were in 3e; The DMG has more to say on good then evil... technically. If you cut out the enormous bulk that is hirelings, Evil has more mentions then Good. A large number of the random encounters (That aren't on the Good-aligned planes) are also either stupid or evil.

[horseboy]

Exactly, PC classes are signs of talented people. However, that would mean that there would still be plenty of talented people. however only a half dozen? that isn't talent, that is freaking chosen one right their. I'd expect maybe a quarter of the population to be "talented" maybe less depending on the world, but not only a half dozen I'd probably go around 10% or so.


You apperenlty haven't studied philosophy, or miltary matters. People do want to understand how the world worksOh I've studied, and I've also (tried) to have long conversations with people that have professional back grounds. Outside of military guys loving to tell stories of personal heroism, trying to get an academic to actually explain something to you is like pulling teeth. "Oh, you haven't read So-and-so? Well I can't talk to you until you've at least read So-and-so's thirty-seven volume on Blank-topic. Because after having this (http://www.drunkduck.com/NPC/index.php?p=5825) conversation after the third or forth time, they're really going to stop trying to explain it to the ignorant masses.


Quick question, by challenge do you mean in the "Oh look is a group of NPCs who have been specially tailored to fight the PCs" or "Hey it is bunch of NPCs who are similarity's made to the PCs and just as dangerous"
Those are two expressions of the same thing.

In straight fighting? No? In killing quickly. Hell yeah The surest way to achieve victory is to nullify your opponent as quickly as possible. Which means rogues by raw are better at straight fighting than fighters. :smallannoyed:


what should this be limited to a half dozen guys then There are two types of problems in the world. Those that you can do something about, and those you can't. How 4th is actually going to give PC's their power boost is unknown at this time. Is it going to be a separate layer of rules, built into the PC classes or just something as simple as NPC's don't get action points, we don't know about. This is a type two problem. Since we can't do anything about the problem, there's no use in worrying about the problem. Take a lesson from ol' Baloo.


Or 4E is going for the whole "hack and slash kill it" approach all over again, because monsters aren't suppose to exist outside combat and seem to exist only for one fight with the PCs. How does that not scream Random Encounter? Correction: "Or 4E is going TO MAINTAIN the whole hack and slash kill it (as the default setting)" 3.x is PAINFULLY hack and slash default. Sad really, since it does even that so poorly.

Right, but the rules still exist. They are established, and the more intellegent NPCs, and the PCs will know them. So why aren't people following the rules?
Because genre savviness breaks verisimilitude. If everyone behave reasonably, and rationally Dr. Phil would be out of a job.


no no no, that isn't it. I want the mechanics, the storyline, the fluff, the characters, the world, the realism, the plot, the people, the cultures, the magic and everything all neatly made into one package. I want have a written setting and mechanics that match the setting, not two separate things.
You'll never get that from D&D. You're going to have to go with one of the systems that has a default setting.

1. It is the new direction 4E is going in, which i don't like
2. Um, that has nothing to do with the point, that is the nature of the monsters. They still follow the same rules as the PCs, how smart they are isn't the issue It's not a new direction for 4E. They've just now realized how they play.

[Rutee]

Now, I mean no offense or criticism, Horseboy, but why do you hold an interest in 4e? I ask purely out of curiosity.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Everybody knew that in the real world.

The people who were proficient in heavy armor were obvious, because they were called "Sir." The skinny, old wizard types were equally obvious. The priests, who were often Sirs who had taken the cloth, were obvious.

The people who were proficient in heavy armour were obvious because they were wearing heavy armour otherwise they wouldn't be. And it was perfectly possible, once you'd got past the stage in history where everybody was fighting everybody else all the time, for somebody to be a "Knight" socially but not martially. Hell we have "Knights" in England still, I'm pretty sure Elton John isn't proficient in Heavy Armour.


I confess that I am assuming that people in the D&D world have a passing knowledge of the world that governs their life. I assume that everyone knows who can cure disease, and who cannot; that everyone has noticed that Sir Gallant can fall off the top of the castle and walk away from it; that everyone has noticed that some wizards are capably of flying and others aren't.

Ah, whereas I am assuming that people in a D&D world know that the idea of a person being able to fall 200 feet onto hard cobblestones and survive is obviously ludicrous, because the human body can't take that sort of punishment. The fact that it is game mechanically possible for such a thing to happen is by the board.


Now you're off on the tangent of prestige classes again. To repeat: nobody objected to NPCs having special classes or even unknown classes. What we objected to was the notion that NPCs could not, or on a regular basis did not, have PC classes.

But why, exactly, is it so terrible if they don't?


Since so much of D&D revolves around killing things, yes, I do. People talk like that about baseball. Everybody knows pitchers can't hit, and when you find a pitcher with a .750 batting average, people start asking if he's on steriods.

Umm ... you do realize that in the real world there are large organizations dedicated to compiling and collating all these sorts of statistics.


It's a direct quote from WotC.

Referring to monsters, not NPCs, and about the application of the principle to combat specifically. I think it is reasonable to assume that a monster with whom the players are in combat constitutes a "foe to kill".


You don't think the other priests wouldn't notice that he can't cast healing spells?

And how, precisely, would that stop him from being a priest? How would that stop him fulfilling the social functions required of a clergyman?


It's no good to claim that classes are an abstraction, and then assign a specific set of abilities that cannot be duplicated by any other means.

Why not?


In GURPS, "priest" is a profession. You can be a priest that heals or not. That's because healing is an ability which is not tied to a profession. I.e., GURPS is a classless system.

In D&D, all priests can heal. Even evil necromancer priests of the god of death can heal. If you can heal, you're a priest; if not, then you aren't. I.e., D&D is a class-based system.

No, in D&D all characters which have "Levels" in the "Class" called "Cleric" can heal. There is no reason that a Cleric has to be a Priest, or that a Priest has to be a Cleric.


People in the D&D world are going to notice this difference. People in the D&D world are going to know a lot about classes, just like people today know a lot about doctors, lawyers, and Marine Commandos. They know who can get what job done.

Who would win in a fight out of a doctor and a lawyer? How good a doctor do you have to be before you can be expected to beat a Marine Commando in a fist fight?

You're using utterly circular logic. You're saying that Classes in D&D have to be in-character concepts, because everybody in the setting should know about them, and everybody should know about them because they're an in-character concept.

Let me put it another way. Would you be totally happy for a player in your game to refer to himself, in character, as "A Fifth-Level Fighter" or to talk about leveling up? Or for that matter to have a working knowledge of concepts like experience points and HP?

[EvilElitest]

I don't know if it's worth coming in, but....

Well your focusing upon the issues and not wasting time on personal attacks, so welcome, glad to have you



Actually, it says "monsters and most NPCs" (emphasis mine).

First, the inclusion of 'most' there means that some NPCs certainly will appear more than once, just not most of them. I would agree with this - only important NPCs are likely to appear multiple times - Knight A, Farmer B, and Assisstant Chef C are unlikely to show up more than in passing. This does not imply that they are expected to be mercilessly slaughtered, simply that that they are so insignificant in the scheme of things that they don't need an entire character sheet to be played correctly for the 4 or 5 minutes of fame.

Good point, except that isn't so much the issue.

The PCs pass through a farm. The DM doesn't expect them to interact with them and doesn't stat the Farmers. The PCs won't talk to them, the Farmers won't mechanically interact, its good
The issue comes up when the PCs do interact with random Farmer B, or Knight A. Lets say a PC decides to attack Knight A for what ever reason, even if Knight A didn't have any stats planned out for him, when a fight breaks out he should be using the same rules as the PC. If i was the DM, i'd quickly check my notes on the power level of this nation, then make him a level 5 Knight (well i'd use my NPC version of Knight but still) and get his essential generic NPC stats ready. Should Knight A fight with the PCs, he'd still be using the same rule system, he would just be lower level (i'd expect) and be less interesting generally, but he'd still be using the same system. If Farmer B is being attacked, i'd give him stats as a Level 3 Commoner ect. They are still following the same rules, the PCs are the only special people


More important NPCs, say, Archwizard Periwinkle, may need stats, but they still don't need as many options as the PCs. It's easier for the DM to simply sketch the character and decide on details as he feels they'll become important. Things like Sense Motive, Personality, and Level will probably need to be known from the beginning, at least roughly, anyway. If he needs to make a save, the DM can estimate the value based on level and probable ability score, and then write it down for the future.

that is going under the assumption that NPCs exist only for interacting with the PCs, and that their abilities don't matter otherwise. Think about it, wouldn't Archwizard Periwinkle do stuff with his powers when the PCs weren't around. Lets say he casts a spell that can create a giant fortress for the sack of the plot, i'm going ask 'why didn't you do that earlier? Why bother with builders?" or if he flies when fighting the PCs, i'm gonna ask "Why don't you protect your own fortress against fliers then?" Or, why can't Demons and Devils who fight eachother all the time, even hurt eachother? Stuff like that. the PCs should be in a fantasy world and interact with one, it should exist to accommodate them. The problem with



So we've made 4th Edition simpler to run and play by simplifying monsters and NPCs. The new system is not overly concerned with simulating interactions between monsters and nonplayer characters when the PCs are not on stage. 4th Edition orients monster design (and, to some extent, NPC design) around what's fun for player characters to encounter as challenges. Intricate lists of abilities and multiple significant exceptions-based powers are reserved for the PCs rather than handed out to every monster
is that eventually the world doesn't make any freaking sense after a little while.


Secondly, you appear to be reading "more than once" as meaning 'in more than one encounter'. I disagree; I think it means 'in more than one adventure.' I.E. I think that solving a mystery involving complex interactions with a town full of NPCs still only counts as those NPCs appearing once. Taken this way, somewhere around 90% (at least) of NPCs only appear once.

That a bit of an interpretation

Monsters and most NPCs are lucky to appear more than once, particularly if they're encountered in combat situations.
Even if your interpretation is correct (and i hope it is) , it doesn't excuse the world inconsistency


But the villain isn't fighting them six-on-one because he thinks it's dramatic. It's happening because it increases overall drama. It increases the villain's fearfulness for him to fight alone. Fighting the Evil Priest is significantly less intimidating if it seems like he needs a bunch of kobolds around to help him.
Wait, so the evil villain, the presumable intellegent evil villain is going to fight six on one. Then that means he is ether confident, or a tactical moron, because drama or no, any reasonably intellegent person can realize "Hmmmm, they are six of them, one of me, i think that means they can hit me six times for every one of my hits. Interesting". If a DM make a villain stupid to increase the drama (personally i think it doesn't enhance the drama because my willing suspension of disbelieve coming in. Enhancing the Drama would be having a smart villain and the PCs out smarting him) that doesn't change the fact that the villain is being stupid. Now if it is part of his personality to do stuff like that (Xykon) its cool, but if it is an otherwise intellegent villain, you'd be going "what?"




Except that not all priests are necessarily clerics. Or adepts. You're assuming that it's impossible to be a clergyman without being a spellcaster. That's not necessarily the case. An expert with a number of ranks in Knowledge (religion) could easily be the spiritual advisor for town. There's no reason why the townsfolk would know anything about divine magic in such a scenario. Indeed, this could be the norm, with adepts being the remarkable clergy, and clerics being the even more exceptional.

Class does not necessarily equal profession - class is closer to skill set. A fighter with ranks in Hide and Move Silently could be a thief, while a rogue might serve as an archer in the army. People don't get to pick the class which best suits their profession - they get stuck with the one which suits their abilities.
Even so, people will be able to tell teh difference between Clerics (the class) and the dude who just preaches. And the one priest (rank not class) who uses arcane magic and a spell book.


For one thing, your quote specified monsters, rather than NPCs, which carry two very different implications. 'Monsters' implies those entities without much characterization. How can rules prevent you from characterizing your NPCs?

1. To be technical, anything in the MM is a monster. That includes gnomes
2. Because rules run the game. Sad truth, but rules are what makes the game tick. If the rules don't make sense, then the game doesn't make sense, and thus the world doesn't make sense. Hence, why 3E is broken

from
EE

[Dan_Hemmens]

The PCs pass through a farm. The DM doesn't expect them to interact with them and doesn't stat the Farmers. The PCs won't talk to them, the Farmers won't mechanically interact, its good
The issue comes up when the PCs do interact with random Farmer B, or Knight A. Lets say a PC decides to attack Knight A for what ever reason, even if Knight A didn't have any stats planned out for him, when a fight breaks out he should be using the same rules as the PC. If i was the DM, i'd quickly check my notes on the power level of this nation, then make him a level 5 Knight (well i'd use my NPC version of Knight but still) and get his essential generic NPC stats ready. Should Knight A fight with the PCs, he'd still be using the same rule system, he would just be lower level (i'd expect) and be less interesting generally, but he'd still be using the same system. If Farmer B is being attacked, i'd give him stats as a Level 3 Commoner ect. They are still following the same rules, the PCs are the only special people


Okay, so here's the thing.

If the players randomly decide to attack this Knight guy, and you haven't got any stats planned out for him, and NPCs use PC rules, you are screwed, because statting up NPCs using PC rules takes forever.

What's wrong with having an abbreviated set of rules which will allow you to come up with stats for Knight A quickly, instead of telling your players to go watch Tellytubbies for a bit while you write up a 4th level character?


that is going under the assumption that NPCs exist only for interacting with the PCs, and that their abilities don't matter otherwise. Think about it, wouldn't Archwizard Periwinkle do stuff with his powers when the PCs weren't around. Lets say he casts a spell that can create a giant fortress for the sack of the plot, i'm going ask 'why didn't you do that earlier? Why bother with builders?" or if he flies when fighting the PCs, i'm gonna ask "Why don't you protect your own fortress against fliers then?" Or, why can't Demons and Devils who fight eachother all the time, even hurt eachother? Stuff like that. the PCs should be in a fantasy world and interact with one, it should exist to accommodate them. The problem with

is that eventually the world doesn't make any freaking sense after a little while.

Umm ... so how is that problem solved by making the NPCs use PC creation rules?



Even so, people will be able to tell teh difference between Clerics (the class) and the dude who just preaches. And the one priest (rank not class) who uses arcane magic and a spell book.

Why, exactly?

Why are people going to assume that Kindly Father Dominic, who preaches about love and forgiveness every Friday, and can heal you with magic, has more in common with Dark Lord Tharg and his army of zombies than with Kindly Father Sebastian, who preaches about love and forgiveness and doesn't have any magic powers?

[EvilElitest]

I'd probably go around 10% or so.

I think more than that actually, i mean with the more powerful races PC classes are the way to go. But regardless, PC classes indicate your talented. Some NPC classes (not expert or Aristocrat) indicate that your average. But only half a dozen dudes with special powers, that means your unique, like in teh way Demon Princes are unique demons. That doesn't make sense, as they haven't given us a reason why these half dozen are unique other than "They are the player characters"


Oh I've studied, and I've also (tried) to have long conversations with people that have professional back grounds. Outside of military guys loving to tell stories of personal heroism, trying to get an academic to actually explain something to you is like pulling teeth. "Oh, you haven't read So-and-so? Well I can't talk to you until you've at least read So-and-so's thirty-seven volume on Blank-topic. Because after having this (http://www.drunkduck.com/NPC/index.php?p=5825) conversation after the third or forth time, they're really going to stop trying to explain it to the ignorant masses.
Um, i'm talking about the fact that throughout history, philosophers and miltary men (and scientists) will always try to explain and try to understand how their world works


Those are two expressions of the same thing.
No they are not. The former is a monster made by the DM for the sole purpose of challenging the Players, a creature who's existence hangs upon destroying the PCs. Thus everyone one of his abilities and powers are specifically tailored to fight the PCs and to exploit their weaknesses. He is a PC killing machine. The PCs might kill him, but still, he is challenging because the rules allow him to exist for the sole purpose of destroying him. Now in a game were everybody follows teh same rules, my players would ask "wait, how would this guys be able to survive? If anyone other than use fought him he'd be screwed." And i the DM would have to say "Well it is because the evil villain made him to destroy you" And my players would say "wait, the Villain didn't know that we had a bard in our party, or that Bob was really a mindflayer, how could he make counters for that?" And i'd say "well he spied on you" and they would say "How? You just used meta gaming knowledge to create a monsters to fight up" And i'd get lynched.
Or if i was a good DM, when they asked i'd say "Yeah, your characters are wondering that, how did this creature seem to know all of your weaknesses?" And the PCs would try to figure it out in game, and eventually figure out that the BBEG had given them a doll that they had forgotten to get ride of.

But in 4E, when they ask how this works, i just say "Because i felt like it." Because rule wise, nothing keeps this guy from doing whatever he wants whenever i feel like it.


The surest way to achieve victory is to nullify your opponent as quickly as possible. Which means rogues by raw are better at straight fighting than fighters. :smallannoyed:
Better at killing, not fighting. Different. Fighting implies the other guy gets to hit back, and a good rouge wouldn't allow that.


There are two types of problems in the world. Those that you can do something about, and those you can't. How 4th is actually going to give PC's their power boost is unknown at this time. Is it going to be a separate layer of rules, built into the PC classes or just something as simple as NPC's don't get action points, we don't know about. This is a type two problem. Since we can't do anything about the problem, there's no use in worrying about the problem. Take a lesson from ol' Baloo.

