PDA

View Full Version : Fallacy: NPC are more realistic with PC creation rules



Pages : [1] 2 3

RukiTanuki
2008-01-28, 09:12 PM
Maybe it's time to coin a new fallacy? Consider it a branch-off of the Stormwind Fallacy.

Verisimilitude (i.e. your campaign world's ability to seem lifelike) is primarily a function of descriptive text, not mechanics.

Corollary 1: The ability to create and use NPCs (including "monsters") that are realistic, lifelike, and who add verisimilitude to a vibrant, interactive world is not prevented by using any alternate means of NPC stat generation(i.e. ones other than those provided to player characters.)

Corollary 2: Generating NPC stats via alternate methods does not prevent a DM from running those NPCs as realistic, lifelike beings, using their presence to increase the player's sensation of verisimilitude in a vibrant, interactive world.

Reasoning:
NPC stats are a "black box" in terms of player interaction. The PCs will not interact with the NPC's stat block directly. The NPC's appearance, actions, and reactions to the PCs will be based on the descriptive text of the DM. (In other words, unless the DM specifically describes the rules the NPCs are using, said rules will be invisible to the players.)

While the stats themselves may be useful in NPC/PC interactions, the method by which those stats were generated is largely insignificant with regards to the "realism" of the character. Unrealistic stats can be generated by following the rules; natural-feeling stats can be generated on the fly. More importantly, the value of NPC stat generation (with regards to "realism") is dramatically smaller than the value of the descriptive text the DM provides to the players.

Example: Your players are likely to care about a monster's Armor Class. They may have an interest in why that monster has that high (or low) AC. "It has tough hide and/or scales" adds verisimilitude. "It took the Improved Natural Armor feat" adds little, if any, verisimilitude.

As mentioned repeatedly elsewhere, unoptimized PCs can be roleplayed poorly, and min-maxed PCs can be roleplayed beautifully. In a similar fashion, NPCs and monsters can be roleplayed in a manner that adds to, or subtracts from, the immersive and cohesive nature of the world, independent of the rules used for their stat generation.

In my personal opinion (not an official part of the fallacy I present), if anyone who claims that inconsistent rules for PCs versus NPCs are preventing them from doing any of the following:
* running realistic NPCs;
* presenting NPCs as anything but second-class citizens;
* integrating the PCs as believable part of society;
* successfully running non-combat encounters;
* presenting monster NPCs as intelligent beings with their own wants and needs;
* presenting monsters as "more than chunks of XP to farm";
then I call issue, not with the rules, but with their ability to convey a living world to the players as a whole.

As DM, you should be able to present an NPC to the players, be they barkeep, shop owner, prince, thief, mage, or beggar, in a believable and immersive manner, no matter what stats they have or how you acquired them. If I hand you an NPC with stats that are reasonable for their CR, yet not tied to any PC rules, do you expect me to believe that you can't realistically portray the character, simply because the sheet does not say "dragonblooded wild elf ranger 2/barbarian 4" on top? Chide me for a lack of flavor text, sure; for my failure to point out the beads in the hair, the strange charms on the armor, the twisted wood symbol atop his staff, his bare feet, the way he sniffs the wind... but without viewing the stat sheet, are your players truly going to lose their sense of verisimilitude if this feral elf casts Entangle?

Face it, the rules are an abstraction, and your NPCs don't follow them as an assumption you've already applied. The barmaid cannot kill rats in the cellar until she suddenly gains the ability to take a knife wound without dying. Wizards who create magic items do not (by the book at least) regularly have to join up with adventurers to kill things to stop the ebb of their knowledge and experience, like some twisted form of crafting Alzheimer's. Gameplay rules are an abstraction, and the world is not inherently made more realistic by enforcing them more rigidly. It's a great destination but a poor way to try and get there.

Thoughts? Again (because someone will bring it up), none of this has any correlation to the fallacy that PCs are automatically "super" in the context of the world. Please don't discuss that in the context of this (potential) fallacy. I'll tackle that misconception elsewhere if needed.

Rutee
2008-01-28, 09:16 PM
PCs being super? That's not fallacy, that's the way it should be :smallbiggrin:

In seriousness, does this really need a catchy name like the Stormwind Fallacy? I mean yes, it's flawed thinking, but Stormwind Fallacy is something of a common, longstanding problem and source of fights. This'll be over within 3 months of 4e's release, I'm willing to bet.

Shas aia Toriia
2008-01-28, 09:18 PM
A decent read there.
2 things however.

1) Trying to think of an interesting backstory for each and every NPC met is really hard, especially when the PCs are just going to kill half of them anyways.
2) People try to make realistic characters, but read my first point again.

Not tying to be rude here, but. . .

UserClone
2008-01-28, 09:22 PM
I will have to heartily agree with you on this. I am getting quite tired of reading posts by people whining about 4E having said that they are differentiating stat generation for NPCs versus PC race/class combos. These do not seem to be coming from people who regularly DM. When I DM, anything that helps me create "quick n' dirty" NPCs and/or monsters on the fly (or at least on the quick) is money in the bank.

Eldritch_Ent
2008-01-28, 09:22 PM
This is somewhat related to the problem of players being unable to seperate fluff from crunch. The kind of people who, if you want to play a samurai, you need to have levels in the Samurai class. Or who insist that full attacks MUST involve 4 weapon swings in 6 seconds rather than "The Barbarian raises his axe, and brings it crashing down on the Dragon's head in a single terrible blow.". Some people just can't handle the fluff being mutable. =/

At least I think... Am I totally off subject here saying that?

Cybren
2008-01-28, 09:22 PM
There seems to be this fallacy whereby people assume that if you generate NPCs using PC statistics you're also rolling their checks and saves when the PCs aren't present for menial stuff.

It doesn't matter. If it's an unimportant NPC you don't bother giving him stats. If it's an important NPC you give him stats, unless he exists purely as a venue for verbal communication. Should he use the same "rules" as PCs? No, not in the sense that the DM should care how many feats he gives him, or what his stats are. But the basic mechanics should be the same.

Nightgaunt
2008-01-28, 09:30 PM
I'm curious to know where this argument originates from. NPC's, like monsters, are generally created using either the Elite array or the Standard arrray of abilities, not rolled for or Point Buy. You can roll them if you want, but the rules use standard and elite arrays, not rolling.