Baloo annoys me (in your face Disney, sorry Kipling). But more to the point, the PCs seem to get super special powers, and cool abilities handed to them all the time. Sure, it could turn out that everything in that paragraph is changed later and i'm just wrong, and that doesn't prove my point wrong. My point is that such an idea would be a bad thing, if 4E doesn't do it, well then thats a good thing.


Correction: "Or 4E is going TO MAINTAIN the whole hack and slash kill it (as the default setting)" 3.x is PAINFULLY hack and slash default. Sad really, since it does even that so poorly.

Correction, 3E is presented as a hack and slash kill, however nothing forces you to even pay attention to those rules


Because genre savviness breaks verisimilitude. If everyone behave reasonably, and rationally Dr. Phil would be out of a job.
That isn't genre savviness, that is being aware of what is going on in the world you live in


You'll never get that from D&D. You're going to have to go with one of the systems that has a default setting.
But it is possible to do that in 3E with next to know work (other than making the world, but that is a different matter)



It's not a new direction for 4E. They've just now realized how they play.

Yeah it is, because in 3E everyone used the same rules
from
EE

[Dan_Hemmens]

Correction, 3E is presented as a hack and slash kill, however nothing forces you to even pay attention to those rules


There now follows an unabridged transcription of what the D&D core rulebook would look like with all the Hack & Slash rules ignored.





We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[EvilElitest]

Okay, so here's the thing.

If the players randomly decide to attack this Knight guy, and you haven't got any stats planned out for him, and NPCs use PC rules, you are screwed, because statting up NPCs using PC rules takes forever.

No, no it doesn't. Ignoring the fact taht any DM worth his salt would have sample NPC stats planned out, it still takes no time because you simple choose some random stats based on what you know. Any good DM would have a general idea of the stats of his nation's knights, and could choose some generic ones from there


What's wrong with having an abbreviated set of rules which will allow you to come up with stats for Knight A quickly, instead of telling your players to go watch Tellytubbies for a bit while you write up a 4th level character?

Well it is inconsistent and rather lazy


Umm ... so how is that problem solved by making the NPCs use PC creation rules?

Because the NPCs and the PCs are both following the same rules, and thus PCs can expect uniformity in this world. So when a PC asks "hey, why did that dude cast a spell that he shouldn't know" the DM has to have a real answer, not "Because want him to"



Why, exactly?

Why are people going to assume that Kindly Father Dominic, who preaches about love and forgiveness every Friday, and can heal you with magic, has more in common with Dark Lord Tharg and his army of zombies than with Kindly Father Sebastian, who preaches about love and forgiveness and doesn't have any magic powers?

Because people are freaking morons, or at least not all of them are. Any magic user in the world would be interested in the limitations of his powers. A wizard would be thinking "Hey, how come i can't heal" and realize the difference between a cleric and a wizard. An intellectual will see that Farther Dominic and Tharg both draw their magical powers from gods, thus divine magic must be different from non divine. They might still call them different things (the former might be called a priest, the latter called warlord) but they could figure out through trial and error how things work. Unless magic just showed up in this world, you can expect people to figure things out over time, i mean elves live for hundreds of years (well not any more)


There now follows an unabridged transcription of what the D&D core rulebook would look like with all the Hack & Slash rules ignored.





We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
Fine, ignore that fluff, you know what i mean

from
EE

[Poison_Fish]

Whine, whine, whine, can we get down to some real points please? we could spend all day exchanging various insults, and not a single point will get addressed, and quite frankly, i don't care what you people think of me, i don't care if you burn effigies of me at your house every day at midnight chanting Nightwish Lyrics (you aren't doing that right?) i care about the points. Any complaint about me not sitting down and surrendering to you "superior" arguing ability comes to mean nothing because frankly, it proves nothing and comes across as "I'd prove you wrong, but i'm to important"

Deny, deny, deny. EE, you further prove a point about claiming false logic. Also step off the night wish thing, they had a good singer for awhile, and your too young to understand.


Subjective?
Wow, now that i re-read that, how could i have possibly seen that as a message saying that monsters and PCs are different? Wow, i mean, it isn't like they said that monsters and NPCs are lucky if they appear more than once. Wow, i'm glad you enlightened me


Yes, sir, please look at the qualifiers I use. Did you see the word I used? It's like where's waldo, but with Language. Let me spell it out for you Most arguments. Bringing a single counter doesn’t mean much.


1. Any villain who goes six on one in a fight is ether a drama queen, very confident in his abilities, or stupid. One of the basics of tactics, don't go up against six dudes at once unless you are really confident. As for actions, well what the hell do you expect when you go up against six dudes, they'd hit six times for everyone 1-3 hits you pull off
2. Character Personality isn't an issue, hence it didn't come up. My characters have personalties, and mechanics to back that up
3. Mechanics make a difference on the character, it effects what the character can do. It is really bad form to have a character be able to use powers only when the power of the plot demands it, and incredible bad form to have major inconsistencies
4. Um, what makes 3E broken? The mechanics. If you ignore the mechanics of 3E, then you could make it a perfect system i suppose, but what ruined it is the mechanics, because we have wizards being overpowered, CoDVilla, Pun-pun (doesn't really count but) diplomacy, ect. If you simple ignore mechanics or only use them as part of the plot, then hell, do that with 3E and your good

1. Your using language to illustrate a very specific example to further create your point with the illusion of logic. That's your Subjective opinion. By filling in your statement with qualifiers, I can find many counters. Diversions, Aim to wound and escape, mind games. Besides, who says he’s running into melee with a big ax? Also, why do you assume they are fighting in a flat open area? You are ignoring all sorts territory, potential abilities of said villain to even the playing field, among many other things. I thought you liked military tactics.
2. I might take back the character and mechanics thing, but let's see how far you insist the mechanics plays a presence in character interaction and fluff.
3. However regardless, That is a subjective statement. Once again, using little qualifiers to make it appear like your statement is objective logic. Have you considered: The cost of activating certain powers? What it entails to do such a power? Don't make a blanket statement. A quick comparison I will give will be Lina Inverse from Slayers. She has several extremely advanced spells that she hesitates to use. Why? Because the plot demands it? Or because within the plot the balance of the world is threaten? Is that such a problem?
4. A discussion of what is broken in a system is subjective. Because something is powerful doesn't mean it's broken(Pun Pun would be an example of broken, yes. CoD villa wouldn't, because it's not "breaking" the rules of the game. Overpowered is different then broken). By the way, you've been insisting on realism, right? Well, congratulations. Some things are more powerful then others.


If magic existed, i'd expect they would be an accurate explanation. Trial and Error, and the various magic classes will eventually figure it out [quote]

Subjective, largely with the "I". Magic could be state controlled and largely under lock and key. It could also have a you pay more you learn more system like certain cults out there. Knowledge can be as free or as under lock and key as the storyteller demands it. Which means not all magical classes are going to figure things out.

[quote]1. My spell check is working again, it isn't a good one but it is something. I doubt you'd be willing to donate to the cause
2. Except nobody mentioned what the miscommunication was caused by, only that it happened. No details

You've forgotten who you were arguing with several times before. In addition, the quote/response format, while seemingly the most effective method, bogs down reading and slowly grows to many tangental points. This leads to easy miscommunication and forgetting just who your quoting. In your case, a lot of people argue with you, which I'll note you take as a point of pride, but it also helps to get easily confused. In this case, you have some pretty grave misgivings about fiction. Especially on a point that I will argue with you.

Also, what the heck are you using for a spell check?

I'm going to state this. Role-playing and other forms of media, especially fiction(Books, Film, plays) are related in terms of game construction. My experience in this field comes from 8 years of running games (from when I was a silly child to now, so 2 of those years don't count really), along with 4 years of running role-playing games professionally. Let us take the very base of what this is, a game

A games purpose's, according to the online princeton dictionary is
(n) game (an amusement or pastime)

This means a game's purpose is to entertain.

Now let's look at our cross example, a film. These are also meant to entertain. What are some of their commonalities?

Main characters: The main characters are the main characters of a film because they get the most screen time and fall under the definition of a protagonist(usually)
The PC's of a game are the main characters of the story because they also get the most attention and are protagonists.

Drama: Most movies follow a set formula of drama. Introduction, heartbreak/event that is counter to the character/the meat of the story, rising action, climax.
And here comes the kicker, I'll insist that most role-playing games follow this as well. We have, let's say, fresh faced young characters. You give them an introduction to the world, give them time to get used to it. Then you have the problem that they as adventures must solve to go and fix. Your rising action occurs when they are coming close to solving the problem. And of course, your climax is the problem being solved.
I'll add this addendum, the exact method this is carried out varies over the course of what is considered a campaign. Drop a full introduction, have a minor one from problems and minor climax's along the way, only to have a really huge one when confronting BBEG or other such things.

To say they are too different and should have little to do with each other is a Fallacy. It is ignoring but some of the similarities they have as well. However, and I'll say again, the largest difference between role-playing games and other media is just redefined this way. It is the difference between passive and active media. A film is passive, a role-playing game is active. That merely is based on interaction.


"ohmygoshyoursoincorrectthati'mnotevengoingtobother tocounteryou" and get to the real points?

Attempt to cover up holes in your argument by acting defensive and claiming us to be illogical?

[Dan_Hemmens]

No, no it doesn't. Ignoring the fact taht any DM worth his salt would have sample NPC stats planned out, it still takes no time because you simple choose some random stats based on what you know. Any good DM would have a general idea of the stats of his nation's knights, and could choose some generic ones from there

Okay, so let me get this straight.

It's not okay to have a set of rules which allow you to quickly and easily assign appropriate stats to NPCs on the fly.

It *is* okay for you to just make up stats for NPCs based on "what you know"?


Well it is inconsistent and rather lazy

It's inconsistent to use an abbreviated ruleset? It's lazy to not make your players wait half an hour while you assign feats to a fourth level character?


Because the NPCs and the PCs are both following the same rules,

Which is a good thing: why?


and thus PCs can expect uniformity in this world. So when a PC asks "hey, why did that dude cast a spell that he shouldn't know" the DM has to have a real answer, not "Because want him to"

As opposed to saying "what do you mean 'shouldn't know'?"


Because people are freaking morons, or at least not all of them are. Any magic user in the world would be interested in the limitations of his powers. A wizard would be thinking "Hey, how come i can't heal" and realize the difference between a cleric and a wizard.

Why would the wizard think "how come I can't heal"? Do particle physicists sit up in the evening and think "hey, how come my particle accelerator doesn't make music". Do doctors ask themselves "why, when I inject a patient with an anesthetic, does it not cause somebody to be found not guilty in a court of law?"

Wizards don't study the sorts of things that allow them to heal people, if they wanted to do that, they wouldn't be wizards.


An intellectual will see that Farther Dominic and Tharg both draw their magical powers from gods,

How will he see that, exactly?


thus divine magic must be different from non divine.

How does that follow?

Father Dominic heals, Dark Lord Tharg doesn't. Dominic and Tharg, in fact, never use any similar effects. They might be *game mechanically* capable of doing so (depending on what their *actual* classes are). How do you determine that two people who have the same class, but who never do anything remotely comparable to each other, actually have the same class?


They might still call them different things (the former might be called a priest, the latter called warlord) but they could figure out through trial and error how things work. Unless magic just showed up in this world, you can expect people to figure things out over time, i mean elves live for hundreds of years (well not any more)

The mistake you are making is in assuming that the game mechanics are *literally* the way that things work, instead of being abstractions.

It is perfectly possible for two things to be game mechanically identical, but completely different in character. It is perfectly possible for two things to be completely the same in character, but game mechanically different.

Your assumption that people would "work out" what Classes were is founded on the assumption that classes really exist in character. If you want your world to work like that, great. You've just given yourself a world where people freely describe themselves as "Level Five Fighters" and say things like "hey man, I'm down to my last few HP over here".


Fine, ignore that fluff, you know what i mean

Yes, I know what you mean. You mean that somehow the vast, vast, vast amount of pure hack-and-slash material in 3.5 is completely okay and unobtrusive, but the moment anything gets changed, streamlined, or god forbid *improved* in the new edition, that's Turning D&D Into A Video Game.

This is all unbelievably funny to anybody who has *actually* played any RPGs *apart* from D&D, and therefore has a genuine basis for comparing systems to each other.

[Rutee]

This is all unbelievably funny to anybody who has *actually* played any RPGs *apart* from D&D, and therefore has a genuine basis for comparing systems to each other.

It was funny the first twenty times. Now it's just irksome. At least, for me >.>

[horseboy]

Now, I mean no offense or criticism, Horseboy, but why do you hold an interest in 4e? I ask purely out of curiosity.
It's okay, I respect curiosity. My main interest isn't really in 4e so much as peoples reaction to 4e.

There have been a few ideas they've come up with that I did like (Can't remember them right now off the top of my head) and several I've seen work well in other systems, so I know they can work, but doubt WotC's ability to implement them smoothly. And I've seen a lot that are just straight BAD ideas I'm amazed no one thought through. In short, a lot like prior editions of D&D.
This is causing a lot of consternation for a lot of people. This is a good time to chip away at WotC's grip on the industry. If people like EE aren't happy with what they're going to get, it's in my best interest as someone who's not that interested in D&D to get people to play other things. But I want them to be looking for the right reasons. Hell, if he can do what he claims to be able to do with D&D just imagine what he could do with a real system in another 5 or 10 years from now, after he's gotten laid a few times and loosens up some.
:smallwink:

. Lets say a PC decides to attack Knight A for what ever reason, even if Knight A didn't have any stats planned out for him, when a fight breaks out he should be using the same rules as the PC. If i was the DM, i'd quickly check my notes on the power level of this nation, then make him a level 5 Knight (well i'd use my NPC version of Knight but still) and get his essential generic NPC stats ready. Should Knight A fight with the PCs, he'd still be using the same rule system, he would just be lower level (i'd expect) and be less interesting generally, but he'd still be using the same system. If Farmer B is being attacked, i'd give him stats as a Level 3 Commoner ect. They are still following the same rules, the PCs are the only special peopleOld GM trick: Keep PC's from one off campaigns, tests you've run and concepts you've dabbled at. That way when you need an NPC quick you just grab the file and clone it. No, you don't want to do it all the time, but when your players surprise you like that it's a quick and dirty way of keeping up the pacing.

I think more than that actually, i mean with the more powerful races PC classes are the way to go. But regardless, PC classes indicate your talented. Some NPC classes (not expert or Aristocrat) indicate that your average. But only half a dozen dudes with special powers, that means your unique, like in teh way Demon Princes are unique demons. That doesn't make sense, as they haven't given us a reason why these half dozen are unique other than "They are the player characters"Not quite, PC classes indicate your talented at being and adventurer. The NPC classes just indicate talent outside the scope of the rules. Like in Family Guy: "I didn't know anyone in this family was talented, except for your mother."
"You mean because she plays piano?"
"No, be cause she-yeah, piano." Talents like either of those, or Meg's bird calls, or even really Chris's drawing, as an example is not measured in D&D because it won't help you kill things.


Um, i'm talking about the fact that throughout history, philosophers and miltary men (and scientists) will always try to explain and try to understand how their world works Yes, and if you're in a symposium of wizard you will surely hear concepts like "thaumaturgical" and maybe some sort of synonym for "spell level". However, that does NOT mean that's a common part of parlance. I'm not even allowed to use the word "file" when selling computers because that's considered technobabble that will frighten the customers. And it does.


.
No they are not. The former is a monster made by the DM for the sole purpose of challenging the Players, a creature who's existence hangs upon destroying the PCs. Thus everyone one of his abilities and powers are specifically tailored to fight the PCs and to exploit their weaknesses. He is a PC killing machine. The PCs might kill him, but still, he is challenging because the rules allow him to exist for the sole purpose of destroying him. Now in a game were everybody follows teh same rules, my players would ask "wait, how would this guys be able to survive? If anyone other than use fought him he'd be screwed." And i the DM would have to say "Well it is because the evil villain made him to destroy you" And my players would say "wait, the Villain didn't know that we had a bard in our party, or that Bob was really a mindflayer, how could he make counters for that?" And i'd say "well he spied on you" and they would say "How? You just used meta gaming knowledge to create a monsters to fight up" And i'd get lynched.
Or if i was a good DM, when they asked i'd say "Yeah, your characters are wondering that, how did this creature seem to know all of your weaknesses?" And the PCs would try to figure it out in game, and eventually figure out that the BBEG had given them a doll that they had forgotten to get ride of.

But in 4E, when they ask how this works, i just say "Because i felt like it." Because rule wise, nothing keeps this guy from doing whatever he wants whenever i feel like it. Nothing stops you from doing that in either edition.


Better at killing, not fighting. Different. Fighting implies the other guy gets to hit back, and a good rouge wouldn't allow that.Not if you're any good at fighting. The old playground taunt "There'll be two hits in this fight, me hitting you and you hitting the ground," isn't a statement of them being sneaky, but of their martial prowess.



Correction, 3E is presented as a hack and slash kill, however nothing forces you to even pay attention to those rulesI'm not sure what rules there are left after you ignored all them, but if you can ignore such a large chunk of 3.5's rules for the sake of verisimilitude, then what's stopping you from ignoring a couple of rules in 4th for the same reason?


That isn't genre savviness, that is being aware of what is going on in the world you live inAnd how many people in the real world are actually aware of the world they live in? Not many. That's why it's genre savviness.