Also this here:
Gameplay rules are an abstraction, and the world is not inherently made more realistic by enforcing them more rigidly. It's a great destination but a poor way to try and get there.

I'd like a little clarification.

1) No rule exists that states you make NPC's by rolling dice, using stat buy, or any similar method to the PC's.

2) I would say that consistently enforcing your rules certainly makes a more realistic world. If a DM randomly alters rules at whim it would be the same as physics acting randomly, which would seem to be harmful.

Uncle Festy
2008-01-28, 09:54 PM
Nightgaunt: Let's put it this way. Will your players complain if you put in an NPC into the game that is generated with the standard NPC generation rules? I hope not.
Will your players complain if you use a monster that is created entirely separately from the standard NPC creation rules? I doubt it.
So, why would the players complain if you use an NPC created a bit (if not entirely) like a monster, rather then using NPC generation rules?
Am I totally missing the point here?

Prophaniti
2008-01-28, 09:56 PM
The problem I have with the implied changes and seperation to the NPC/PC systems is not about creating fully-fleshed, believable and realistic NPCs. Quite the opposite. I don't like the idea because it seems that it would make it more time consuming and difficult to make 'mooks' that will be challenging for the PCs to fight. This stems mostly from the elimination of the NPC classes.

I would use them to quickly and easily make NPCs that represented untrained thugs or common mercenaries. Foes without the innate talents and abilities granted by equivalent levels in PC classes, just a weapon and the desire to hurt you with it. Extrapolating from what I've read, creating such mooks and generating their stats will now largely be left to a DMs arbitrations, with little or no guidelines. This seems like it would make it a bit 'hit-and-miss' until you find the right range of HP and so forth to assign them.

I obviously can't judge the new system (whatever it may be) fully until I see it, but from the implications of the articles I've seen, it would seem that the 'quick and easy mook NPC, CR X' is harder to create unless we

use the pre-printed examples
use PC class levels (too powerful)
arbitrarily assign stats and abilities, making it harder to stay consistent within the desired level range.


As I've said before, I could be wrong, I just think I will miss the NPC classes and will probably re-work them into the new system.

I don't much care for the philosophy behind the decision either (ie, PCs are extrodinary beyond being the focus of the story), but recognize that as a matter of preference and something that can be worked around.

TheThan
2008-01-28, 10:13 PM
I don’t mind new NPC generation rules, though I still want the ability to give my npcs the ability to stand up to the heroes when necessary. It would be a shame if every npc human was a pushover for a character of x level.

HidaTsuzua
2008-01-28, 10:34 PM
While I agree with many of the points made, I will have to argue that it is not a fallacy.

Since rules can have an effect on a game, alternative NPC creation also has an effect. "Off the cuff" NPC creation requires little preparation but risks miscalculation (he'll have a +20 attack, on wait that means insta-gib PCs or oh Ridgar the Mighty can't hit the broad side of a barn). Such a mistake can surely cut back on verisimilitude. "The NPC has fiat powers" NPC creation tells the players how the GM feels about the rules (depending on how often and well he uses this). The infamous GMNPC affects games is due to the previous NPC creation rules. If the game feels like a GM's power trip world, verisimilitude can take a hit. If NPCs openly clash with the rules of the game, that's a likely cause of verismilitude loss (best kept off with Magic A is Magic A (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA))

Thus even assuming that descriptive text is the primarily source of verisimilitude, it can be effected by mechanics in such a way problems come up. True it is not certain, but that is enough to allow objections over how NPCs are made as they may have an impact on PC/NPC relations.

This will always be the case since NPCs are built in a fundamentally different manner than PCs in nearly all systems (usually by fiat and usually for far shorter time in the spotlight than PCs). Now this isn't bad, but should be taken into account. Good NPCs need to be run well and that includes descriptive text and mechanics into account since both will effect the final product.

Jack Zander
2008-01-28, 10:37 PM
Counterexamples:

1) My level 5 PC wizard is studying under a more experienced wizard. This wizard gained his experience form studying magic, not adventuring, so there was no "farming chunks of XP for him." However, something about his spell casting doesn't seem right. He doesn't have the proper spells for being at his power level. He casts them different than I do. It's almost like it's an innate ability for him. Not anything like a wizard, but more like a sorcerer. One day my wizard decides to kill his mentor and take all his notes. What? A single magic missile killed this guy? Okay, something is definitely not right about this dude. He had the stats of a commoner, but high level spells that didn't seem to follow the same rules as mine did. Further more, I find after reading his notes that I am not able to learn his secrets like I thought, because there is no mechanic for me to do so.

2) My 7th level fighter is in a tough battle with a troll. He is losing when another, more experienced fighter joins in and performs an awesome maneuver to slay the creature. My character watches in awe, then asks him if he could learn the same technique. "Sorry Kid, the fighter says, "There's no mechanics to let you learn my techniques. I'm an NPC with abilities chosen at whim by the DM."

BTW, I do usually DM and the whole reason I am against this type of thing is because it makes the world seem less believable for me. It cheats players by creating NPCs that can whatever ability you want them to. It makes creating encounter feel much more like programming a video game than creating a world full of NPCs who could teach others their techniques.

The easy path is not always the best.

Zincorium
2008-01-28, 10:56 PM
Counterexamples:

1) My level 5 PC wizard is studying under a more experienced wizard. This wizard gained his experience form studying magic, not adventuring, so there was no "farming chunks of XP for him." However, something about his spell casting doesn't seem right. He doesn't have the proper spells for being at his power level. He casts them different than I do. It's almost like it's an innate ability for him. Not anything like a wizard, but more like a sorcerer. One day my wizard decides to kill his mentor and take all his notes. What? A single magic missile killed this guy? Okay, something is definitely not right about this dude. He had the stats of a commoner, but high level spells that didn't seem to follow the same rules as mine did. Further more, I find after reading his notes that I am not able to learn his secrets like I thought, because there is no mechanic for me to do so.

2) My 7th level fighter is in a tough battle with a troll. He is losing when another, more experienced fighter joins in and performs an awesome maneuver to slay the creature. My character watches in awe, then asks him if he could learn the same technique. "Sorry Kid, the fighter says, "There's no mechanics to let you learn my techniques. I'm an NPC with abilities chosen at whim by the DM."