But it is possible to do that in 3E with next to know work (other than making the world, but that is a different matter) LOL Oh wait you're serious? Let me laugh harder. ROTFLMAO!!!

[EvilElitest]

Deny, deny, deny. EE, you further prove a point about claiming false logic. Also step off the night wish thing, they had a good singer for awhile, and your too young to understand.

1. Prove it. really, prove these absurd claim, because if my only "crime" is arguing against you people, that is hardly a problem
2. I never said Nightwish was bad, i just used their band because the had the song kinslayer



Yes, sir, please look at the qualifiers I use. Did you see the word I used? It's like where's waldo, but with Language. Let me spell it out for you Most arguments. Bringing a single counter doesn’t mean much.

You know what would help? Examples of my "actions" against the nature of debate.



1. Your using language to illustrate a very specific example to further create your point with the illusion of logic. That's your Subjective opinion. By filling in your statement with qualifiers, I can find many counters. Diversions, Aim to wound and escape, mind games. Besides, who says he’s running into melee with a big ax? Also, why do you assume they are fighting in a flat open area? You are ignoring all sorts territory, potential abilities of said villain to even the playing field, among many other things. I thought you liked military tactics.
2. I might take back the character and mechanics thing, but let's see how far you insist the mechanics plays a presence in character interaction and fluff.
3. However regardless, That is a subjective statement. Once again, using little qualifiers to make it appear like your statement is objective logic. Have you considered: The cost of activating certain powers? What it entails to do such a power? Don't make a blanket statement. A quick comparison I will give will be Lina Inverse from Slayers. She has several extremely advanced spells that she hesitates to use. Why? Because the plot demands it? Or because within the plot the balance of the world is threaten? Is that such a problem?
4. A discussion of what is broken in a system is subjective. Because something is powerful doesn't mean it's broken(Pun Pun would be an example of broken, yes. CoD villa wouldn't, because it's not "breaking" the rules of the game. Overpowered is different then broken). By the way, you've been insisting on realism, right? Well, congratulations. Some things are more powerful then others.
1. That is a tactical no brainier, anyone knows that you'd only go up against six dudes if you were damn well confident in your abilities. A diversion, hit and run ect implies confidence or desperation. Also the original statement that sparked the debate was the fact that one dude fighting six wasn't dramatic because the one dude can only go once for every six guys attacks. That is common sense, when you go up against six guys, unless you are freaking uber (and if that was teh case then this guy would have the feats to make him go so fast) you will hit once for every six hits thrown at you. Sure the person could use terrain to his advantage, but that fits under the "He is confident" reason , but that still means he is going up against six dudes. If your going up against six dudes, make sure you are ready for it, because other wise you will take heavy damage because they can hit you six times for everyone one of yours
2. That varies. If Lord Henry the Lame suffers from an illness that makes him weak and he limps, then i'll make his strength and Con lower than average and half his speed to reflect that.
3. And yet again, it is important to running a world. And yet again, Lina is a fictional character, not a PC very different. More to the point, if the magic of the world is free form and doesn't make sense, why are their even rules for it in teh first place?
4. Um, Wizards can be quite broken if you use the right stuff, same with CoDzilla. You don't have to break using ether of these, but even so it is true
As for Realism, the "ideal" of D&D is that all of the PC classes are equal in usefulness. This isn't true of course, because the mechanics make them quite different and some useless (Samurai, i'm looking at you), however the way the game is suppose to be played if the mechanics were not screwed would have all of the classes being separate but equal (hmm, i wonder how far that metaphor could go?). In my games i try my best to mechanically balance the classes so they are both mechanically and story appealing. As for more powerful/less powerful, i let levels do that



Subjective, largely with the "I". Magic could be state controlled and largely under lock and key. It could also have a you pay more you learn more system like certain cults out there. Knowledge can be as free or as under lock and key as the storyteller demands it. Which means not all magical classes are going to figure things out.

Except we know that magic follows rules. It is one of the basic tenets of D&D, all magic follows certain rules
We know this, that is an established fact. You can figure it out by comparing the powers of a wizard and a cleric in game, so considering the world has (presumable) been around for a while, the people who use these magics would logically understand them.



You've forgotten who you were arguing with several times before. In addition, the quote/response format, while seemingly the most effective method, bogs down reading and slowly grows to many tangental points. This leads to easy miscommunication and forgetting just who your quoting. In your case, a lot of people argue with you, which I'll note you take as a point of pride, but it also helps to get easily confused. In this case, you have some pretty grave misgivings about fiction. Especially on a point that I will argue with you.

1. The quote response format is teh easiest to keep track of and focuses on the issues most. It is also the easier to respond to
2. And what was the miscommunication. Nobody has pointed that out yet


Also, what the heck are you using for a spell check?

I don't know, all i know is if i don't fix a word within five seconds of writing it, the little red line vanishes and so it looks like i'm fine.


I'm going to state this. Role-playing and other forms of media, especially fiction(Books, Film, plays) are related in terms of game construction. My experience in this field comes from 8 years of running games (from when I was a silly child to now, so 2 of those years don't count really), along with 4 years of running role-playing games professionally. Let us take the very base of what this is, a game

A games purpose's, according to the online princeton dictionary is

This means a game's purpose is to entertain.

Now let's look at our cross example, a film. These are also meant to entertain. What are some of their commonalities?
Except a Game has mechanics and rules, a book does not
Also in a Game i, the player have control over the actions of the storyline and the outcome of the game
In a Book/film I the viewer have no control over the outcome, and there are no mechanics controlling the story.




Main characters: The main characters are the main characters of a film because they get the most screen time and fall under the definition of a protagonist(usually)
The PC's of a game are the main characters of the story because they also get the most attention and are protagonists.

no
Main character are the people with the most screen time in the movie
PCs are player characters. A PC is a dude who happens to be controlled by a player. An NPC is a person in the game who is not controlled by a player. Totally different.


Drama: Most movies follow a set formula of drama. Introduction, heartbreak/event that is counter to the character/the meat of the story, rising action, climax.
And here comes the kicker, I'll insist that most role-playing games follow this as well. We have, let's say, fresh faced young characters. You give them an introduction to the world, give them time to get used to it. Then you have the problem that they as adventures must solve to go and fix. Your rising action occurs when they are coming close to solving the problem. And of course, your climax is the problem being solved.
I'll add this addendum, the exact method this is carried out varies over the course of what is considered a campaign. Drop a full introduction, have a minor one from problems and minor climax's along the way, only to have a really huge one when confronting BBEG or other such things.

Except D&D isn't a drama based game, at any time the PCs can say "well i don't want to do this" and leave. They can walk away, they can switch sides, they can commit ritual suicide with pencils what ever. They have free will. If you go by the whole storytelling RPG thing, your'll wind up with DM of the Rings (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612) where the players have no free will (much like the protagonists in a story) and simple exist to fill out the parts of a drama. That isn't a roleplaying game, that is simple telling a story with the listeners making suggestions. Free will changes everything. And you don't want to be like teh DM of the rings do you?


To say they are too different and should have little to do with each other is a Fallacy. It is ignoring but some of the similarities they have as well. However, and I'll say again, the largest difference between role-playing games and other media is just redefined this way. It is the difference between passive and active media. A film is passive, a role-playing game is active. That merely is based on interaction.
Except in a Roleplaying game, i'm not playing to enjoy effecting the world around me. I have free will, and i enjoy that. I can do anything i want that i can mechanically pull off. I can interact with the world around me, and as such, i expect the world around me to interact back. If i want to read a dramatic story, i'll read Hamlet. There are no mechanics in litature, and roleplaying isn't held to plot.




Attempt to cover up holes in your argument by acting defensive and claiming us to be illogical?
What holes? enlighten me



Okay, so let me get this straight.

It's not okay to have a set of rules which allow you to quickly and easily assign appropriate stats to NPCs on the fly.

It *is* okay for you to just make up stats for NPCs based on "what you know"?
you misunderstand
1. It isn't ok, a good DM wouldn't do it. A good Dm would have a nifty note saying "Generic Knight" in his note book and use that. But should the Dm lost the card, or forget, he'd just quickly give him some generic stats that would suit his class, the generic feats of his class, and throw in the special abilities and your good. As long as you have you book taht has knight (and if you don't, then why is he a knight?) then it shouldn't take much time in teh least
2. The NPCs are still using the same rules as the PCs. A PC knight could be exactly the same as that NPC night mechanically



It's inconsistent to use an abbreviated ruleset? It's lazy to not make your players wait half an hour while you assign feats to a fourth level character?
It is inconsiderate when NPCs can do stuff the PCs can't simple because they are NPCs and no other given reason.



Which is a good thing: why?
consistency, magic follows rules, the classes follow rules (other wise we wouldn't have them). When this consistency is broken, the world stops making sense.



As opposed to saying "what do you mean 'shouldn't know'?"
If a wizard started casting cure spells in a fight, my player's characters would assume "Hey, this guy must be special for some reason". The PCs would be like "hey he can't do that" and if i ran a consistent game i'd say "yeah, your players would notice that"
If i ran a game were the NPCs powers were at my whim, i could have the wizard cast healing spells, play a bardic song, bind a vistage and use shadow magic simple because "he is special. No you can't ever do this"



Why would the wizard think "how come I can't heal"? Do particle physicists sit up in the evening and think "hey, how come my particle accelerator doesn't make music". Do doctors ask themselves "why, when I inject a patient with an anesthetic, does it not cause somebody to be found not guilty in a court of law?"

Um, yeah, a wizard would be going "hey, why can't i do this when that dude can? Why does he have powers i don't. He must be a different kind of spell caster" when magic has rules. The physicist knows why his accelerator doesn't make music, because it isn't designed like that. He (presumable) knows how it works and can figure it out from there. A wizard, and anyone with knowledge (arcane) could easily figure out the limitations of arcane magic, and it would be apparent that Divine and Arcane magic is different.


Wizards don't study the sorts of things that allow them to heal people, if they wanted to do that, they wouldn't be wizards.
but they would know how their own magic works, and thus when other casters don't follow the rules, they would be interested.


How will he see that, exactly?
Because Father Dominic says "By the power of Pelor, i heal you" and when asked by Wizard Bob, replies "I use the energy of my divine patron to heal these wounds" And Tharg says "the power of Grumish smites you, i use the power of Grumish to raise the dead, the powers granted to me by Grumish grant me strength." And when asked by wizard Bob, he says "I am granted my power by the great Grumish, and now i kill you". scholar Jim also notices that all the dues who wear armor, cast healing/buffering spells, and pray for spells at a certain time of day drawn their powers from the gods, while the dudes with the robes who can use bat man powers use spell books.


How does that follow?

Father Dominic heals, Dark Lord Tharg doesn't. Dominic and Tharg, in fact, never use any similar effects. They might be *game mechanically* capable of doing so (depending on what their *actual* classes are). How do you determine that two people who have the same class, but who never do anything remotely comparable to each other, actually have the same class?
magic has (presumable) been around for a while, even if Tharg doesn't use healing, some evil cleric will, and the people who study magic (hence the knowledge ranks in those subjects) will figure out the difference eventually. When magic has rules, people will naturally figure them out. Any wizard or cleric would know the limitations of his magic



The mistake you are making is in assuming that the game mechanics are *literally* the way that things work, instead of being abstractions.

That is the point of mechanics, so yes that is how they work. Hence why we have them in the first place, not just descriptions.



Your assumption that people would "work out" what Classes were is founded on the assumption that classes really exist in character. If you want your world to work like that, great. You've just given yourself a world where people freely describe themselves as "Level Five Fighters" and say things like "hey man, I'm down to my last few HP over here".
no, i assume people will figure out the rules in the world they live in. Because your only argument rests on teh fact that apparently, everybody in teh world other than the PC is a total moron who can't figure out the nature of the world they live in. You can be aware of the world without metagaming.



Yes, I know what you mean. You mean that somehow the vast, vast, vast amount of pure hack-and-slash material in 3.5 is completely okay and unobtrusive, but the moment anything gets changed, streamlined, or god forbid *improved* in the new edition, that's Turning D&D Into A Video Game
In 3E, the only thing that makes it hack and slash is the way it is presented, nothing and i repeat nothing keeps you from making D&D into a non hack an slash game. Hell, i mean orcs alignment is "Often CE" instead of "Always", that implies that they do stuff other than being evil


This is all unbelievably funny to anybody who has *actually* played any RPGs *apart* from D&D, and therefore has a genuine basis for comparing systems to each other.
well ignoring the fact you don't seem to understand how mechanics actually work, how does
A) you even get the idea i haven't played non D&D games. I prefer D&D to any other game system yes, that doesn't mean i haven't played any other ones
B) how is that relevant?
from
EE

Edit
3E's problem wasn't that it used the D20 system, it is that it didn't do it well. Important difference.



Hell, if he can do what he claims to be able to do with D&D just imagine what he could do with a real system in another 5 or 10 years from now, after he's gotten laid a few times and loosens up some.
and i'm calling that in as a flame

[Matthew]

This is like a game of tag.

1) 4e isn't going to be the same mechanical RPG as 3e D20.

2) Plenty of RPGs use hybrid class/unclassed systems and/or use different rules for NPC and PC creation. It doesn't affect verisimillitude at all or the consistancy of the game world. If you don't like those games, that's fair enough, but plenty of people play them and some even regard them as more consistant than 3e.

3) D20 is the only version of D&D to use a fully Classed System and have PCs and NPCs use the same creation rules. It hasn't been a successful experiment, and for every problem it solved it created a new one.

That's all there is to it, Evil Elitest. You can keep repeating yourself again and again, but it doesn't make what you're saying any more absolutely true, though it may be subjectively true for you.

I really would like to encourage you to try some other RPGs and see what other options exist. Just out of interest, what tabletop RPGs have you played?

[Poison_Fish]

1. Prove it. really, prove these absurd claim, because if my only "crime" is arguing against you people, that is hardly a problem
2. I never said Nightwish was bad, i just used their band because the had the song kinslayer

You know what would help? Examples of my "actions" against the nature of debate.

Um, EE, please learn to read? I gave examples above. My examples aren't against the nature of the debate, it's against you thinking what your saying is objective. The way things "should" be in what you are saying are really the way things you want to be. These are gaming choices, not how things should be.



1. That is a tactical no brainier, anyone knows that you'd only go up against six dudes if you were damn well confident in your abilities. A diversion, hit and run ect implies confidence or desperation. Also the original statement that sparked the debate was the fact that one dude fighting six wasn't dramatic because the one dude can only go once for every six guys attacks. That is common sense, when you go up against six guys, unless you are freaking uber (and if that was teh case then this guy would have the feats to make him go so fast) you will hit once for every six hits thrown at you. Sure the person could use terrain to his advantage, but that fits under the "He is confident" reason , but that still means he is going up against six dudes. If your going up against six dudes, make sure you are ready for it, because other wise you will take heavy damage because they can hit you six times for everyone one of yours
2. That varies. If Lord Henry the Lame suffers from an illness that makes him weak and he limps, then i'll make his strength and Con lower than average and half his speed to reflect that.
3. And yet again, it is important to running a world. And yet again, Lina is a fictional character, not a PC very different. More to the point, if the magic of the world is free form and doesn't make sense, why are their even rules for it in teh first place?
4. Um, Wizards can be quite broken if you use the right stuff, same with CoDzilla. You don't have to break using ether of these, but even so it is true
As for Realism, the "ideal" of D&D is that all of the PC classes are equal in usefulness. This isn't true of course, because the mechanics make them quite different and some useless (Samurai, i'm looking at you), however the way the game is suppose to be played if the mechanics were not screwed would have all of the classes being separate but equal (hmm, i wonder how far that metaphor could go?). In my games i try my best to mechanically balance the classes so they are both mechanically and story appealing. As for more powerful/less powerful, i let levels do that

1. Stop simplifying a situation? I continue to add complexities, you continue to attempt to simplify it. Life/game is never so simple as six guys vs. one really tough guy. Yes, it comes into play, but surprise, timing, and so many other factors are here.
2. Fair enough
3. The rules of magic are typically created as part of world building, be it for an RPG or a tv show. Lina may be a fictional character but she still falls into the same slot of a player character. I'll show further down again you fail to disprove the fact that PC's are similar protagonists as to main characters. But for now, let me continue to hammer it into your head, they are more similar then different.
4. Congratulations, you have now found the term of realism. Some things are better then others. Deal. Class balance in a role-playing game? I think not. Advantages and usefulness, sure. But even as a CoDzilla, can you still lock pick or be a charming swashbuckler who takes a lady's heart? Not as easily as other classes can. Just because D&D has the potential to have more powerful abilities over other classes makes it less of a game or makes it broken? What do you sacrifice in gaining such a large power? I'll grant wizards can take the cake with free access to as much spells as they want, but there are so many ways to just balance that out without changing mechanics.


Except we know that magic follows rules. It is one of the basic tenets of D&D, all magic follows certain rules
We know this, that is an established fact. You can figure it out by comparing the powers of a wizard and a cleric in game, so considering the world has (presumable) been around for a while, the people who use these magics would logically understand them.

Correction. Except you know that magic follows a rule set because you are playing a game. Your character doesn't know the rules just by being a first level wizard. Your making an assumption that all the people who use the magic would understand it if it's been around for awhile. My god man, have you heard of hierarchy? Have you heard of levels of knowledge? Did you completely ignore my last two examples? (yes to the last one). Sure, a magic user may be able to cast magic missile, but he won't understand time stop. It's like pointing a finger at an average elementary schooler and expecting him, now that he can multiply, to know trigonometry. Not every cleric in a modern day temple understands the deeper theology of their religions. There is a difference between understanding and having the knowledge there.


I don't know, all i know is if i don't fix a word within five seconds of writing it, the little red line vanishes and so it looks like i'm fine.

Microsoft word? I'd suggest copy pasting the text window and moving it to a more advanced writing program, the run a spell check.


Except a Game has mechanics and rules, a book does not
Also in a Game i, the player have control over the actions of the storyline and the outcome of the game
In a Book/film I the viewer have no control over the outcome, and there are no mechanics controlling the story.

This doesn't disprove anything I've said. More like your just talking at me. A book doesn't have rules in the same sense a D&D book would have. However it establishes it's own setting and it's own rules. Please relook at passive and active mediums.


no
Main character are the people with the most screen time in the movie
PCs are player characters. A PC is a dude who happens to be controlled by a player. An NPC is a person in the game who is not controlled by a player. Totally different.

How? One thing makes something zomg, totally different? Again, completely ignoring the similarities. The difference lay upon being passive or active. For all intents and purposes main character and PC are the same thing. The major difference is just the role of the meta, not the role of the character. The meta has those either observing or controlling the character. But remember, there is someone controlling the main characters of a story, the writers. You, as a player, is a writer as well with your character. Your just not the only writer.



Except D&D isn't a drama based game, at any time the PCs can say "well i don't want to do this" and leave. They can walk away, they can switch sides, they can commit ritual suicide with pencils what ever. They have free will. If you go by the whole storytelling RPG thing, your'll wind up with DM of the Rings (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612) where the players have no free will (much like the protagonists in a story) and simple exist to fill out the parts of a drama. That isn't a roleplaying game, that is simple telling a story with the listeners making suggestions. Free will changes everything. And you don't want to be like teh DM of the rings do you?

You do realize what I mean by drama, right? Of course not.


drama: 1. n. a story written to be acted out, as on the stage of a theatre; a play; 2. a series of interesting or exciting events.

Definition number 2. Drama refers to the series of events that a game takes place. The challenges that a storyteller will place in front of his party. It doesn't refer to an episode of friends.

So, as to D&D being a drama based game? It is. When there is a logical chain of events that affect the characters and there interactions, of course. Otherwise, your just playing a slightly advanced version of Warhammer.

And on a side note, freewill ≠ freestupid. The players do have free will, but in most roleplaying games, their characters have a personality or other limitations in terms of their character would do to make choices. I think your confusing roleplaying games for roll-playing games.

Essentially, role-playing (not roll-playing, which is a strategy game) is interactive storytelling. The Storyteller doesn't make all the decisions, he merely helps set the stage and make things stay within the bounds.


Except in a Role-playing game, i'm not playing to enjoy effecting the world around me. I have free will, and i enjoy that. I can do anything i want that i can mechanically pull off. I can interact with the world around me, and as such, i expect the world around me to interact back. If i want to read a dramatic story, i'll read Hamlet. There are no mechanics in litature, and roleplaying isn't held to plot.

Are you really so simple minded EE to sum me up as trying to change a role-playing game into a specific passive medium? Nice try at counter arguments bub, but these aren't it. I've never said that role-playing was a passive media, you are to quick to assume and completely ignore what I say. This is where the miscommunication is, EE.


What holes? enlighten me

See above about making catch all statements and assumptions about your "opponents" when you fail to understand what they are saying(Such as thinking we are all trying to write a book with a role-playing game).

I will also take this time to insist that you play other RPG's besides D&D EE. If you claim to have played others, what are some examples? D&D comes from a largely mechanical and war-game background which is why it's very easy to make an assumption that that is all you have played.

[Rutee]

It's okay, I respect curiosity. My main interest isn't really in 4e so much as peoples reaction to 4e.

There have been a few ideas they've come up with that I did like (Can't remember them right now off the top of my head) and several I've seen work well in other systems, so I know they can work, but doubt WotC's ability to implement them smoothly. And I've seen a lot that are just straight BAD ideas I'm amazed no one thought through. In short, a lot like prior editions of D&D.
This is causing a lot of consternation for a lot of people. This is a good time to chip away at WotC's grip on the industry. If people like EE aren't happy with what they're going to get, it's in my best interest as someone who's not that interested in D&D to get people to play other things. But I want them to be looking for the right reasons. Hell, if he can do what he claims to be able to do with D&D just imagine what he could do with a real system in another 5 or 10 years from now, after he's gotten laid a few times and loosens up some.
:smallwink:
Fair enough, though I'm surprised you're waiting til 4e discontent to 'convert' people, as it were. For my part, the system mostly exists because it can mix gamist fun with (With similarly tilted players, GM inclusive) storytelling. I'd never, ever use ti in a game I thought wasn't going to have combat as the main expression of conflict, because DnD just doesn't handle non-combat well. ...Though honestly, I'd probably be just as quick to run M&M 2e, since it allows just as much gamist fun, but with more freedom. >.>

[EvilElitest]

Um, EE, please learn to read? I gave examples above. My examples aren't against the nature of the debate, it's against you thinking what your saying is objective. The way things "should" be in what you are saying are really the way things you want to be. These are gaming choices, not how things should be.

Isn't their a forum rule against suggesting somebody didn't read your point correctly
I responded to the evidence at hand, and provided my own option. That is hardly a crime in a debate



1. Stop simplifying a situation? I continue to add complexities, you continue to attempt to simplify it. Life/game is never so simple as six guys vs. one really tough guy. Yes, it comes into play, but surprise, timing, and so many other factors are here.
2. Fair enough
3. The rules of magic are typically created as part of world building, be it for an RPG or a tv show. Lina may be a fictional character but she still falls into the same slot of a player character. I'll show further down again you fail to disprove the fact that PC's are similar protagonists as to main characters. But for now, let me continue to hammer it into your head, they are more similar then different.
4. Congratulations, you have now found the term of realism. Some things are better then others. Deal. Class balance in a role-playing game? I think not. Advantages and usefulness, sure. But even as a CoDzilla, can you still lock pick or be a charming swashbuckler who takes a lady's heart? Not as easily as other classes can. Just because D&D has the potential to have more powerful abilities over other classes makes it less of a game or makes it broken? What do you sacrifice in gaining such a large power? I'll grant wizards can take the cake with free access to as much spells as they want, but there are so many ways to just balance that out without changing mechanics.

1. Except the original statement was expressed annoyance at one guy only being able to hit once for every six hits when fighting six people, and that was expressed as a bad thing. As i said, you'd only go up against six dudes if you were Confident or tactically impaired. If terrain, surprise, or anything like that come into the situation, it doesn't change the fact he is fighting six dudes against once, and this implies confidence
2. thank you
3. No because in Lina's world there are no mechanics at all, nor (i think) any rule to the magic. Mechanics make all the difference
4.Just to point some things out as a cleric you can in fact pick a hard and sway people's emotions ironically enough.
As for class balance , that is essential for a fun game. Why do you think Samurai are never played, because they are totally useless. Anyone who plays one will eventually become useless, and even if that player has the coolest back story in the world, his character will still be useless and he wouldn't be able to pull his weight in a group. Really, this is the gaming board, i assure, try creating a thread saying that the classes are balanced and your see what i mean


Correction. Except you know that magic follows a rule set because you are playing a game. Your character doesn't know the rules just by being a first level wizard.
My first level wizard knows
What spells he can cast
What spells he can't cast
That he can't cast spells wearing armor
That he uses a spell book and components to cast his spells
That he needs to memorize his spells at the start of the day
That once he casts his spells he is useless
That his spells come in eight schools
That he can cast spells in the that blast, make illusions, control the dead, transform, protect, scry, summon and control minds.
That he can't cast healing spells
That he can't use warlock powers
That he can't bind things
That he can't use Shadowcraft magic
That eventually he can learn new spells
That the new spells he learns will have certain properties
That his spells can do certain things
ect ect ect. and taht isn't even counting Spellcraft.



Your making an assumption that all the people who use the magic would understand it if it's been around for awhile. My god man, have you heard of hierarchy? Have you heard of levels of knowledge? Did you completely ignore my last two examples? (yes to the last one). Sure, a magic user may be able to cast magic missile, but he won't understand time stop. It's like pointing a finger at an average elementary schooler and expecting him, now that he can multiply, to know trigonometry. Not every cleric in a modern day temple understands the deeper theology of their religions. There is a difference between understanding and having the knowledge there.

Actually, a first level mage would understand the affects and use of time stop, just not how to use it . When he finally gets to the level when he can use it, guess what? He instantly understand not only what it does, but how it works. Every Cleric and every wizard understands how their own magic functions (if not every thing about it)

Also i would like to point out that even if nobody knew the rules to magic, they still exist and breaking them would still be very annoying


Microsoft word? I'd suggest copy pasting the text window and moving it to a more advanced writing program, the run a spell check.
I just write in the box, but i suppose that could work




This doesn't disprove anything I've said. More like your just talking at me. A book doesn't have rules in the same sense a D&D book would have. However it establishes it's own setting and it's own rules. Please relook at passive and active mediums.


In a book, I the read have no control over the situation. It isn't a game, it is a medium. I simple read the book, and learn what happens and hopefully enjoy it. With a game i directly cause what happens. Yes, a difference between active and passive mediums, and in the case of RPGs and in Video Games the active medium has rules


How? One thing makes something zomg, totally different? Again, completely ignoring the similarities. The difference lay upon being passive or active. For all intents and purposes main character and PC are the same thing. The major difference is just the role of the meta, not the role of the character. The meta has those either observing or controlling the character. But remember, there is someone controlling the main characters of a story, the writers. You, as a player, is a writer as well with your character. Your just not the only writer.
What i'm saying is totally different is the nature of the two people. Sure they may both be protagonists, but that isn't an issue. If i read the Belgariad, the main character is the "chosen one" ect ect, well he is the main character, it is cool. However in a roleplaying game, the assumption will be in one given world you will have half a dozen guys running around doing stuff. Every time one of these half dozen guys dies, a new one will replace him. Now the issue is that these half dozen guys will also be "Special" in the same way Luke Skywalker is. But then we have two issues

1) Why are they unique? Even in literature, "They are the main characters" isn't a proper excuse. The only given reason is "They are being played by PCs" which is silly. If a reason was given then i'd be somewhat content, because there is an in game reason why they are special that makes sense within the world. So when NPCs ask "Why do those guys get super powers nobody else gets?" another dude say "oh they are the special guys who are chosen by the powers of X to do Y and so they can do S"
2) Also in a story there is not mechanical rule on what can and cannnot be done. Your limitations in a book are defined by the writer, in a Roleplaying game you limitations are defined by the mechanics



Definition number 2. Drama refers to the series of events that a game takes place. The challenges that a storyteller will place in front of his party. It doesn't refer to an episode of friends.

So, as to D&D being a drama based game? It is. When there is a logical chain of events that affect the characters and there interactions, of course. Otherwise, your just playing a slightly advanced version of Warhammer.

And on a side note, freewill ≠ freestupid. The players do have free will, but in most roleplaying games, their characters have a personality or other limitations in terms of their character would do to make choices. I think your confusing roleplaying games for roll-playing games.

You misunderstand, i am referring to Role playing which is more than just a story, it is a world. A world in which the PC can immerse themselves, a world where they can come to understand and interact with. I personally tend not to use a central plot but let them create their own plot through their interactions with the world. As such, my Duty as the DM is to make sure the world reacts realistically and is consistent. mechanics and fluff should be bound together, not separate functions
Roll playing ironically enough tends to have a totally centersziead plot that tends to be static



Essentially, role-playing (not roll-playing, which is a strategy game) is interactive storytelling. The Storyteller doesn't make all the decisions, he merely helps set the stage and make things stay within the bounds.

That is no reason to not have the mechanics reflect the fluff
But more the points, if i'm trying to create a realistic world taht is also consistent, doesn't work if half a dozen guys have special powers that no body else has




Are you really so simple minded EE to sum me up as trying to change a role-playing game into a specific passive medium? Nice try at counter
arguments bub, but these aren't it. I've never said that role-playing was a passive media, you are to quick to assume and completely ignore what I say. This is where the miscommunication is, EE.
ignoring the personal attacks for a second
1. I never said that role-playing games are a passive medium, what are you talking about?
2. Your jumping upon an argument made by Rutee, which said that because the main characters in fictions are super special awesome, the PCs in a roleplaying game should be super special awsome from the get-go




I will also take this time to insist that you play other RPG's besides D&D EE. If you claim to have played others, what are some examples? D&D comes from a largely mechanical and war-game background which is why it's very easy to make an assumption that that is all you have played.

I have played other games thank you very much, through it has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion , do you want non D&D or non D20?
from
EE

Edit

now i feel like this needs to be made clear, this whole argument stems back to 4E's ideal that NPCs and PCs follow separate rules that is the issue here. I don't like this because i feel it ruins world consistency and is less realistic. If you don't give a damn about world consistency or enjoy the PCs being greater than NPCs that is fine, we can agree to disagree, but the issue is it does ruin world consistency. That is the annoyance. Now we can agree to disagree, but you can't ignore the fact that this rule kills rule and world consistency. That is the issue here

[Matthew]

now i feel like this needs to be made clear, this whole argument stems back to 4E's ideal that NPCs and PCs follow separate rules that is the issue here. I don't like this because i feel it ruins world consistency and is less realistic. If you don't give a damn about world consistency or enjoy the PCs being greater than NPCs that is fine, we can agree to disagree, but the issue is it does ruin world consistency. That is the annoyance. Now we can agree to disagree, but you can't ignore the fact that this rule kills rule and world consistency. That is the issue here

No. The issue is that you think it does and other people don't agree, not that 'it does and some people don't seem to care.' The issue is really that you won't even recognise other people's point of view.

[EvilElitest]

No. The issue is that you think it does and other people don't agree, not that 'it does and some people don't seem to care.'

Subject

NPCs and PCs don't follow the same rules

Issue
this kills world consistency, and doesn't make sense from both a world and mechanical standpoint

Possible counter points

1) this isn't true

2) this is a good thing

3) I don't care


The last one shouldn't be the issue here, the second one can get to agreeing to disagreeing. The first one is the real issue
from
EE

[Matthew]

Yes, now read what you wrote above and what I quoted. The issue at hand is that you think games that use different rules to generate NPCs and PCs are flawed in terms of consistancy. You are writing as though it is an absolute truth, and yet, as far as I can see, you have never actually used such a system. I can tell you right now that you're just plain wrong. Your arguments are purely theoretical and they adopt extreme stances as though they will be a normal part of play. Yet, when others do the same for D20, you dismiss such points as unimportant.

[EvilElitest]

Yes, now read what you wrote above and what I quoted. The issue at hand is that you think games that use different rules to generate NPCs and PCs are flawed in terms of consistancy. You are writing as though it is an absolute truth, and yet, as far as I can see, you have never actually used such a system.

I have used non D&D systems yes, i just prefer D&D. Through Legend of the Nine Rings is pretty good at this as well. However this argument focuses upon D&D more than anything else, not other games
from
EE

[Matthew]

I have used non D&D systems yes, i just prefer D&D. Through Legend of the Nine Rings is pretty good at this as well. However this argument focuses upon D&D more than anything else, not other games

Here's the thing. D&D is a brand. D20 is a game. 4e will be a different game. If you accept that other games can have consistant worlds with rule sets that treat NPCs and PCs differently, then you must accept that this is possible for 4e also. It was possible for 1e and it was possible for 2e, it will be possible for 4e.

[EvilElitest]

Here's the thing. D&D is a brand. D20 is a game. 4e will be a different game. If you accept that other games can have consistant worlds with rule sets that treat NPCs and PCs differently, then you must accept that this is possible for 4e also. It was possible for 1e and it was possible for 2e, it will be possible for 4e.

Except i didn't like 2E for that reason, because it wasn't consistent. That is why i liked that aspect of 3E.
from
EE

[Matthew]

Except i didn't like 2E for that reason, because it wasn't consistent. That is why i liked that aspect of 3E.

You're speaking in absolutes again. You don't think 2e is capable of supporting consistant worlds. I think it's better able to support consistant worlds than D20. That's a disagreement and a difference of opinion. The truth is in this case subjective, not absolute. If you speak in absolutes about subjective opinions you will end up with 15 page threads filled with nonesense and not a bit of personal abuse (which is undesirable to say the least).

[Rutee]

Oh Matthew, you're so silly. Acting as if an opinion could possibly be something other then wrong.

[EvilElitest]

You're speaking in absolutes again. You don't think 2e is capable of supporting consistant worlds. I think it's better able to support consistant worlds than D20. That's a disagreement and a difference of opinion. The truth is in this case subjective, not absolute. If you speak in absolutes about subjective opinions you will end up with 15 page threads filled with nonesense and not a bit of personal abuse (which is undesirable to say the least).

Alright, why do you think 2E's manner was more consistent.

And rutee, if you have a problem, say it directly, stop hiding around making snide remarks, you don't add anything and waste time
from
EE

[Matthew]

Alright, why do you think 2E's manner was more consistent.

Well, this is dangerous ground. Edition Wars have pretty much petered out here on GitP. I haven't seen a Thread locked on the subject for nearly two years and I don't want to see it happen again. So let's try and keep in mind that preferences are subjective.