BTW, I do usually DM and the whole reason I am against this type of thing is because it makes the world seem less believable for me. It cheats players by creating NPCs that can whatever ability you want them to. It makes creating encounter feel much more like programming a video game than creating a world full of NPCs who could teach others their techniques.

The easy path is not always the best.

There is a difference between bending and needlessly complicating the rules. In the first example, how is the other wizard teaching you any style other than the one he uses? It's kicking logic to the curb before we even get started. There are rules for getting spells from spellbooks, scrolls, and even researching your own, if the DM decides not to use any of those to represent the master's notes, and then complains about the lack of support, that's incredibly silly.

As to the second: if you can homebrew abilities, you can homebrew feats. If you won't do the latter, how can you justify the former?

So your counterexamples are counterproductive non-sequiturs.


As to making the world seem more like programming a video game... it seems pretty clear to me that the opposite of what you claim is true. Establishing values for every NPC is what video games do. When you decide out of the blue to click the attack icon for joe peasant in peasant slayer 4, he has hit points and an armor class.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-01-28, 11:03 PM
I'm pretty anti-hype on the whole 4e thing so far. As such, I haven't been following any of the 4e previews very closely and therefore am unfamiliar with how this discussion relates to what's been revealed about 4e.

However, I do want to point out that I agree with HidaTsuzua and Jack Zander on the basic principle of the thing. To their arguments, I want to add my own.

What happens when you have an NPC created with these alternate rules in a situation written with PCs in mind? For example, in 2e, monsters were statted differently than PCs. They had no recorded ability scores beyond a general Intelligence range. That left the DM high and dry when a monster was subjected to a Strength Draining effect. Sure, sometimes such an effect would be kind enough to list effects on creatures without listed abilities. But oftentimes, these effects would actually be more detrimental than the effect on PCs. For instance, it would inflict a -1 to hit and damage for every point of drain inflicted, wherea a PCs with 15 Strength could take 9 whole points of drain before their attack rolls were affected.

To this extent, making these NPCs with different rules can make it harder to adjucate the game. And, as has been pointed out, they will harm verisimilitude through the inconsistencies introduced to the system.

It was for the above reasons I was overjoyed with 3.5e's treatment of monsters with the exact same rules as PCs as well as the introduction of NPC classes. If 4th edition is removing those tools, it will be a definite step backwards in my book.


When you decide out of the blue to click the attack icon for joe peasant in peasant slayer 4, he has hit points and an armor class.
Only if Joe Peasant is an NPC that the programmers let you attack or one that joins your party. If Joe Peasant is the proprietor of the inn in Dullsville, there's a good chance he'll be invulnerable to absolutely everything and only ever ask you if you want a room for the night.

Talya
2008-01-28, 11:05 PM
This is somewhat related to the problem of players being unable to seperate fluff from crunch. The kind of people who, if you want to play a samurai, you need to have levels in the Samurai class. Or who insist that full attacks MUST involve 4 weapon swings in 6 seconds rather than "The Barbarian raises his axe, and brings it crashing down on the Dragon's head in a single terrible blow.". Some people just can't handle the fluff being mutable. =/

At least I think... Am I totally off subject here saying that?

There's two assumptions you're tying in together that are not related. I find one is mostly true, the other is mostly false.

1. Crunch is abstract, not representational!
Crunch can certainly be abstract to an extent, it doesn't necessarily mean exactly what it says. A miss is often a hit that rebounds off of armor. A hit might not be a hit at all, merely your target getting winded. However, I tend to think of 4 attacks as 4 attacks. If you were making one big attack, you wouldn't roll 4 times. You'd roll once. I think if you have to warp the crunch that much away from what it states, your better off finding a different set of game rules.

2. Crunch and fluff can be entirely divorced without being affected.
You can make a reasonable and believable samurai from a fighter, so long as the OA book is unavailable to you, but it will never feel so much like a samurai as if you go get Oriental Adventures and use it. Some systems are better designed for portraying certain styles of characters. Crunch affects fluff, whether you like it or not. There's a level of "verisimilitude" (as the original poster put it) in the crunch itself. The rules and crunch are transparent, open and visible to the players, and the DM. They are not just rolling dice. They have their own feel. Well done "crunch" has flavor of its own, and the fluff ends up part of the rules. I laugh at people who try to divorce the two, because their characters always end up seeming like two dimensional facades in play. Real design incorporates both.

Rutee
2008-01-28, 11:11 PM
2. Crunch and fluff can be entirely divorced.
You can make a reasonable and believable samurai from a fighter, so long as the OA book is unavailable to you, but it will never feel so much like a samurai as if you go get Oriental Adventures and use it. Some systems are better designed for portraying certain styles of characters. Crunch affects fluff, whether you like it or not. There's a level of "verisimilitude" (as the original poster put it) in the crunch itself. The rules and crunch are transparent to the players, and the DM. They are not just rolling dice. They have their own feel. Well done "crunch" has flavor of its own, and the fluff ends up part of the rules. I laugh at people who try to divorce the two, because their characters always end up seeming like two dimensional facades in play. Real design incorporates both.
...Actually, the OA Samurai is basically a Fighter with specialized TWF and the Ancestral Blade ability. You're not helping your point by choosing extremely similar mechanics.

Incidentally, did you bother proofreading your post? Your conclusion refutes your thesis.


I'm pretty anti-hype on the whole 4e thing so far. As such, I haven't been following any of the 4e previews very closely and therefore am unfamiliar with how this discussion relates to what's been revealed about 4e.

However, I do want to point out that I agree with HidaTsuzua and Jack Zander on the basic principle of the thing. To their arguments, I want to add my own.

What happens when you have an NPC created with these alternate rules in a situation written with PCs in mind? For example, in 2e, monsters were statted differently than PCs. They had no recorded ability scores beyond a general Intelligence range. That left the DM high and dry when a monster was subjected to a Strength Draining effect. Sure, sometimes such an effect would be kind enough to list effects on creatures without listed abilities. But oftentimes, these effects would actually be more detrimental than the effect on PCs. For instance, it would inflict a -1 to hit and damage for every point of drain inflicted, wherea a PCs with 15 Strength could take 9 whole points of drain before their attack rolls were affected.

To this extent, making these NPCs with different rules can make it harder to adjucate the game. And, as has been pointed out, they will harm verisimilitude through the inconsistencies introduced to the system.