The main reason I think AD&D is better able to support a consistant world than D20 may seem like a paradox to you, but it is because there are less rules, which frees the DM from abstract mechanics interfering with versimillitude.

For example, combat movement could run simultaneously. An Orc and a Fighter could both declare charges and meet in the middle.

More importantly, though, the DM is essentially free to decide what level of reality will govern 99% of non combat task resolution. To put it another way, there are no skills governing these things, only the agreement of reasonable probabilities based on roleplaying.

[EvilElitest]

Well, this is dangerous ground. Edition Wars have pretty much petered out here on GitP. I haven't seen a Thread locked on the subject for nearly two years and I don't want to see it happen again. So let's try and keep in mind that preferences are subjective.

The main reason I think AD&D is better able to support a consistant world than D20 may seem like a paradox to you, but it is because there are less rules, which frees the DM from abstract mechanics interfering with versimillitude.

For example, combat movement could run simultaneously. An Orc and a Fighter could both declare charges and meet in the middle.

It is worth nothing however, that the Orcs isn't using the same rules as the Fighter

on that note, i've been reading the other 4E peview books and two things have shot out to me

1. Character death. For the PCs character death has gotten to the point where it is described as a "Speed bump" However for NPCs and Monsters, resurrection is a no show

"It is generally harder to die than in previous editions, particualarly at low level. When a heroic-tier player character dies, the player creates a new character. A paragon PC can come abck from the dead a a significant cost. For epic-tier characters, death is a speed bump. Being raised from the dead available only to hero and it is more than just a spell and a financial transaction. NPCs, both good and evil, don't normally come back to life unless the DM has a good reason.
Monsters and NPCs shouldn't use the same rules for death as PCs. When they're down, they're out-Pcs don't have to slit every monster's throat after the battle and burn the corpses (except maybe for trolls).

2. Evil vs. evil

"Less Evil Fighting Evil: Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon lords and arch-devils war with each other rather than being threatening the PCs. We don't want to was space on things the players can't use...."

p. 14 Ironically enough
Edit
I should start a different thread for these
from
EE

[Rutee]

[Scrubbed] Check two lines down in your own post.

"NPCs, both good and evil, don't normally come back to life unless the DM has a good reason. "

I assume this also happens with players too, who can opt to roll new characters when allowed to be resurrected.

[EvilElitest]

You're illiterate. Check two lines down in your own post.

i've had enough with these absurd personal attacks, i'm calling this in a a flame



"NPCs, both good and evil, don't normally come back to life unless the DM has a good reason. "

I assume this also happens with players too, who can opt to roll new characters when allowed to be resurrected.
Um, you didn't read anything about Death only being a speed bump for PCs? I'm illiterate?
from
EE

[Matthew]

It is worth nothing however, that the Orcs isn't using the same rules as the Fighter.

Please explain what you mean, otherwise this note is worthless. The Orc and the Fighter use exactly the same rules for combat. They don't use the same rules for power progression, but that does not create an inconsistant world in and of itself.



on that note, i've been reading the other 4E peview books and two things have shot out to me

1. Character death. For the PCs character death has gotten to the point where it is described as a "Speed bump" However for NPCs and Monsters, resurrection is a no show

"It is generally harder to die than in previous editions, particualarly at low level. When a heroic-tier player character dies, the player creates a new character. A paragon PC can come abck from the dead a a significant cost. For epic-tier characters, death is a speed bump. Being raised from the dead available only to hero and it is more than just a spell and a financial transaction. NPCs, both good and evil, don't normally come back to life unless the DM has a good reason.
Monsters and NPCs shouldn't use the same rules for death as PCs. When they're down, they're out-Pcs don't have to slit every monster's throat after the battle and burn the corpses (except maybe for trolls).

2. Evil vs. evil

"Less Evil Fighting Evil: Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon lords and arch-devils war with each other rather than being threatening the PCs. We don't want to was space on things the players can't use...."

p. 14 Ironically enough
Edit
I should start a different thread for these

No need to start a new thread, just keep to one subject at a time.

[Rutee]

At Epic levels, it's a speed bump. It's permanent at heroic, and difficult at Paragon. And you can, as a player, still choose to not be resurrected. Maybe that death was just too dramatically appropriate. If you don't want to be called illiterate, act on your capability to read; You missed an extremely important note within your own quote that overturned your point.

[EvilElitest]

At Epic levels, it's a speed bump. It's permanent at heroic, and difficult at Paragon. And you can, as a player, still choose to not be resurrected. Maybe that death was just too dramatically appropriate. If you don't want to be called illiterate, act on your capability to read; You missed an extremely important note within your own quote that overturned your point.

1. [scrubbed]
2. That isn't the point, the point is that these PCs are able to come back from the dead, ether at a cost or with no trouble. That isn't the issue, the issue is that only the PCs can do this, NPCs don't get to come back from the dead in the same manner as PCs, i'm reinforcing my point on NPC PCs working on different rules


And Matthew, that orc guy charging the fighter, is he Orc level 1 fighter vs. Human level 3 fighter or Generic orc vs. Human level three fighter?
from
EE

[Rutee]

Oh my Multiple Heathen Gods in heaven. FROM YOUR OWN POST.




"NPCs, both good and evil, don't normally come back to life unless the DM has a good reason. "

Read this all at once. It says "NPCs can come back still, if there's a particular reason for it".

[EvilElitest]

Oh my Multiple Heathen Gods in heaven. FROM YOUR OWN POST.




Read this all at once. It says "NPCs can come back still, if there's a particular reason for it".

Um Rutee, taht isn't what it said


NPCs, both good and evil, don't normally come back to life unless the DM has a good reason
so unless PCs who will be coming back from teh dead all the time, NPCs will only come back when their is a special event
from
EE

[Rutee]

"Because the PCs do it all the time" is a perfectly viable reason. It will also make NPCs coming back unspecial.

[EvilElitest]

"Because the PCs do it all the time" is a perfectly viable reason. It will also make NPCs coming back unspecial.

1. The paragraph basically said that PC and NPCs won't be going back to life on the same regular basis.
2. By that note, doesn't the death system make PCs coming back unspecial?
from
EE

[Rutee]

1. It also says that the DM can have NPCs come back when they want. If you want them to come back as much as PCs, you are freaking free to do so.
2. Slight, slightly more special then it is now; In 3.5, resurrection at a cost is possible at level 9. In 4e, it's possible at level 11. In 3.5, resurrection as a speed bump happens at level 17. In 4e, it happens at 21. Since it takes longer in level terms, it implies that it doesn't happen until you personally are more powerful

[EvilElitest]

1. It also says that the DM can have NPCs come back when they want. If you want them to come back as much as PCs, you are freaking free to do so.
2. Slight, slightly more special then it is now; In 3.5, resurrection at a cost is possible at level 9. In 4e, it's possible at level 11. In 3.5, resurrection as a speed bump happens at level 17. In 4e, it happens at 21. Since it takes longer in level terms, it implies that it doesn't happen until you personally are more powerful

1. True, but that isn't the intention of 4E, that is me the DM tweaking it. In doing so, i am invoking rule zero to counter one of 4E's points when i shouldn't have to
2. Fair enough
from
EE

[Rutee]

I believe Rule 0 doesn't apply to intentions (Which ultimately are really only important in understanding the why of a rule's presence, not the how of how a rule works), only changes to the rules themselves. As far as we know, the rules don't say you can't rez NPCs, only that you /shouldn't/. It is no more rule 0 then the implicit social contract most players and DMs have running now, where they don't mutilate everyone beyond belief, and NPCs only get rezzed as dramatically appropriate.

[EvilElitest]

I believe Rule 0 doesn't apply to intentions (Which ultimately are really only important in understanding the why of a rule's presence, not the how of how a rule works), only changes to the rules themselves. As far as we know, the rules don't say you can't rez NPCs, only that you /shouldn't/. It is no more rule 0 then the implicit social contract most players and DMs have running now, where they don't mutilate everyone beyond belief, and NPCs only get rezzed as dramatically appropriate.

True , but this does bring us back to 4E's annoying "NPCs are lesser than PCs" point showing another example of it. If 4E didn't do this and just gave us the rules each person would have their own idea. Now you'd make all the NPCs lesser because your games rely on drama, and i'd not do that because my games rely upon logic and consistency.

however what WOTC does is that they are forcing one ideal upon people who simple don't like it and that is my complaint. Hell, this annoys me even when i like the thing they are changing, because they are forcing one view upon people instead of letting them choose for themselves. Hell, if they gave us a reason for why PCs are so unique i'd be content, but the only reason is "They are the PCs" which is total BS

from
EE
Edit
I've also heard that NPCs die when they reach 0 Hp, while PCs die when they reach -9. is this true?

[Rutee]

True , but this does bring us back to 4E's annoying "NPCs are lesser than PCs" point showing another example of it. If 4E didn't do this and just gave us the rules each person would have their own idea. Now you'd make all the NPCs lesser because your games rely on drama, and i'd not do that because my games rely upon logic and consistency.

however what WOTC does is that they are forcing one ideal upon people who simple don't like it and that is my complaint. Hell, this annoys me even when i like the thing they are changing, because they are forcing one view upon people instead of letting them choose for themselves. Hell, if they gave us a reason for why PCs are so unique i'd be content, but the only reason is "They are the PCs" which is total BS
You mean like they "force 'NPCs and PCs are equal' down my throat" in 3e? You're getting back to "I don't like this subjective viewpoint". That's perfectly fine, until, from this, you take "This thing that I dislike is inferior".

4e and 3e are exactly alike in their forcing of ideals. One is tilted towards my tastes, seemingly, the other is tilted towards your tastes. Why is 4e satan incarnate for forcing an ideal down your throat, while 3e is flowers and roses for doing the same thing?

[horseboy]

however what WOTC does is that they are forcing one ideal upon people who simple don't like it and that is my complaint. Hell, this annoys me even when i like the thing they are changing, because they are forcing one view upon people instead of letting them choose for themselves. Hell, if they gave us a reason for why PCs are so unique i'd be content, but the only reason is "They are the PCs" which is total BSD&D is a generic system. It's up the the DM to decide why they're that special.


Edit
I've also heard that NPCs die when they reach 0 Hp, while PCs die when they reach -9. is this true?
Mooks die when they reach 0. Plot significant NPC's can survive past, what was it? -1/2 base hp.

[EvilElitest]

You mean like they "force 'NPCs and PCs are equal' down my throat" in 3e? You're getting back to "I don't like this subjective viewpoint". That's perfectly fine, until, from this, you take "This thing that I dislike is inferior".

4e and 3e are exactly alike in their forcing of ideals. One is tilted towards my tastes, seemingly, the other is tilted towards your tastes. Why is 4e satan incarnate for forcing an ideal down your throat, while 3e is flowers and roses for doing the same thing?

Except an alterante solution is offered in 3E, make all of teh NPCs only have NPC classes, and the PCs have PCs classes. Your good, minimal effort, and your not even breaking any rules. I on the other hand, need to alter pretty much the enter NPC PC relationship as well as breaking a good deal or rules to even get to the same level as you.
Also, 4E is D&D, and is a change from 3E. My complaint is that the they are destroying a perfectly good aspect of the old game that people liked and replacing it with a totally new aspect, for faulty reasons. If they offered a two different options i'd be fine but now the game i enjoy is being altered beyond my control. Now correct me if i'm wrong, you play Exalted right? In exalted i think their is a reason why the PCs are so uber other than "they are the player characters" But PCs being uber is Exalted's thing, it is specialty , if you like that sort of thing you play exalted. However D&D doesn't work under that assumption, and a perfeclty good system is being destroyed because of it.
from
EE

[Rutee]

No, DnD 3rd ed does not make designing towards dramatic appropriateness easy. At all. That's why I don't play it. You're looking at tiny aspects of what dramatic appropriateness can mean. I'm telling you now as fact that DnD doesn't give one whit for it, within its core rules. There are alternate rules that do, but those aren't the core books. Your entire point is predicated on "3e can do all that". No. No it can not. I'm the one who's actually worked to make DnD work on dramatic appropriateness, and it requires a peck of house ruling and variant rules to do to any satisfaction. Making it work your way is mostly just taking the RAW and running with it.

4th ed makes your way easier for you then 3rd ed makes my way easier for me. No matter how much you repeat the untruth that you can't give NPCs PC classes, it will remain an untruth. Everything you have brought up problems with isn't mechanically difficult to change.


Mooks die when they reach 0. Plot significant NPC's can survive past, what was it? -1/2 base hp.
I think they said that PCs and significant NPCs can live to -1/2 Base HP, yesh. * Cue more complaining. And this has a thread, under "Minor 4e Change", if you feel compelled to complain about it.

[Poison_Fish]

Except an alterante solution is offered in 3E, make all of teh NPCs only have NPC classes, and the PCs have PCs classes. Your good, minimal effort, and your not even breaking any rules. I on the other hand, need to alter pretty much the enter NPC PC relationship as well as breaking a good deal or rules to even get to the same level as you.
Also, 4E is D&D, and is a change from 3E. My complaint is that the they are destroying a perfectly good aspect of the old game that people liked and replacing it with a totally new aspect, for faulty reasons. If they offered a two different options i'd be fine but now the game i enjoy is being altered beyond my control. Now correct me if i'm wrong, you play Exalted right? In exalted i think their is a reason why the PCs are so uber other than "they are the player characters" But PCs being uber is Exalted's thing, it is specialty , if you like that sort of thing you play exalted. However D&D doesn't work under that assumption, and a perfeclty good system is being destroyed because of it.
from
EE

Actually, D&D doeswork under that assumption. From page 4 of the players hand book.
your character is an adventurer, a hero who sets out on epic quests for fortune and glory Now, let's see here. Wiki on adventurers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventurer)
And let's define hero too
(n) hero (a man distinguished by exceptional courage and nobility and strength)

Now, what's this about Player Characters being perfectly average joes? Just because Exalted has the players playing demi-gods doesn't change the fact that the PC's are just that. People who influence the world far more then the average commoner. This applies to both static or fluid worlds.

Again, your making a catch all statement. "Ruining the game" when it appears the game was like this in the first place. All in all, this seems a minor change to some of the other things they could be doing.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Please explain what you mean, otherwise this note is worthless. The Orc and the Fighter use exactly the same rules for combat. They don't use the same rules for power progression, but that does not create an inconsistant world in and of itself.

Some people (well, mainly EE) seem to feel that it does. They seem to feel that "Class" is an in-character concept, that the way that the world of D&D "works" is that everybody's ability is defined by their "class" and their "level", that the scientists and philosophers of the world should have worked all this out years ago and should, presumably, have moved on to quantifying the Hit Point and defining Armour Class.

What it comes down to is that some people view the rules very much as the "physics" of the game world, and the idea that different rules could apply to different people in different situations is alien to them. As far as these people are concerned, the ability of - for example - a high level fighter to fall 500 feet onto a hard surface completely unharmed is not an artifact of the system but the literal truth of the game-reality.

To draw an analogy, it's like those people who believe that a dictionary tells you what words mean, and assume that any use of a word not listed in a dictionary is incorrect, and those people who believe that a dictionary records the meaning which words currently possess, and assume that if a word has a use not in a dictionary, the dictionary needs to be updated.

[Charity]

None are so blind as those that will not see.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Except an alterante solution is offered in 3E, make all of teh NPCs only have NPC classes, and the PCs have PCs classes. Your good, minimal effort, and your not even breaking any rules.

I think this shows how little you understand *why* a great many of us welcome the idea of separate NPC creation rules.

We're not some insane bunch of NPC-Nazis, who want to make sure that NPCs are always less powerful than PCs, or who want to make the players feel "special". We're just people with busy lives who can't be bothered to waste our time producing fully statted out NPCs using the PC creation rules.

If the PC creation rules were less long-winded, I'd be totally happy to have PCs and NPCs use the same rules. In Over the Edge for example (is that on the vast list of non-D&D games you've played?) all characters are basically defined by three Traits and a Flaw, in which case it's fantastically easy to stat up - say - Knight A by writing down:

Knight of the Realm (Wears knightly livery)
Pious (carries holy symbol of his god)
Loyal Defender of his People (often travels the villages under his care)
Guilt-Wracked (constantly handles his holy symbol)

et voila, one fully statted up NPC, from nothing, in less than sixty seconds, and following *exactly* the same creation rules as PCs.

On the other hand, statting up a D&D character takes a really long time, particularly when you start getting into high levels where you have to take magical items into account. Sure, it might be worth doing for the BBEG and the King of Freedonia, but is it *really* worth sitting down and statting out every single character that shows up in the game? And doing it *properly*, because as I think I have pointed out, if you just assign stats that "feel right" you're not following the PC creation rules.

[Matthew]

And Matthew, that orc guy charging the fighter, is he Orc level 1 fighter vs. Human level 3 fighter or Generic orc vs. Human level three fighter?

Why does it matter? They can be any power level you like. The point was about simultaneous movement; the example combatants could just as well have been two 'generic' Orcs, two 'generic' Fighters, two 'generic' Men at Arms, something else or any mixture of the above



Some people (well, mainly EE) seem to feel that it does. They seem to feel that "Class" is an in-character concept, that the way that the world of D&D "works" is that everybody's ability is defined by their "class" and their "level", that the scientists and philosophers of the world should have worked all this out years ago and should, presumably, have moved on to quantifying the Hit Point and defining Armour Class.