It was for the above reasons I was overjoyed with 3.5e's treatment of monsters with the exact same rules as PCs as well as the introduction of NPC classes. If 4th edition is removing those tools, it will be a definite step backwards in my book.
Your comparison to 2e has one fundamental flaw within it, though I see your point.

2e didn't just have different rules for NPC generation. It had different rules for how the NPCs worked on every level, apparently. It's more analogous to compare 3.5e stat generation and 4e stat generation with whether you do your copying via typing with Carbon Paper, or hitting Print: X Copies after finishing a document in word, respectively. Assuming they can make the system for NPC generation genuinely easy, which I will tentatively accept without evidence to the contrary.

Jack Zander
2008-01-28, 11:25 PM
if the DM decides not to use any of those to represent the master's notes, and then complains about the lack of support, that's incredibly silly.

That's kinda what I'm saying.


As to the second: if you can homebrew abilities, you can homebrew feats.

I said nothing of home brewing. From the sounds of it, you will be able to give NPCs abilities that are already in the game, but that the PCs have no way of obtaining. Such as giving an NPC cleric the Tarraque's Reflective Carapace ability. How come my cleric can't learn that?


As to making the world seem more like programming a video game... it seems pretty clear to me that the opposite of what you claim is true. Establishing values for every NPC is what video games do. When you decide out of the blue to click the attack icon for joe peasant in peasant slayer 4, he has hit points and an armor class.

But Joe will still have hit points and armor class either way you do it. In 3.5 you don't have to establish values for every NPC. You do have to know that if Joe the Peasant is a farmer, he's probably not more than a 3rd level commoner, and as such, there is a limited array of what he would know how to do. Casting spells is not in that array. He would have to learn wizardry to do that.

In final fantasy games (as well as others) often you'll fight NPC who later become PCs. When you fight the powerful wizard, you're fighting a completely different set of stats than the creature who joins your party, becuase it was easier for the programmers to balance the encounter based on one-the-fly stats and spell-like abilities. Try draining his MP to 0 and he keeps casting spells. Take him down 1,000 HP and he's still alive, even though your party has 500 HP max and he's a wizard. When he joins your party, he all of the sudden has his stats converted to PC stats. I'm not saying that this will happen in anyone's campaign, but the fact that NPCs use different rules simply kills the verisimilitude of the game. You start to realize it's a game. And that encourages metagaming.

Note: When a player thinks, "He cast a 4th level spell, he must be a least 7th level," that is not metagaming. He is simply taking what he knows of the environment (wizards who cast spells that powerful are around a certain power level) and drawing conclusions. In 4th Ed. the only conclusions to be drawn are, "Oh look, more NPCs with spell-like abilities. I wonder where the mystic is who teaches all these people these things." Or most likely they will metagame and think, "DM fiat. I call foul!"

Starbuck_II
2008-01-28, 11:42 PM
...Actually, the OA Samurai is basically a Fighter with specialized TWF and the Ancestral Blade ability. You're not helping your point by choosing extremely similar mechanics.

But it said you can choose alternate weapons like speaks, etc so not stuck in TWFing.

Also the Clan feats help.
Plus, better skills than Fighter.

Rutee
2008-01-28, 11:56 PM
That's kinda what I'm saying.



I said nothing of home brewing. From the sounds of it, you will be able to give NPCs abilities that are already in the game, but that the PCs have no way of obtaining. Such as giving an NPC cleric the Tarraque's Reflective Carapace ability. How come my cleric can't learn that?



But Joe will still have hit points and armor class either way you do it. In 3.5 you don't have to establish values for every NPC. You do have to know that if Joe the Peasant is a farmer, he's probably not more than a 3rd level commoner, and as such, there is a limited array of what he would know how to do. Casting spells is not in that array. He would have to learn wizardry to do that.

In final fantasy games (as well as others) often you'll fight NPC who later become PCs. When you fight the powerful wizard, you're fighting a completely different set of stats than the creature who joins your party, becuase it was easier for the programmers to balance the encounter based on one-the-fly stats and spell-like abilities. Try draining his MP to 0 and he keeps casting spells. Take him down 1,000 HP and he's still alive, even though your party has 500 HP max and he's a wizard. When he joins your party, he all of the sudden has his stats converted to PC stats. I'm not saying that this will happen in anyone's campaign, but the fact that NPCs use different rules simply kills the verisimilitude of the game. You start to realize it's a game. And that encourages metagaming.
I'd do it too, even in an ostensibly 'better' RPG. Do you know why? Because in all likelihood, this is a BBEG for the duration of an Arc. Thus, the final battle is much, much more suitably done with the NPC fighting alone. As he is fighting alone, if he fights without any buff whatsoever from the PC form he's going to get? He's going to be creamed. It's called Plot Armor.


Note: When a player thinks, "He cast a 4th level spell, he must be a least 7th level," that is not metagaming. He is simply taking what he knows of the environment (wizards who cast spells that powerful are around a certain power level) and drawing conclusions. In 4th Ed. the only conclusions to be drawn are, "Oh look, more NPCs with spell-like abilities. I wonder where the mystic is who teaches all these people these things." Or most likely they will metagame and think, "DM fiat. I call foul!"
I agree with the first half, before you tried to create a non-functional point against the system. I /don't/ think it's metagaming to make a judgement that your character /should/ know based on the evidence (For instance, the weaponmaster PC assuming that a feat of archery means the NPC has the lead-in abilities necessary for the NPC's action).

You just, took that and tied to turn it into a "They'll metagame more!" with the new system, when not only can you not know that, there's no reasonable reason to assume it. And DM Fiat? /really/? You think that's going to be what's on people's minds when there's a system for it already?



But it said you can choose alternate weapons like speaks, etc so not stuck in TWFing.
Having TWF does not necessitate you to /use/ it.

Cuddly
2008-01-29, 12:02 AM
If a DM makes an NPC with stats, regardless of his creation method, he's much more likely to put the time into making the NPC seem real than if he didn't make the NPC.

Right?

Jack Zander
2008-01-29, 12:13 AM
If a DM makes an NPC with stats, regardless of his creation method, he's much more likely to put the time into making the NPC seem real than if he didn't make the NPC.

Right?

Right, but that seems more like an argument of why we shouldn't buy the Monster Manual.

Rutee
2008-01-29, 12:16 AM
Right, but that seems more like an argument of why we shouldn't buy the Monster Manual.