What it comes down to is that some people view the rules very much as the "physics" of the game world, and the idea that different rules could apply to different people in different situations is alien to them. As far as these people are concerned, the ability of - for example - a high level fighter to fall 500 feet onto a hard surface completely unharmed is not an artifact of the system but the literal truth of the game-reality.

That does seem to be the case.

[EvilElitest]

No, DnD 3rd ed does not make designing towards dramatic appropriateness easy. At all. That's why I don't play it. You're looking at tiny aspects of what dramatic appropriateness can mean. I'm telling you now as fact that DnD doesn't give one whit for it, within its core rules. There are alternate rules that do, but those aren't the core books. Your entire point is predicated on "3e can do all that". No. No it can not. I'm the one who's actually worked to make DnD work on dramatic appropriateness, and it requires a peck of house ruling and variant rules to do to any satisfaction. Making it work your way is mostly just taking the RAW and running with it.

1. Nothing stops you from making all the NPC have NPC classes. If other rules happen to interfere with your idea of drama, well that is a different and irrelevant issue. But on the issue of NPC/PC relationships, nothing stops you. So yes, 3E can pull of the NPC PC relationship ether way
2. At the risk of getting off topic, i find nothing in D&D that prevents drama in any way
3. As for Dramatic appropriateness, i've always found that strange, why? why should something suddenly work because its dramatic? And don't respond with some snide "oh you don't understand drama" because that isn't the issue, because if Drama means "Oh lets throw aside all laws of logic/consistency just so something dramatic can occur i don't want to touch it. If i want that, i'd read a book, not play a game. You can do drama within the system, not out of it



4th ed makes your way easier for you then 3rd ed makes my way easier for me. No matter how much you repeat the untruth that you can't give NPCs PC classes, it will remain an untruth. Everything you have brought up problems with isn't mechanically difficult to change.

It isn't an untruth, you can give NPCs NPC classes, but hte PCs will be the 'only' people running around in the world with the powers given to them by the PCs classes



I think they said that PCs and significant NPCs can live to -1/2 Base HP, yesh. * Cue more complaining. And this has a thread, under "Minor 4e Change", if you feel compelled to complain about it.

No this fits perfectly in the subject of this debate, why do certain live longer simple because they have names? If they have special hit point granting powers fine, but that isn't hte issue, the issue is that PCs and NPCs are following different rules




Actually, D&D doeswork under that assumption. From page 4 of the players hand book.
Quote:
your character is an adventurer, a hero who sets out on epic quests for fortune and glory
Now, let's see here. Wiki on adventurers
And let's define hero too
Quote:
(n) hero (a man distinguished by exceptional courage and nobility and strength)
Now, what's this about Player Characters being perfectly average joes? Just because Exalted has the players playing demi-gods doesn't change the fact that the PC's are just that. People who influence the world far more then the average commoner. This applies to both static or fluid worlds.

Again, your making a catch all statement. "Ruining the game" when it appears the game was like this in the first place. All in all, this seems a minor change to some of the other things they could be doing.
nice try, but you miss the point. PC characters are talented, they are elite, but they are unique special chosen ones. NPCs just like them exist out their, NPCs wizards, NPC fighters, NPC Clerics who are also talented (compared to say, Warriors or adept)
Sure they are heros (or villains, or mercenaries, whatever) but they aren't the sole heroes, they are just hte protagonists. in 3E they don't posses unique, one of a kind, special powers that nobody else has. They are talented yes, they aren't the random joe, but they also aren't Chosen ones. Other people like them can be seen running around dong the same thing, or staying at home with the same powers. the world's rules are also consistent. Random Commoner Joe is weaker than them, because he has the Class Commoner and lower ability scores, lower level, and crappier equipment, not because he has a generic name.






Some people (well, mainly EE) seem to feel that it does. They seem to feel that "Class" is an in-character concept, that the way that the world of D&D "works" is that everybody's ability is defined by their "class" and their "level", that the scientists and philosophers of the world should have worked all this out years ago and should, presumably, have moved on to quantifying the Hit Point and defining Armour Class.

What it comes down to is that some people view the rules very much as the "physics" of the game world, and the idea that different rules could apply to different people in different situations is alien to them. As far as these people are concerned, the ability of - for example - a high level fighter to fall 500 feet onto a hard surface completely unharmed is not an artifact of the system but the literal truth of the game-reality.

To draw an analogy, it's like those people who believe that a dictionary tells you what words mean, and assume that any use of a word not listed in a dictionary is incorrect, and those people who believe that a dictionary records the meaning which words currently possess, and assume that if a word has a use not in a dictionary, the dictionary needs to be updated.

That issue isn't so much that as the fact that the rules should be consistent. People gain their powers through classes, ok, cool. People also have innate powers gained via race. Ok cool. that is how the system works. that is how the game is played. When these rules have a double standard, your asking for trouble

As for your point about people not being aware of the classes, that is
1) irrelevant, the rules exist even if not every random joe is aware of them
2) only works as a point is you assume every single person in the world is a moron who has never bothered to even research the rules that govern their world
3) and yet again, what about other rules that don't make sense? Why do these PCs have super powers? (no reason is given other than "They are played by real people", no in game reason), why can't NPCs don't get the raising from the dead powers that PCs do (no in game reason given) why do they tend to die easier (no in game reason) ect ect ect.


Why does it matter? They can be any power level you like. The point was about simultaneous movement; the example combatants could just as well have been two 'generic' Orcs, two 'generic' Fighters, two 'generic' Men at Arms, something else or any mixture of the above
The human fighter is a human who happened to get a formal military training. Now an orc warrior would be an or who happened to get an informal miltia training. However if you have generic "orc" that makes me wonder, do all orcs do that? Is he an orc who just happened to never train in anything? If he took the class warrior would he have those abilities along with his training? What is going on" ect



I think this shows how little you understand *why* a great many of us welcome the idea of separate NPC creation rules.

We're not some insane bunch of NPC-Nazis, who want to make sure that NPCs are always less powerful than PCs, or who want to make the players feel "special". We're just people with busy lives who can't be bothered to waste our time producing fully statted out NPCs using the PC creation rules
I don't give a damn why you want to be lazy (and it is lazyness, not a bad thing but that is true) the issue is that it kills consistency. As for PCs being special, cool go with that, but give us a reason. Why are they special, where do these get their powers, why doesn't anyone else get this ect. If we have a reason, then it is cool.


Knight of the Realm (Wears knightly livery)
Pious (carries holy symbol of his god)
Loyal Defender of his People (often travels the villages under his care)
Guilt-Wracked (constantly handles his holy symbol)

et voila, one fully statted up NPC, from nothing, in less than sixty seconds, and following *exactly* the same creation rules as PCs.
what spells can he cast?
How good of a fighter is he?
Is he charismatic?
What does he prefer to put his points into?
What powers does he have
If i wanted to, could my PC be like him

You don't need to address these issues instantly, but they should remain consistent.

As for NPCs, just use generic stats, it is very easy. take half an hour when preparing your notes for your game to write up some generic NPC stats and make them the same. That is the manner suggested by WOTC
from
EE


from
EE

[Matthew]

The human fighter is a human who happened to get a formal military training. Now an orc warrior would be an or who happened to get an informal miltia training. However if you have generic "orc" that makes me wonder, do all orcs do that? Is he an orc who just happened to never train in anything? If he took the class warrior would he have those abilities along with his training? What is going on" ect

You're completely side stepping the point. You asked the question, "Why do you feel 2e is better capable of supporting a consistant world." I told you, "because there are less abstract rules to interfere with the world." As an example, I brought up the fact that youcan have simultaneous movement in 2e, but not D20. You are concentrating on the participants in that combat and ignoring the subject at hand. This is what you are doing time and again in the course of this thread. You must stick to the subject at hand, or at least respond to it, not wander off on a tangent about whether or not Orcs and Fighters can be generic.

To address the tangent, an Orc Warrior can be an Warrior without having a Class. The 'generic' Orc [i.e. the one tied to the genre] in the AD&D MM is a warrior. If you want him to be something else, then you change his stats.

You are also tying iron clad assumptions to abstract archetypes [i.e. The human fighter is a human who happened to get a formal military training]. That doesn't have to be the case at all. It's one vague possibility amongst many. It is in fact your view of what the Fighter Class represents. Not every Fighter will be formally trained, that is dependent on the Campaign Setting.

[Dan_Hemmens]

You are also tying iron clad assumptions to abstract archetypes [i.e. The human fighter is a human who happened to get a formal military training]. That doesn't have to be the case at all. It's one vague possibility amongst many. It is in fact your view of what the Fighter Class represents. Not every Fighter will be formally trained, that is dependent on the Campaign Setting.

Again, I think this is evidence of the "Rules Define World" mentality at work. To that mentality, "Fighter" is a specific, in-world thing, it has a concrete source and a concrete interpretation.

[EvilElitest]

You're completely side stepping the point. You asked the question, "Why do you feel 2e is better capable of supporting a consistant world." I told you, "because there are less abstract rules to interfere with the world." As an example, I brought up the fact that youcan have simultaneous movement in 2e, but not D20. You are concentrating on the participants in that combat and ignoring the subject at hand. This is what you are doing time and again in the course of this thread. You must stick to the subject at hand, or at least respond to it, not wander off on a tangent about whether or not Orcs and Fighters can be generic.

Not at all, i was pointing out that the abstract rules also lead to rule inconsistencies. As for the movement thing, isn't that was initiative is for? the faster person goes first


To address the tangent, an Orc Warrior can be an Warrior without having a Class. The 'generic' Orc [i.e. the one tied to the genre] in the AD&D MM is a warrior. If you want him to be something else, then you change his stats.

Why doesn't he have warrior class abilities? he has orc abilities, but not class abilities? Did he do nothing for his whole life?




You are also tying iron clad assumptions to abstract archetypes [i.e. The human fighter is a human who happened to get a formal military training]. That doesn't have to be the case at all. It's one vague possibility amongst many. It is in fact your view of what the Fighter Class represents. Not every Fighter will be formally trained, that is dependent on the Campaign Setting.

But a fighter did get elite training, hence why they are different than warriors. Regardless on how they got their training (though it has to be somewhat formal considering their fighting style) they are still fighters, a warrior is more like a militia man, hence weaker training.

from
EE

[Matthew]

Not at all, i was pointing out that the abstract rules also lead to rule inconsistencies. As for the movement thing, isn't that was initiative is for? the faster person goes first

Yes at all. You are completely wandering off on tangents. We all know that abstract rules are inconsistant if applied literally. Why, then, are you seeking to apply abstract rules literally to the game world instead of treating them as abstractions? Please stick to the subject at hand and then these posts won't balloon into fifty different quotations and responses that lose all meaning.

And, no, initiative doesn't help you with simultaneous movement. If you run games in which characters move one after the other, then you get situations where troops cannot charge one another. One individual must come within the charge range of another and then one individual charges, even if you use delayed actions to stagger things.



Why doesn't he have warrior class abilities? he has orc abilities, but not class abilities? Did he do nothing for his whole life?

He does. An Orc has Hit Points, THAC0, an Attack, the ability to use weapons and armour, move and fight. That's all that Warriors need to be able to do. The point being that these things are not unique to a 'Warrior' or a 'Fighter' Class nor is taking such a Class the only way to acquire said abilities. To put it another way, Classes are descriptions, they are not the thing that they are describing.



But a fighter did get elite training, hence why they are different than warriors. Regardless on how they got their training (though it has to be somewhat formal considering their fighting style) they are still fighters, a warrior is more like a militia man, hence weaker training.

No. Read the fluff in the PHB if you don't believe me (it is contradicted by the fluff for the Warrior, but that's just another reason to me why NPC Classes are a failed experiment).

[Rutee]

1. Nothing stops you from making all the NPC have NPC classes. If other rules happen to interfere with your idea of drama, well that is a different and irrelevant issue. But on the issue of NPC/PC relationships, nothing stops you. So yes, 3E can pull of the NPC PC relationship ether way
2. At the risk of getting off topic, i find nothing in D&D that prevents drama in any way
3. As for Dramatic appropriateness, i've always found that strange, why? why should something suddenly work because its dramatic? And don't respond with some snide "oh you don't understand drama" because that isn't the issue, because if Drama means "Oh lets throw aside all laws of logic/consistency just so something dramatic can occur i don't want to touch it. If i want that, i'd read a book, not play a game. You can do drama within the system, not out of it

1. I-irrelevant? What the hell!? It's irrelevant when my tastes aren't matched, but when /yours/ aren't, it's the basis for a grand crusade? You don't even understand why I would care when my goals aren't matched by the system? That's approaching sociopathic. Never mind. More important then this is the fact that the system doesn't support drama. It's too easy to die an unimportant death. It's too difficult for a non-ToB Martialist to expend every last bit of their ability on an incredibly important battle because they don't /have/ any measure of that. There's too many small aspects of drama that the game just doesn't support for me to 'do drama within the system'
2. That would tell me you don't know what the frag you're looking for.
3. Oh for Gods' sakes. You /don't/ throw aside all concepts of logic/consistency when you want Drama. It might appear that way when you only look at isolated incidents, but without logic or consistency on any level, you /can't/ have drama, because there's no cause or effect relationship between the events that happen. You have surrealist fantasy. That's perfectly fine too, but it's not my style.

What you discard is realism taken to the hilt. Realism taken to the hilt isn't going to be reflected in this system anyway, because the rules model gameplay, at most, not the game world.


It isn't an untruth, you can give NPCs NPC classes, but hte PCs will be the 'only' people running around in the world with the powers given to them by the PCs classes
This entire thought chain is irrelevant. You can give NPCs PC classes if you want. I'm not responding to any more statements on the subject; You have had it shown to you repeatedly that you can continue to do this, and you continue to act like you can't.

Anyway, my continuing to bother is retarded. I need to take my Kyon's suggestions seriously when he says that I'm wasting my time on ridiculous and circular logic. I'll just wait for Dan or Matthew to have an amusing insight to respond to, if such can happen when they are bashing their heads against the wall of irrationality that is EE.

[Poison_Fish]

nice try, but you miss the point. PC characters are talented, they are elite, but they are unique special chosen ones. NPCs just like them exist out their, NPCs wizards, NPC fighters, NPC Clerics who are also talented (compared to say, Warriors or adept)
Sure they are heros (or villains, or mercenaries, whatever) but they aren't the sole heroes, they are just hte protagonists. in 3E they don't posses unique, one of a kind, special powers that nobody else has. They are talented yes, they aren't the random joe, but they also aren't Chosen ones. Other people like them can be seen running around dong the same thing, or staying at home with the same powers. the world's rules are also consistent. Random Commoner Joe is weaker than them, because he has the Class Commoner and lower ability scores, lower level, and crappier equipment, not because he has a generic name.

Actually, EE, you missed the entire point of what I just said. The books, written by wizards state this. They use the terms hero and adventurer. No where does it just say "They are like any academic that gets decent grades". The uniqueness is still part of world building, which is supposed to be your job as a GM in the first place, but those sentences I quoted right there is Wizards Encouraging you to treat players different then NPC's. Any of your counter argument here is just added contrived opinion for what you use for your games. Nothing counter to what I have just laid down. Nice try on your part EE. If you want to counter this EE, stop using your own "This is how I GM, so it must be this way" attitude and counter what i just said at it's source. Remember, the source is for system 3.5, which you claim doesn't have this issue 4E is having now.

Edit: And I can actually see where a counter argument to Wizards opinion on this can be made, or rather, mild examples for what you want in your extremist living world. I'm not saying them though, because I'm wondering if you'll find that conclusion EE or if you'll go on another tirade that is just exerting your preferences into how a system built as a general purpose fantasy RPG should be.

Essentially all I'm saying is Wizards states, even in it's other editions, that the PC's are unique above the normal curve. Just where that is depends on the GM. That same statement will most likely apply in 4E as well.

[EvilElitest]

Yes at all. You are completely wandering off on tangents. We all know that abstract rules are inconsistant if applied literally. Why, then, are you seeking to apply abstract rules literally to the game world instead of treating them as abstractions? Please stick to the subject at hand and then these posts won't balloon into fifty different quotations and responses that lose all meaning.

No, i'm focusing on a more broad topioc, but ok, one thing at a time.


And, no, initiative doesn't help you with simultaneous movement. If you run games in which characters move one after the other, then you get situations where troops cannot charge one another. One individual must come within the charge range of another and then one individual charges, even if you use delayed actions to stagger things.
So 3E goes for "Some people are faster than others" and everyone just stands around and 2E goes for the whole everyone moving at the same time. Mechanically i'd give it to 3E for being less confusing, but personally i think 2E gets this one for movement yes.


He does. An Orc has Hit Points, THAC0, an Attack, the ability to use weapons and armour, move and fight. That's all that Warriors need to be able to do. The point being that these things are not unique to a 'Warrior' or a 'Fighter' Class nor is taking such a Class the only way to acquire said abilities. To put it another way, Classes are descriptions, they are not the thing that they are describing.
Except those Hit points, THACO, attack, and weapons abilties all seem ot be racial abilities, not class. An orcish Mage and an orcish fighter will seem like two totally different races, not the same race with two different classes.