...Explain the logic underlying that conclusion

Ominous
2008-01-29, 12:23 AM
I'm disagreeing with the fallacy. It's a pet peeve of mine when in MMOs an NPC Wizard can cast a magic spell that is impossible for any PC to learn. Why can't my character learn it? That wizard managed to learn it. I've always felt that allowing NPCs to operate under different rules destroys the feeling of verisimilitude and shows laziness on the part of the designer. the absolute worst case can be found in video games, when an NPC that can devastate almost any monster, suddenly gets weakened in strength because they're now a PC. To illustrate: http://www.rpgworldcomic.com/d/20010204.html and http://www.rpgworldcomic.com/d/20010214.html

Zincorium
2008-01-29, 12:37 AM
That's kinda what I'm saying.

Then I may be well misunderstanding your point. However, you seem to be creating incredibly poorly implemented ideas on your theoretical opponents side. For clarity I'm going to get a bit algebraic here. If A is using the exact PC rules to make NPCs, B is using a stripped down system to the same ends, and C is using a stripped down system to different ends, you have done the following:

1. Assumed A as default. I'm fine with this, it's the one spelled out option on the board.

2. C was clearly shown unworkable by your examples.

3. B has not been addressed.


I said nothing of home brewing. From the sounds of it, you will be able to give NPCs abilities that are already in the game, but that the PCs have no way of obtaining. Such as giving an NPC cleric the Tarraque's Reflective Carapace ability. How come my cleric can't learn that?

Why would you give the NPC cleric such an ability without justifying it as either specific divine assistance or a spell? Laziness? If you simply say it's a spell your deity won't grant (requires eating babies or somesuch) then the problem is solved.

NPC clerics DO NOT, by A and B above, have that ability. You are homebrewing, and again going into C, by giving them that ability.


But Joe will still have hit points and armor class either way you do it. In 3.5 you don't have to establish values for every NPC. You do have to know that if Joe the Peasant is a farmer, he's probably not more than a 3rd level commoner, and as such, there is a limited array of what he would know how to do. Casting spells is not in that array. He would have to learn wizardry to do that.

By option B, no, Joe won't have hit points and armor class unless he's a jerk and you know the PCs will kill him. He won't have spells, either. Option A, which is using the PC rules for NPCs, Joe will need to have a level, ability scores and skill point allocations. By C, he's a slaad in disguise. I'm not going to defend C. B, however, is a perfectly workable option: we have given Joe a name, determined that he is going to die in one hit from anything except maybe the wizard's dagger, and put him into the plot. Our work is done following that method.


In final fantasy games (as well as others) often you'll fight NPC who later become PCs. When you fight the powerful wizard, you're fighting a completely different set of stats than the creature who joins your party, becuase it was easier for the programmers to balance the encounter based on one-the-fly stats and spell-like abilities. Try draining his MP to 0 and he keeps casting spells. Take him down 1,000 HP and he's still alive, even though your party has 500 HP max and he's a wizard. When he joins your party, he all of the sudden has his stats converted to PC stats. I'm not saying that this will happen in anyone's campaign, but the fact that NPCs use different rules simply kills the verisimilitude of the game. You start to realize it's a game. And that encourages metagaming.

I'm struggling to see how any of that, true as it may be, applies to D&D.


Note: When a player thinks, "He cast a 4th level spell, he must be a least 7th level," that is not metagaming. He is simply taking what he knows of the environment (wizards who cast spells that powerful are around a certain power level) and drawing conclusions. In 4th Ed. the only conclusions to be drawn are, "Oh look, more NPCs with spell-like abilities. I wonder where the mystic is who teaches all these people these things." Or most likely they will metagame and think, "DM fiat. I call foul!"

1. It is metagaming if the character does not know what spells are which level and how powerful (relatively) his opponent would have to be. This is what the spellcraft skill is used for. The 6 intelligence orcish barbarian will probably not know the above, and the player using that knowledge is a problem.

2. Er, presumably NPCs in 4th edition won't all be coming out of left field with strange new abilities that defy convention. Because that's more work on everyone's part for a sub-par result. NPC wizards will use wizard stuff, fighters fighter stuff, but there may be some blurring in unimportant areas.

3. It is the DM's prerogative to come up with new things for the PCs to face, for the most part that's what they're there for. If your players can't handle everything not being spelled out in a rulebook beforehand, D&D may not be a good game for them.

Neek
2008-01-29, 12:41 AM
Perhaps I read it wrong, but when I read "stats," I thought he meant the basics: Abilities, hit points, but did not refer to abilities of any sort. To be honest, this is step towards 2e, d20 Modern, and Star Wars RPG: Were NPCs were treated as a separate mechanic (in 2e, they were 0-level characters with 4 hp; in d20 Modern, they were "Ordinaries" that had no class levels, one hit die, and limited stats; in Star Wars RPG, they were divided into thugs, diplomats, and something else--either way, they were not built the same way 3rd ed built commoners).

It's not that I don't like this system--it may be interesting if there was some grounding logic. I prefer 3rd edition's internal consistency, enough that Fax Celestis was able to extrapolate this into a more concise system. The system wasn't a true reflex of PCs--a 20th level NPC, despite receiving skill points per level, increased hit dice, and feats at the same progression that are the same as the PCs, they aren't as powerful (and shouldn't be assumed as powerful either).

Also, Jack Zander, one of the premises of the fallacy is that the character must be played believable and realistically: If your mentor has spell-like abilities, which you have learned by-the-book arcane magic, then this breaks verisimilitude. Your second example doesn't, but it's still cheesey as hell.

Skjaldbakka
2008-01-29, 12:51 AM
Verisimilitude (i.e. your campaign world's ability to seem lifelike) is primarily a function of descriptive text, not mechanics.

Corollary 1: The ability to create and use NPCs (including "monsters") that are realistic, lifelike, and who add verisimilitude to a vibrant, interactive world is not prevented by using any alternate means of NPC stat generation(i.e. ones other than those provided to player characters.)

Corollary 2: Generating NPC stats via alternate methods does not prevent a DM from running those NPCs as realistic, lifelike beings, using their presence to increase the player's sensation of verisimilitude in a vibrant, interactive world.

And where does this come from?

Rebuttal: Everything you just said is equally true for having the NPCs use the same rules as the PCs. It is a matter of preference. It is never going to hurt a game for NPCs to have a proper stat block. Some DMs operate better with NPCs that have full stats. Some Players prefer a game where all the characters in the world follow the same rules.

So, technically, having full stats for NPCs is better than not having them. Because it is never bad, and is sometimes good. The only condition that I would put on this is that having fulling fleshed out NPCs is not the most important thing for a game, and can often afford to be 'fudged'. But in a perfect world, in which the DM has all the prep time he wants, all the NPCs are statted out fully.

huttj509
2008-01-29, 01:34 AM
I feel it would be prudent to review the quote from Races and Classes that started the whole argument, as I fear things are starting to drift into disliking what you thought someone said about what someone said about what was written down, compared with someone else in a similar situation, and thus ending with some people talking past each other.

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.


Now, that quote still does not say everything about the details of the differences involved. For example, I don't know what they mean by exceptions-based powers (though I think it means "what makes them different from something normal", I heard similar language in one of the podcasts regarding how the MM entries would be focusing on how goblins would behave and fight differently from, say, gnolls).

At the very least hopefully now people can be arguing based on something a little more solid than rumors, which seemed to be how things were trending, with the information and context of the quote of contention being lost.

Rutee
2008-01-29, 01:38 AM
Hm, I seem to have missed that. Now /that's/ problematic, if they work on fundamentally different mechanics. I've got no problem with arriving at the same class of mechanics in totally different ways, but when you make the mechanics fundamentally different.. meh. I can't be entirely clear that DM/Player seperation is nearly so much an issue over the intertubes as it is when you're at the same table, but I'm loath to approve of building a seperation into the base mechanics for fear of adding a layer of misunderstanding between the two.

Jack Zander
2008-01-29, 01:56 AM
Hm, I seem to have missed that. Now /that's/ problematic, if they work on fundamentally different mechanics. I've got no problem with arriving at the same class of mechanics in totally different ways, but when you make the mechanics fundamentally different.. meh. I can't be entirely clear that DM/Player seperation is nearly so much an issue over the intertubes as it is when you're at the same table, but I'm loath to approve of building a seperation into the base mechanics for fear of adding a layer of misunderstanding between the two.

Now we're on the same page :smallwink:

In regards to Cuddley's statement, it sounded more like he was arguing that a DM should always make his NPCs from scratch rather than use anything preexisting. I may have misinterpreted though.

Yahzi
2008-01-29, 02:04 AM
NPC stats are a "black box" in terms of player interaction.
Then how can the PCs learn about and understand the world? If the rules are different for the NPCs than they are for the PCs, then the players either have to learn the rules for NPCs, or they have to rely on the DM to tell them every single fact.

How does a player know if the enemy is dangerous? If the bad guy is wearing better armor than the player, then the player could reasonably assume he's more dangerous. If he's wearing poorer armor, then he should be less dangerous. These kinds of cues allow the players to make intelligent decisions. And making choices is what games are about.

But under arbitrary NPC rules, the players simply have to ask the DM every single time. "Can we attack this? Will it kill us instantly? Is it a tough fight that we should use our best spells on, or just a pushover that we can try to win on the cheap?"

If the NPCs are arbitrary, then the DM makes all the choices. The players attack whatever they're supposed to attack, when they're supposed to attack it, they way they're supposed to attack it. They don't dare try and make their own decisions, because the world doesn't work the way they think it does.

Making PCs and NPCs live by the same rules gives players a wealth of information about the world. It makes their characters relevant, and it makes the NPCs relevant. ("Hey! I could be just like him! Or... he could be just like me!") It makes their gains matter ("Haha, now I have a +3 sword, I am better than all the Knights of the Order of Plus One!"). It makes their victories matter ("you're a level higher than me and I still rolled you, sucker!").

If the NPCs are not comparable to the PCs, then the only thing the PCs can compare themselves to is each other. Which means the only thing they can really interact with is... each other.


then I call issue, not with the rules, but with their ability to convey a living world to the players as a whole.
First you cut out the entire PHB as context (the one book you know your players bothered to read :smallbiggrin:); and then you blame the GMs for not providing enough context. That seems... harsh.


As DM, you should be able to present an NPC to the players, be they barkeep, shop owner, prince, thief, mage, or beggar, in a believable and immersive manner, no matter what stats they have or how you acquired them.
Nobody's complaining about making the NPCs at whatever level you want. The issue is whether the players can know anything in advance about the NPCs, short of waiting for the GM to explicitly tell them what this particular NPC can and cannot do in this particular instance.

Playing D&D with arbitrary NPC rules is like playing a computer RPG without /con. :smallbiggrin:

Yahzi
2008-01-29, 02:11 AM
Monsters and most NPCs are lucky to appear more than once, particularly if they're encountered in combat situations.
What do you get when you take the R out of RPG?

A first-person shooter.

:smallannoyed:

If a single quote would be capable of making me not buy an entire game system, the above quote would be it. And apparently, it is capable.

tyckspoon
2008-01-29, 02:30 AM
What do you get when you take the R out of RPG?

A first-person shooter.

:smallannoyed:

If a single quote would be capable of making me not buy an entire game system, the above quote would be it. And apparently, it is capable.

..huh? It's a basic fact of most RPGs. How often do you go back and see what's new with that camp of marauding Generic Evil Creatures you cleared out? How often do you even go back and see how the Random Town that you cleared out the GECs for is doing? Do you make any special effort to stay in contact with every random barmaid who serves you a drink? Do you even bother to find out what their names are? The majority of people and creatures you encounter in a 'typical' D&D game really are extras. They're unimportant and really don't need the time and depth of statistics given them. 3.5 is already like this; I don't see much real difference with 4E recognizing that and incorporating it as a deliberate design element.

RukiTanuki
2008-01-29, 02:37 AM
Just to clarify: I had a back-and-forth discussion where the other person said that running an NPC, who wasn't created with the same rules as PCs, broke his sense of immersion, and possibly that of his players. My counterpoint was this: if the NPCs abilities don't break the rules of the world itself (as opposed to the rules of the game mechanics), then the NPC is not inherently less immersive than one created with the rules. More importantly, adhering to or breaking the rules should not have an impact on one's ability to roleplay the character, and in turn, should not affect that NPC's influence on how immersive your world feels. They have to feel right in the context of the rules of the world (as the characters know them), regardless of whether they line up with game mechanics the players use.