No. Read the fluff in the PHB if you don't believe me (it is contradicted by the fluff for the Warrior, but that's just another reason to me why NPC Classes are a failed experiment).
Um, your point? Compared to warriors, Fighters have elite training (how they got this training is not the point, they could have simple hit something with a stick all their life but whatever) compared to warriors they have better training





I-irrelevant? What the hell!? It's irrelevant when my tastes aren't matched, but when /yours/ aren't, it's the basis for a grand crusade? You don't even understand why I would care when my goals aren't matched by the system? That's approaching sociopathic. Never mind. More important then this is the fact that the system doesn't support drama. It's too easy to die an unimportant death. It's too difficult for a non-ToB Martialist to expend every last bit of their ability on an incredibly important battle because they don't /have/ any measure of that. There's too many small aspects of drama that the game just doesn't support for me to 'do drama within the system'
1. No, this thread focuses upon NPC vs. PCs relations. Now both of us can be happy in terms of NPC PC relations, i can give NPC PC or NPC classes, and you can give NPC only PC classes. The other ways 3E doesn't support drama are irrelevant to this dicussion, start a different thread, but the only thing i'm talking about that could make us both happy is the NPC/PC relationship. Now other things in 3E might not appease your sense of drama, (like the Dipomicy system:smallmad:) but that isn't the point, this thread isn't about how 3E fails to be be a drama game (in your option). We are focusing on the NPC PC relationship problem here. I understand why D&D isn't dramatic by your standards, that just isn't the issue at hand, we could start a new thread for that
2. You have no idea what a sociopath is do you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder
http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html
Somebody who doesn't feel empathy, or other people's feelings, totally selfish ect. Don't throw that word around, it is a real nasty condition, and throwing that phrase around is insulting, offensive, and not cool. It is like calling me Hitler or something, don’t do that, it is just rude.
3. It is too easy to die an unimportant death? Wow, that is kinda like, you know, real life. If i know i'm only going to die if it is dramatic, then my character isn't going to be afraid of anything. In one game (ironically enough 2E) my character was horrible mauled by a boar because we didn't pay attention to it (we were too close to its kids) and the rest of hte party ran away? Heroic? Not really, more like pathetic. Useful? No, it was totally useless. Did it make the other characters, my character (before his painful and horrible death) and any future character who knew of this story freaking scared of that boar? Yes. After that incident, the characters were a lot more scared of the world around them. They stopped allowing their characters be totally unafraid of the world around them and started acting realistically afraid ("We are outnumbered ten to one. Don't charge in, lets poison them"). And thus when dramatic moments came, they were only enhanced by the fact the players could feel real fear. Also its realistic, in real life you can have moments of extreme heroic drama (little roundtop) and still die at the hands of boars. Also it is more fun as a game, if i don't think i have a chance of dying, i'm not very inclined to get emotionally involved. Movie style immortality until dramatic moments gets cliche fast, and you don't feel emotionally invovled. /totally irrelvant rant that should be a separate thread called "Drama in D&D"



2. That would tell me you don't know what the frag you're looking for.
Thank you for avoiding the question and being rude. Personally i find nothing in D&D that limits drama, nor in any way see how a consistent logical world holds back drama



3. Oh for Gods' sakes. You /don't/ throw aside all concepts of logic/consistency when you want Drama. It might appear that way when you only look at isolated incidents, but without logic or consistency on any level, you /can't/ have drama, because there's no cause or effect relationship between the events that happen. You have surrealist fantasy. That's perfectly fine too, but it's not my style.

1. If you don’t want to throw aside consistency and logic, why do you complain about the NPC being able to match PC thing?
2. Fine, but in the terms of surrealist fantasy, which i personally find more enjoyable, immersive and more dramatic. However, withing the boundaries of NPC/PC relationships we can both carry out our own personal style. Other aspects of drama, maybe not but that should be a separate thread


What you discard is realism taken to the hilt. Realism taken to the hilt isn't going to be reflected in this system anyway, because the rules model gameplay, at most, not the game world
True, in real life a single sword hit could kill you and would cause infection. However once the rules are set up for the world, they should be consistent.




This entire thought chain is irrelevant. You can give NPCs PC classes if you want. I'm not responding to any more statements on the subject; You have had it shown to you repeatedly that you can continue to do this, and you continue to act like you can't.
1. Rutte, the whole “I won’t respond” is not only condescending, rude and immature, your not even paying attention to the problem here. Please stop wasting time with this whining
2. Monsters and Worlds p. 14-15, Races and classes p. 14 rutee. Sure I can give them PC classes if I want, but I’m going against WOTC’s decisions. Sure in 3E I can make wizards a reasonable and balanced class, and you can make the game more “Dramatic” by your standards, but in doing so we are both going against WOTC’s will and it is WOTC’s ideas of how D&D should be and their destruction of world consistency that annoys me the most
3. No you’ve shown nothing, your flamed me, insulted me, acted rude and immature, but haven’t brought any evidence or cohesive points to the table.



Anyway, my continuing to bother is retarded. I need to take my Kyon's suggestions seriously when he says that I'm wasting my time on ridiculous and circular logic. I'll just wait for Dan or Matthew to have an amusing insight to respond to, if such can happen when they are bashing their heads against the wall of irrationality that is EE.

Oh for god’s sake, Rutee grow up. This is getting absurd rutee, and I’m tired of these immature, hypocritical, tiresome, flaming BS. Again and again I’ve presented my points, again and again you’ve misquoted me, harasse me, flamed me, and insulted me, ignoring me telling you to stop. And then you accuse me of being a retarted, immature, irrational troll when you don’t even address the issues, misquote me, flame me, and then hid behind the whole “I’m ignoring you” shield. This is immature and wasteful, and Rutee I am asking you to stop. You don’t talk about the issue, you don’t address any points, and you call all of my ideas irrational and retard because I disagree with you without even proving me wrong. This childish whining is getting annoying so please ether stop and go away or apologize for the many insults to my person and come back and debate in a adult civil manner

And just to take the higher ground her, I apologize for any personal insults you might have perceived directed at you.
Sure i'm a stubborn snaky bastard, but i'm no troll and i'm annoyed and offended of your behavior. I'm fine with civil discussion, but frankly this disgusts me


Actually, EE, you missed the entire point of what I just said. The books, written by wizards state this. They use the terms hero and adventurer. No where does it just say "They are like any academic that gets decent grades". The uniqueness is still part of world building, which is supposed to be your job as a GM in the first place, but those sentences I quoted right there is Wizards Encouraging you to treat players different then NPC's.

Did you even read what i said?
1. The quote said nothing about PCs being better than NPCs simple because they are. They said that the PCs are heros and what not, but nothing about them being the unique heros
2. Look at the mechanics. PCs have no special powers that are PC only and aren't accessible to anyone else

A
ny of your counter argument here is just added contrived opinion for what you use for your games. Nothing counter to what I have just laid down. Nice try on your part EE. If you want to counter this EE, stop using your own "This is how I GM, so it must be this way" attitude and counter what i just said at it's source. Remember, the source is for system 3.5, which you claim doesn't have this issue 4E is having now.

um, that wasn't what i was talking about at all actually.

from
EE

[Poison_Fish]

H-h-h-hold the horses there EE, did you just say the most contradictory thing I've ever heard from your mouth?


2. Fine, but in the terms of surrealist fantasy, which i personally find more enjoyable, immersive and more dramatic. However, withing the boundaries of NPC/PC relationships we can both carry out our own personal style. Other aspects of drama, maybe not but that should be a separate thread


nor in any way see how a consistent logical world holds back drama


logical world


logical


Surrealism

Bold for emphases.

That's hilarious. EE, this is now evidence for you having no clue what in the 666 layers of the abyss your talking about. You do realize what you just said has been counter to everything else you've stated previously about wanting a logical world. Please rethink your statement there and make sure you know your vocabulary. In fact, I'd suggest you look up what Surrealism means, perhaps through wiki?


Again and again I’ve presented my points, again and again you’ve misquoted me, harasse me, flamed me, and insulted me, ignoring me telling you to stop. And then you accuse me of being a retarted, immature, irrational troll when you don’t even address the issues, misquote me, flame me, and then hid behind the whole “I’m ignoring you” shield.

I've underlined the things you do. You do a fair bit more then that. Frankly, you often are a waste of time to debate with because, while sometimes remaining civil, you completely ignore certain points, accuse us of not understanding your points when we say they are wrong, debate every little thing, and pretty much consider yourself winning what you think of as the arguments not through intelligence, but because you are far to stubborn and have lots of free time. Let's ignore the fact that there is no winning in a debate, since there is no judge here.

Maybe we could have a decent argument, but when you respond to everything with an arrogant attitude that ignores what we say, why should we bother wasting our time with you? It's like hitting our heads against a wall.

Harsh language? Yes, it is harsh because I've often frustrated myself trying to explain something to you.

On to the show.


Did you even read what i said?
1. The quote said nothing about PCs being better than NPCs simple because they are. They said that the PCs are heros and what not, but nothing about them being the unique heros
2. Look at the mechanics. PCs have no special powers that are PC only and aren't accessible to anyone else

Actually, I did EE. You've changed what you've said several times now. You also fail to pick up on subtle language. Quoting from myself.


Wizards encouraging you to treat players different then NPC's.


Encouraging

Please learn to read the entire sentence.

In response to 2, I never said the PC's should have special powers that set them apart from NPC's, so I have no clue where your reaching that statement from.

Actually, the PC's do have mechanics that set them apart from NPC's. It's called the encounter experience table and how XP is handled for them. If you tell me you keep track of XP for all of your NPC's, my question to you then for your living world is why aren't all your commoners much higher level from their daily encounters in life?


um, that wasn't what i was talking about at all actually.

But it is. I was asking you to disprove me with fact, not subjective opinion. You haven't done so.

[Matthew]

So 3E goes for "Some people are faster than others" and everyone just stands around and 2E goes for the whole everyone moving at the same time. Mechanically i'd give it to 3E for being less confusing, but personally i think 2E gets this one for movement yes.

Heh, well the point was rather that whilst AD&D lets you use Simultaneous Movement, you don't have to. That's what is good about the system, the rules are light enough that you can use use them to emulate various different levels of realism. That's not to say that it can or should be simulationist, just that it's flexability is what allows it to support a 'realistic' world.



Except those Hit points, THACO, attack, and weapons abilties all seem ot be racial abilities, not class. An orcish Mage and an orcish fighter will seem like two totally different races, not the same race with two different classes.

You're getting bound up in the idea of discrete labels for things. The Orc entry in the AD&D MM is not a 'Racial Entry' any more than it is a 'Class Entry' and the abilities are not derived from a 'Race Template', it's just a collection of mechanics to represent an Orc [Warrior]. In short, an Orc Mage and an Orc Fighter will appear to be the same race by virtue of being described that way; the mechanics that are used to support that description will support that point of view.

i.e.



Orc Fighter
Move 9", Alignment Lawful Evil, Armour Class 6, Hit Points 6, THAC0 19, Damage 1d8,
Equipment: Ringed Gambeson, Shield, Scimitar, Dagger,


Orc Mage
Move 12", Alignment Lawful Evil, Armour Class 10, Hit Points 6, THAC0 19, Damage 1d6,
Special Abilities: Casts Spells as a Level Three Magic User
Equipment: Robes, Staff, Dagger,


Mechanical differentiation does not in itself designate Class or Race, all it does is describe the character. Class and Race are themselves short hands for describing mechanics. All you are doing when not referencing the short hand groupings [i.e. Race and Class] is directly describing the mechanics that allow the Non Player Character to interact with the Player Characters.



Um, your point? Compared to warriors, Fighters have elite training (how they got this training is not the point, they could have simple hit something with a stick all their life but whatever) compared to warriors they have better training.

Well, it rather is the point, since you said: "The human fighter is a human who happened to get a formal military training." That seems rather different to what you're saying now. It's no wonder you're missing the point, though, as it's the same problem as above. You're taking abstract mechanics and treating them as though they aren't abstractions.

To put it another way, 'Fighter 2' is a shorthand game term for describing the mechanics that support Boris the Mercenary. If you remove the label 'Fighter 2' you still have Boris the Mercenary and a collection of mechanics that represent him. If you remove the experience table [including BAB progression, etc..], you still have Boris the Mercenary and a collection of mechanics that represent him.
The only question now is how to represent Boris getting better at being a Mercenary. You could advance him exactly as though he became 'Boris the Mercenary Fighter 3' or you could, for instance, only advance his BAB by one point or grant him Feat Y. These abilities do not suddenly become racially derived, they continue to be abstract representations of Boris the Mercenary relative to, and for the purpose of interacting with, Player Characters.

[Daimbert]

I think this shows how little you understand *why* a great many of us welcome the idea of separate NPC creation rules.

We're not some insane bunch of NPC-Nazis, who want to make sure that NPCs are always less powerful than PCs, or who want to make the players feel "special". We're just people with busy lives who can't be bothered to waste our time producing fully statted out NPCs using the PC creation rules.

If the PC creation rules were less long-winded, I'd be totally happy to have PCs and NPCs use the same rules. In Over the Edge for example (is that on the vast list of non-D&D games you've played?) all characters are basically defined by three Traits and a Flaw, in which case it's fantastically easy to stat up - say - Knight A by writing down:

Knight of the Realm (Wears knightly livery)
Pious (carries holy symbol of his god)
Loyal Defender of his People (often travels the villages under his care)
Guilt-Wracked (constantly handles his holy symbol)

et voila, one fully statted up NPC, from nothing, in less than sixty seconds, and following *exactly* the same creation rules as PCs.

On the other hand, statting up a D&D character takes a really long time, particularly when you start getting into high levels where you have to take magical items into account. Sure, it might be worth doing for the BBEG and the King of Freedonia, but is it *really* worth sitting down and statting out every single character that shows up in the game? And doing it *properly*, because as I think I have pointed out, if you just assign stats that "feel right" you're not following the PC creation rules.

But nothing stops you in the current rules from NOT fleshing out all the details. All that is required is that you pick a class for the NPC and work out the stats and abilities that you want it to have. In this way, this is consistent with the world and consistent internally; NPCs cannot do things that PCs can't do, and the PCs know PRECISELY how NPCs should work, and so they aren't surprised and angry over things that NPCs can do that they can't.

But if your PCs interact with the NPC in a way you didn't foresee, you have a template for figuring out how that should work. Under the "assign things that feel right", you run the risk of having to invent things on the fly when the PCs break the mold and wander a bit from your intentions. And no matter how good you are at inventing things on the fly, you always risk screwing something up that breaks immersion later in order to push plot through now. And you always risk players having no idea what to expect from NPCs. Based on initial study, PCs should have some idea if the thing is something to talk to, fight, or run away from. Mixing abilities may break that; the NPC may start acting like something they can easily handle, and then turn into something that they can't because of an ability combo that NO ONE should have.

And so on and so forth.

[Matthew]

But nothing stops you in the current rules from NOT fleshing out all the details. All that is required is that you pick a class for the NPC and work out the stats and abilities that you want it to have. In this way, this is consistent with the world and consistent internally; NPCs cannot do things that PCs can't do, and the PCs know PRECISELY how NPCs should work, and so they aren't surprised and angry over things that NPCs can do that they can't.

No, it's consistant with the game rules, not the imaginary world that the game takes place in. The 'working out' part is principally what is being objected to. Not everyone enjoys that meta game and still others see it as an unnecessary waste of time or pointlessly restrictive.



But if your PCs interact with the NPC in a way you didn't foresee, you have a template for figuring out how that should work. Under the "assign things that feel right", you run the risk of having to invent things on the fly when the PCs break the mold and wander a bit from your intentions. And no matter how good you are at inventing things on the fly, you always risk screwing something up that breaks immersion later in order to push plot through now. And you always risk players having no idea what to expect from NPCs. Based on initial study, PCs should have some idea if the thing is something to talk to, fight, or run away from. Mixing abilities may break that; the NPC may start acting like something they can easily handle, and then turn into something that they can't because of an ability combo that NO ONE should have.

And so on and so forth.

The thing is, with games that are relatively rules light, the chances of screwing up in that way are very low; they are probably similar to the chances of making a major mistake when using codified rules heavy games. To be honest, I can't really think of an occasion off hand where what you describe would be an issue. It could be if I were playing D20 and hadn't worked out all the stats beforehand.

Rules light games do generally require a skilled GM and they certainly require trust between him and the players. It's just a different sort of game.

[edit]
As Dan says below, there may also be occasions where you want NPCs to be able to do things that PCs cannot.

[Dan_Hemmens]

But nothing stops you in the current rules from NOT fleshing out all the details. All that is required is that you pick a class for the NPC and work out the stats and abilities that you want it to have. In this way, this is consistent with the world and consistent internally; NPCs cannot do things that PCs can't do, and the PCs know PRECISELY how NPCs should work, and so they aren't surprised and angry over things that NPCs can do that they can't.

That's the thing. I *want* my NPCs to be able to do things my PCs can't. I want, for example, for my campaign to include, say a great poet or a master blacksmith, who *isn't* a high level Expert. Somebody who is actually good at something independently of having Class Levels.

There's nothing *inconsistent* about this. It just involves accepting that the PC rules aren't designed for creating a living world.

[Daimbert]

No, it's consistant with the game rules, not the imaginary world that the game takes place in. The 'working out' part is principally what is being objected to. Not everyone enjoys that meta game and still others see it as an unnecessary waste of time or pointlessly restrictive.