Rutee: just consider this a thought on a bad line of reasoning. I'm not (yet) out to create Ruki's Fallacy or anything. :)

Shas'aia Toriia: I'm certainly not suggesting that every NPC be fully fleshed out. If anything, your thinking follows my own: why go to the extra effort to "follow the rules" for characters the NPC will either never fight, or will kill immediately?

Mojotech: I'm not a DM who tells his 4th-level player that he swung his weapon once in six seconds. :) To me, attack rolls are an abstraction; you parry and attack and dodge repeatedly, and that roll represents your effort; or, if you will, it's the one good attack you got in. That's not for everyone; again, I was just pointing out that not adhering to the rules doesn't inherently make my descriptions less immersive, or my players less interested.

Nightgaunt: I should have clarified. The original argument, as it applies to 4e, stated that NPCs/monsters generated without the "take class levels or hit die, add feats each three levels, spend all skill points" method either broke the DM's sense of immersion, or were less realistic to the players (who, presumably, would never see the difference). By all means, whatever rules the DM sets forth regarding the campaign world, they should be enforced consistently.

Prophaniti: Certainly, if there is a fast-and-easy guideline to make 4th Edition mooks, we haven't seen it. It seems reasonable, especially given the combat roles assigned to each opponent, and (what looks to be) linear progression of PC abilities (hopefully) resulting in a much tighter range of expected values for NPC armor, attack bonus, etc. It's all non-information at this point; we'll have to wait. I hope it's there.

HidaTsuzua: I thought the DMPC problem was due to the DM making it very clear that the DMPC was more powerful/more awesome/more important than the PCs, which is a Very Bad Thing. Anyhow: "Good NPCs need to be run well and that includes descriptive text and mechanics into account since both will effect the final product." Yes, absolutely, I agree. Good descriptive text AND good mechanics are necessary. I just believe that the good mechanics don't intrinsically have to be tied to the mechanics the PCs use. It helps, and it's easier, but it's not necessary.

Jack Zander: The first example is a clear case of the world itself not being consistent; obviously, learning wizardry (a logical discipline even by descriptive text standards) from a more powerful wizard provides certain expectations that you as DM should meet in any case. Showing a case where the rules players use should be followed, however, doesn't inherently mean that all NPCs should follow player creation rules or risk breaking immersion, which was more of what I was attempting to say. The second example has the NPC talking out of character -- I'm not sure if that's a joke. The NPC could easily say "not interested" or not be able to teach you. Is someone with an inherent talent guaranteed to be able to teach you the same talent? Might a unique, one-of-a-kind technique require something, some unique gift, of its user that doesn't translate to "Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Combat Expertise"?

Can I make a "mage" of unknown origin, clearly not trained as a wizard, and present him as an NPC, without crafting out everything for his class? Can I run him without worrying that the next PC I face will find some fatal loophole in a class I didn't even really want to homebrew and use it to gain infinite power and destroy the campaign? I just wanted to present someone tapped into magic in a way the PCs don't understand. How am I breaking immersion by presenting an ability the PCs don't have? Aren't the players the ones theoretically going "ooh, I want that!" Is this as big of a problem as it sounds? I don't have many players complaining that I'm not providing rules for playing a Bodak, and that their sense of immersion is ruined because they don't have a way to acquire Death Gaze...

Shhalahr Windrider: It appears from the Wizards Presents books that there are few (if any) spells or abilities that affect stats in 4th Edition, as the designers keep saying that applying a STR penalty (or what have you) grinds the game to a halt. If they did include such abilities, but failed to include the abilities to be affected in the simplified monster stat blocks, then we're in for a bit more trouble than I plan. :)

Talya: Sorry, I wasn't speaking in absolutes; I was actually trying to retort an absolute someone else said. My theory is this: An immersive world depends on good, descriptive text (fluff), with intuitive rules that abstractly run parallel to that descriptive text. I certainly wasn't divorcing fluff and crunch. Specifically regarding NPC stats, however... if the stats are consistent, does it matter that their method of generation is not identical to the one used by PCs?

Cuddly: I'm a busy adult, like a lot of DMs... the more time I spend on stat generation, the less time I have to make the character interesting in descriptive text. I'd rather come up with a personality and descriptive text that makes otherwise normal stats and mechanics seem unique and interesting. Then, so I'm told, I'll have players claiming their sense of immersion is ruined because they can't nerve-pinch someone's weapon arm with their off-hand (descriptive use of Improved Disarm).

Ominous: unless you obtain the wizard's spellbook, why does your character have any in-world capability to learn that spell? He could research it himself (if your DM allows that), but without the spellbook, the knowledge of that spell is the wizard's and the wizard's alone. And again, if there's an inworld rule for something, there better be an inworld explanation. I never said a unique spell, used by a wizard, had a reason to not be in the spellbook.

---

To be clear, I'm not really talking about "NPCs, with occupations and training both recognized as player classes and as inworld life paths, developing abilities radically incongruous with those paths as the players/PCs know them." I'm talking about "NPCs, with in-world archetypes that could be interpreted by more than one player class/ability (or can't be interpreted reasonably by any class/ability), demonstrating powers of an appropriate theme and level, without the DM crafting rules for the player characters to gain the same abilities." I'm also talking about little things like "monsters with increased hit points without changing Hit Dice, CON, etc.," but let's focus on one thing at a time.

My understanding (and, I believe, the thinking behind the Knowledge skills) is that: the PCs don't know everything, the PCs don't know everything the players know, and the players don't know everything the PCs know. Presumably, there are many things in the campaign world that the PCs don't understand and/or have never encountered before. This includes things in the books as well as things I make up. Am I to understand that between a) powers used by NPCs which players can obtain through rules, b) powers used by NPCs listed in the book, which nonetheless are unavailable to players, and c) powers used by NPCs of my own creation, which have no rulebook parallel, that the ones that "break immersion" are the ones players can't apply to their own characters?

Given that the 3.5 Monster Manual is chock-full of monsters with abilities the PCs can't take (short of polymorph), I have trouble believing people are having trouble getting into their worlds just because they can't have every piece of candy in the bowl. :)

Muyten
2008-01-29, 05:33 AM
I think a lot of people are reading too much into the R&C quote.
The feeling I get from reading various quotes from the designers is that the point of this is to make monsters (And NPCs):

A) Easier to create/customize.
B) More unique.