Except that the game rules DO impact the world. Sorry, but you can't escape that. The games rules are formalizations, abstractions, and representations of what happens in the world. The PCs are bound by THEIR rules and thus it impacts how they work in the world. The PCs also live in the world, have lots of knowledge checks, and generally know how the world works. If you randomly toss things into characters that PCs cannot themselves do, and that the PCs aren't aware of a mechanism TO do, then the PCs don't know things about the world that they really, really should know: what it would take to get those things.

Ultimately, the idea of NPC and PC classes inherently assumes that NPCs and PCs don't have to act the same, but in that mechanism while it is possible that PCs don't do what NPCs do they at least have an idea of what NPCs CAN do and how THEY exist in the world. Without that structure, how do you explain to PCs that SHOULD know what a basic farmer can do what your specialized NPC can do?



The thing is, with games that are relatively rules light, the chances of screwing up in that way are very low; they are probably similar to the chances of making a major mistake when using codified rules heavy games. To be honest, I can't really think of an occasion off hand where what you describe would be an issue. It could be if I were playing D20 and hadn't worked out all the stats beforehand.

Rules light games do generally require a skilled GM and they certainly require trust between him and the players. It's just a different sort of game.

Are you saying that D&D should be a rules light game? Which is easier, to add rules when it matters or remove them when you don't want them?


[edit]
As Dan says below, there may also be occasions where you want NPCs to be able to do things that PCs cannot.

So I'll answer you both, then: You can still do that with a default presumption that NPCs follow rules, including creating classes. You can always have exceptions. It's better if you make your exceptions fit the rules -- so that if you make someone a Master Blacksmith without the levels to be there, that it is reflected in their work, which is what you'd have to do to make it a plot point anyway -- but if your players don't mind you can always make exceptions and use the plot to make those cases clear it works WITHIN the existing model that most NPCs are at least loosely modelled by the consistent set of rules set out for NPCs, whether those are exactly the same for PCs or not.

See, here's my problem here: the main argument for why this new system is good is that a DM can throw together what abilities they want in their NPCs. But if this is the COMMON way of doing things, PCs have no idea how NPCs normally get their abilities -- and they should. But if these are exceptions, and most are reasonably standard and follow rules, then you can do it by suspending the rules in specific cases, so why not keep the rules?

Again, I'm not against different rules for PCs and NPCs, but just advocate that there should be default rules for NPC creation that the players can know about, so that their characters -- knowing how these things work in the world -- can act accordingly.

[Matthew]

Except that the game rules DO impact the world. Sorry, but you can't escape that. The games rules are formalizations, abstractions, and representations of what happens in the world.

Nobody is saying that rules don't impact that game or results of the game. The default assumption of D&D, which you can find in your 3.5 DMG (p. 136), is that the world functions more or less the same as you would expect the real world to function. If the game rules contradict that (as when Fighters survive hideous falls or Characters are drowned to get them back up to 0 Hit points) the game rules are inadequette or just plain wrong. To what extent you want them to be wrong depends on how real you want your fantasy world to be. To put it another way, the rules exist to serve the game, not the other way around.



The PCs are bound by THEIR rules and thus it impacts how they work in the world. The PCs also live in the world, have lots of knowledge checks, and generally know how the world works. If you randomly toss things into characters that PCs cannot themselves do, and that the PCs aren't aware of a mechanism TO do, then the PCs don't know things about the world that they really, really should know: what it would take to get those things.

Ultimately, the idea of NPC and PC classes inherently assumes that NPCs and PCs don't have to act the same, but in that mechanism while it is possible that PCs don't do what NPCs do they at least have an idea of what NPCs CAN do and how THEY exist in the world. Without that structure, how do you explain to PCs that SHOULD know what a basic farmer can do what your specialized NPC can do?

You appear to be confusing mechanics as abstractions with mechanics as literal truth. You also seem to be conflating Players with their Characters.

1) A Character knows what a farmer can do if it's appropriate for him to know; you don't need mechanics to spell it out for you.

2) A Player knows what a Farmer can mechanically do if he is acquainted with the rules for Farmers and the stats of the specific Farmer in question.

3) An NPC that Players aren't acquainted with the stats for and of whom a Character reasonably has no knowledge is by default an unknown entity to both.



Are you saying that D&D should be a rules light game? Which is easier, to add rules when it matters or remove them when you don't want them?

I am saying that I would prefer it to be lighter and more like previous editions in that respect. Judging from the tone of your question, I take it you think it is a given that removing rules is easier than adding them. That is understandable, but not an absolute truth, it is relative to the individual. To be clear, I (and an unknown, but apparently significant, percentage of other people) find it easier to add new rules to lighter games than remove them from heavier games.



So I'll answer you both, then: You can still do that with a default presumption that NPCs follow rules, including creating classes. You can always have exceptions. It's better if you make your exceptions fit the rules -- so that if you make someone a Master Blacksmith without the levels to be there, that it is reflected in their work, which is what you'd have to do to make it a plot point anyway -- but if your players don't mind you can always make exceptions and use the plot to make those cases clear it works WITHIN the existing model that most NPCs are at least loosely modelled by the consistent set of rules set out for NPCs, whether those are exactly the same for PCs or not.

It's better for you, it's not better for me. I prefer to discard the existing model, rather than make exceptions to it. If I need to make exceptions, I regard the model as flawed and unsuitable.



See, here's my problem here: the main argument for why this new system is good is that a DM can throw together what abilities they want in their NPCs. But if this is the COMMON way of doing things, PCs have no idea how NPCs normally get their abilities -- and they should. But if these are exceptions, and most are reasonably standard and follow rules, then you can do it by suspending the rules in specific cases, so why not keep the rules?

Why should PCs know how NPCs get their abilities? Players may know how NPCs are built, but it's irrelevant to Characters. As far as Characters know, NPCs get their abilities from experience/study/divine intervention/magic/whatever. The game rules are an abstraction that represents this (usually poorly in the case of D20).



Again, I'm not against different rules for PCs and NPCs, but just advocate that there should be default rules for NPC creation that the players can know about, so that their characters -- knowing how these things work in the world -- can act accordingly.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. Who is suggesting that Players shouldn't know the default rules for NPC creation or that there shouldn't be any? Players know (to whatever degree) the rules of the game and often make game decisions based on that knowledge. They play the game. Characters don't know the rules of the game, they only perceive the world, not the abstraction. If things occur in the game world contrary to what they would expect in the real world, then something magical or supernatural is in play, in which case their understanding of magic is what will inform their decisions.

Note: Could you please not capitalise the words you want to emphasise; I'm finding it very distracting. Use italics or something, no need to shout. :smallwink:

[EvilElitest]

H-h-h-hold the horses there EE, did you just say the most contradictory thing I've ever heard from your mouth?

Yet again, with the misunderstanding and misquoteing. I'm going to assume this is an honest mistake

You can have a consistent. logical world without having a surrealist world. Like Warcraft (somewhat) , or the world of Goblins Comic. They are consistent, logical, they make sense and aren't surrealist. Ebberon is a logical world that isn't surrealist. FR is mixed. So you misunderstand, a non surrealist world should still be consistent.

Bold for emphases.


That's hilarious. EE, this is now evidence for you having no clue what in the 666 layers of the abyss your talking about.

stop the flaming, it is wasteful, immature and time wasting. you misunderstood and i this response isn't nessary. Now can we argue this out like reasonable people?



You do realize what you just said has been counter to everything else you've stated previously about wanting a logical world. Please rethink your statement there and make sure you know your vocabulary. In fact, I'd suggest you look up what Surrealism means, perhaps through wiki?


If you think i'm mistaken, please site why, don't resort to personal attacks on my logic



I've underlined the things you do. You do a fair bit more then that. Frankly, you often are a waste of time to debate with because, while sometimes remaining civil, you completely ignore certain points, accuse us of not understanding your points when we say they are wrong, debate every little thing, and pretty much consider yourself winning what you think of as the arguments not through intelligence, but because you are far to stubborn and have lots of free time. Let's ignore the fact that there is no winning in a debate, since there is no judge here.

1. What points have i ignored. Don't make such a claim if your not willing to prove it. If i accidently missed a point, i'd be glad to adress it now if you provide it
2. You have accused me of not understanding as well, as well acusing me of being confused about my own points without backing that up
3. How have i not argued through intellect
4. Winning applies to vs. threads or threads that require proof, this thread hasn't been concluded as of yet. Matthew is proving to be a perfectly civil and logical person when it comes to arguing


Maybe we could have a decent argument, but when you respond to everything with an arrogant attitude that ignores what we say, why should we bother wasting our time with you? It's like hitting our heads against a wall.
1. No more than an insulting condescending attitude. I for one am totally honest about my Narcism, but i'm willing to have a decent argument if you are willing to stop assuming i'm simple wrong from the get go
2. Not quite i can be persuaded by arguments, just not in the manner i've seen. Again, Matthew has gotten quite far


Harsh language? Yes, it is harsh because I've often frustrated myself trying to explain something to you.
1. I've never resorted to outright flaming
2. I wasn't adressing you, you've been rude but not a flamer
3. Frustration isn't a justification for insults just for future notice. I've been frustrated myself. Be like Atticus and we might have a civil argument here. Personally i prefer talking for arguments, but i don't think we can pull that off


On to the show.




Actually, I did EE. You've changed what you've said several times now. You also fail to pick up on subtle language. Quoting from myself.


Ignoring the nasty statements for a moment, they are doing far more than encouraging. They have made it clear in the preview books that they don't care about world consistency.



Please learn to read the entire sentence.

In response to 2, I never said the PC's should have special powers that set them apart from NPC's, so I have no clue where your reaching that statement from.
Because they do, that is the issue at hand.




Actually, the PC's do have mechanics that set them apart from NPC's. It's called the encounter experience table and how XP is handled for them. If you tell me you keep track of XP for all of your NPC's, my question to you then for your living world is why aren't all your commoners much higher level from their daily encounters in life?

1. NPCs don't have XP i think. I"m not sure about that, in my games i just assign it normally. The idea is that they simple learn their skills as per normal
2. Why would commoners have so many daily encounters in their life?




But it is. I was asking you to disprove me with fact, not subjective opinion. You haven't done so.

Fine, what evidence do you want specifically, i'll provide the quote


Heh, well the point was rather that whilst AD&D lets you use Simultaneous Movement, you don't have to. That's what is good about the system, the rules are light enough that you can use use them to emulate various different levels of realism. That's not to say that it can or should be simulationist, just that it's flexability is what allows it to support a 'realistic' world.
1. Simulationist movement is consistent
2. But the flexibility goes both ways, and it really isn't so much the system as the DM. Not to criticize 2E (I play it with one DM, who's world is one of the most realistic i've ever seen, also with an absurd PC death rate*). But lets focus on the rules as written. I realize 3E is rather uncompromising, but it is more standard. But rules as written


You're getting bound up in the idea of discrete labels for things. The Orc entry in the AD&D MM is not a 'Racial Entry' any more than it is a 'Class Entry' and the abilities are not derived from a 'Race Template', it's just a collection of mechanics to represent an Orc [Warrior]. In short, an Orc Mage and an Orc Fighter will appear to be the same race by virtue of being described that way; the mechanics that are used to support that description will support that point of view.

i.e.

Quote:
Orc Fighter
Move 9", Alignment Lawful Evil, Armour Class 6, Hit Points 6, THAC0 19, Damage 1d8,
Equipment: Ringed Gambeson, Shield, Scimitar, Dagger,



Orc Mage
Move 12", Alignment Lawful Evil, Armour Class 10, Hit Points 6, THAC0 19, Damage 1d6,
Special Abilities: Casts Spells as a Level Three Magic User
Equipment: Robes, Staff, Dagger,
Mechanical differentiation does not in itself designate Class or Race, all it does is describe the character. Class and Race are themselves short hands for describing mechanics. All you are doing when not referencing the short hand groupings [i.e. Race and Class] is directly describing the mechanics that allow the Non Player Character to interact with the Player Characters.
Wait, i don't DM 2E so can i just have this made clear, in 2E do monsters normally posses both Race and class traits as written?
*This included me dying by falling into a river when hit by a cross bow and drowning, being trampled by a horse, being crushed under after casting fireball in an unstable region, and being burned alive because i used burning hands in an alcohol warehouse.


Well, it rather is the point, since you said: "The human fighter is a human who happened to get a formal military training." That seems rather different to what you're saying now. It's no wonder you're missing the point, though, as it's the same problem as above. You're taking abstract mechanics and treating them as though they aren't abstractions.

Well a fighter is better than a warrior, what a warrior is in game is a lesser trained warrior. For example, a city Solider compared to a city Guard



To put it another way, 'Fighter 2' is a shorthand game term for describing the mechanics that support Boris the Mercenary. If you remove the label 'Fighter 2' you still have Boris the Mercenary and a collection of mechanics that represent him. If you remove the experience table [including BAB progression, etc..], you still have Boris the Mercenary and a collection of mechanics that represent him.
The only question now is how to represent Boris getting better at being a Mercenary. You could advance him exactly as though he became 'Boris the Mercenary Fighter 3' or you could, for instance, only advance his BAB by one point or grant him Feat Y. These abilities do not suddenly become racially derived, they continue to be abstract representations of Boris the Mercenary relative to, and for the purpose of interacting with, Player Characters.


Could you explain in more detail, are you saying that the mechanics don't effect his interactions with the players?



No, it's consistant with the game rules, not the imaginary world that the game takes place in. The 'working out' part is principally what is being objected to. Not everyone enjoys that meta game and still others see it as an unnecessary waste of time or pointlessly restrictive.

They are the same thing. For example, in D&D 3E, it is impossible to get a concussion from being knocked out. That is how the rules play. A wizard chooses his spells in a certain way, that is the in game manner a wizard chooses his spells. Cleric's mechanics determined how they work in game. If a mechanics effects the way hte world rules, then it works in game. This isn't meta gaming, this is consistency. A wizard's spells work like X, a clerics like Y, a Warlock's like Z. These are the established rules of magic, hence how they work, both mechanically and in game.



That's the thing. I *want* my NPCs to be able to do things my PCs can't. I want, for example, for my campaign to include, say a great poet or a master blacksmith, who *isn't* a high level Expert. Somebody who is actually good at something independently of having Class Levels.

Mechanics don't effect how good your poetry is, so that is totally up for you
2. As for a master blacksmith, make your own class. However, it should be possible for a PC to hypothetically become just as good as a blacksmith.


There's nothing *inconsistent* about this. It just involves accepting that the PC rules aren't designed for creating a living world.
But that is inconsistent, why are these six dudes so unique? Why are their powers possessed by nobody else.

from
EE

[Matthew]

1. Simulationist movement is consistent
2. But the flexibility goes both ways, and it really isn't so much the system as the DM. Not to criticize 2E (I play it with one DM, who's world is one of the most realistic i've ever seen, also with an absurd PC death rate*). But lets focus on the rules as written. I realize 3E is rather uncompromising, but it is more standard. But rules as written.

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, the game rules for D20 are standardised and consistant with one another. That doesn't necessarily translate into describing a realistic world is all. In my opinion, it's because the rules are abstract that they need to be flexible, but that's just my experience.



Wait, i don't DM 2E so can i just have this made clear, in 2E do monsters normally posses both Race and class traits as written?

In D20 terms, pretty much, but it's a flexible set of mechanics. In the Monster entry for Humanoids will also usually be some additional rules for Elites, Leaders, Shamans and Witch Doctors, as well as non combatants.



Well a fighter is better than a warrior, what a warrior is in game is a lesser trained warrior. For example, a city Solider compared to a city Guard.

Fighters are definitely better than Warriors, which leads to some confusion when advancing Warriors, as a Warrior 1 cannot become a Fighter 1 by training, he has to become a Warrior 1/Fighter 1, which is annoying. In AD&D, a 0 Level Man at Arms (basically a Warrior 1) could potentially become a Level 1 Fighter, which made more sense.



Could you explain in more detail, are you saying that the mechanics don't effect his interactions with the players?

Not quite. I'm saying that the label 'Fighter' and method of advancement don't need to affect his interaction with the Player Characters. They are secondary to the actual mechanics that represent Boris, which are themselves abstractions and do not directly represent his capabilities. Boris the Mercenary is the primary designation. The mechanics only need to support that assertion. It may be the case that Warrior 2 is the best fit or it may be Fighter 1 or it may be a set of related mechanics that do not directly map onto any existing Class combination. None of that changes who Boris is in the Campaign World, it's just a matter of finding the best mechanical abstraction for interacting him with the Players.



They are the same thing. For example, in D&D 3E, it is impossible to get a concussion from being knocked out. That is how the rules play.

Those are the rules of the game, but that doesn't mean that nobody in the campaign world ever gets concussed, only that there are no rules to explicitly represent it. If we only describe the campaign world in terms of the abstract rules of the game, then we miss the things that make the tabletop game different from a CRPG.



A wizard chooses his spells in a certain way, that is the in game manner a wizard chooses his spells. Cleric's mechanics determined how they work in game. If a mechanics effects the way hte world rules, then it works in game. This isn't meta gaming, this is consistency. A wizard's spells work like X, a clerics like Y, a Warlock's like Z. These are the established rules of magic, hence how they work, both mechanically and in game.

These are game rules. They are abstractions of events in the campaign world. They aren't the established rules of magic, but they are the established rules that we use to abstractly represent magic in the campaign world. The difference is subtle, but important.