What I mean by B is that in 3.X when you fought a goblin rogue..you were mostly fighting a rogue. In 4e you'll be mostly fighting a goblin (because it'll have goblin abilities instead of PC abilities).

Also for those who are afraid monsters can't have class-levels take a look at this quote from Mr. Mearls:

Total time it took to create a level 8 gnoll warlock and level 11 human wizard NPCs, both with templates applied: 40 minutes.

If I had access to physical books and wasn't writing these guys for an adventure (necessitating a lot of extra writing; for a home game I might just note the what page I could find a spell or whatever), I think it would've taken me 20, 25 minutes tops.


Seems to me that Gnoll is very classy :smallsmile:

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-01-29, 09:21 AM
I'd do it too, even in an ostensibly 'better' RPG. Do you know why? Because in all likelihood, this is a BBEG for the duration of an Arc. Thus, the final battle is much, much more suitably done with the NPC fighting alone. As he is fighting alone, if he fights without any buff whatsoever from the PC form he's going to get? He's going to be creamed. It's called Plot Armor.
And that doesn't smash verisimilitude in the face how?

If he's gonna join the PCs and be at the PCs' level in order to avoid outshining the PCs, you shouldn't give the PCs the expectation that he's far above their level by deciding he's got to be a BBEG capable of taking on the entire party solo to begin with. Unless maybe you end all your story arcs with the BBEG getting half his levels energy drained away as a matter of justification, anyway... :smallwink:


By option B, no, Joe won't have hit points and armor class unless he's a jerk and you know the PCs will kill him. He won't have spells, either.
I fail to see how this is any different than how just about every single DM runs their game as it stands now. I fail to see why you need a different set of rules in order to just not stat up aspects of an NPC that aren't important.


Option A, which is using the PC rules for NPCs, Joe will need to have a level, ability scores and skill point allocations. By C, he's a slaad in disguise. I'm not going to defend C. B, however, is a perfectly workable option: we have given Joe a name, determined that he is going to die in one hit from anything except maybe the wizard's dagger, and put him into the plot. Our work is done following that method.
Option A only requires all that if Joe will be in a situation that requires a full stat block and does not preclude only giving him one hp and nothing else if such a block is not necessary. If you're using "Option C", you've clearly already determined that Joe does not require full stats for his appearance in the game.


Wizards Presents: Races and Classes[/i], page 14"]The new system is not overly concerned with simulating interactions between monsters and nonplayer characters when the PCs are not on stage.
Isn't everything that happens between NPCs when PCs are not around DM fiat to begin with?

Can the system handle NPCs interacting with each other when the PCs are on stage?

And how does this work if I want to take a race out of the Monster Manual for a PC and now require the detail that's been left out?


How often do you even go back and see how the Random Town that you cleared out the GECs for is doing?
I should hope once a year or so. It's only polite to make sure "Random Town" is managing to continue to stay out of trouble? :smallwink:

Don't your PCs ever have a home base anyway?


Do you make any special effort to stay in contact with every random barmaid who serves you a drink? Do you even bother to find out what their names are?
But do you actually need stats for such barmaids? Why do we need a system for generating stats for characters that don't need stats?


Shhalahr Windrider: It appears from the Wizards Presents books that there are few (if any) spells or abilities that affect stats in 4th Edition, as the designers keep saying that applying a STR penalty (or what have you) grinds the game to a halt. If they did include such abilities, but failed to include the abilities to be affected in the simplified monster stat blocks, then we're in for a bit more trouble than I plan. :)
With all due respect, that's rather beside the point. The point being that if NPCs and Monsters interact with the world in a fundamentally different fashion than the PCs, it will inevitably cause trouble with both verisimiltude and the crunch of adjucating effects. And probably other, more specific areas.

As it is, I haven't seen anything that convinces me whether the new system is a matter of fundamentally different stats or simply enforced lack of statting detail. Either one I don't like, though if I had my choice, I'd take the latter.


Given that the 3.5 Monster Manual is chock-full of monsters with abilities the PCs can't take (short of polymorph), I have trouble believing people are having trouble getting into their worlds just because they can't have every piece of candy in the bowl. :)
From my perspective of the issue, the problem isn't with the monsters that have a built in excuse ("They were born that way, and you weren't!"), but with NPCs of the same race that certainly hasn't had any different opportunities in their life than the PCs' have ever had


I think a lot of people are reading too much into the R&C quote.
The feeling I get from reading various quotes from the designers is that the point of this is to make monsters (And NPCs):

A) Easier to create/customize.
B) More unique.

What I mean by B is that in 3.X when you fought a goblin rogue..you were mostly fighting a rogue. In 4e you'll be mostly fighting a goblin (because it'll have goblin abilities instead of PC abilities).
Not quite seeing how that makes them more unique. "You've seen one goblin, you've seen them all!"

And let's face it, Rogue is one of the most customizable classes in 3e. I'd wager the DM hasn't explored all the possibilities if his or her Players are saying, "Oh, a rogue. We know exactly where all her skill points are."

Muyten
2008-01-29, 09:48 AM
Not quite seeing how that makes them more unique. "You've seen one goblin, you've seen them all!"

And let's face it, Rogue is one of the most customizable classes in 3e. I'd wager the DM hasn't explored all the possibilities if his or her Players are saying, "Oh, a rogue. We know exactly where all her skill points are."

I didn't say rogues aren't customizable...I'm saying wouldn't it be nice if goblins (or any other race for that matter) could be customized independently of class. I'm also saying that in 3.X fighting a 5th level goblin rogue isn't much different from fighting a 5th level halfling rogue because class matters so much more than race.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-01-29, 09:54 AM
I didn't say rogues aren't customizable...I'm saying wouldn't it be nice if goblins (or any other race for that matter) could be customized independently of class. I'm also saying that in 3.X fighting a 5th level goblin rogue isn't much different from fighting a 5th level halfling rogue because class matters so much more than race.
But let's not take it down the other extreme, okay?

Kioran
2008-01-29, 10:16 AM
I think it´s a bad idea. A really bad Idea. It encourages lazyness, and yes, lazily built NPCs can grate and create breaks in verisimilitude.
I mean, come on, what´s so difficult about 3rd Ed in this regard? Any important NPC better had stats, since they might very well be put to the test, and the Players will pay attention to their hireling/nemesis/the enemies major bruiser. Having anything less than a almost fully fleshed out NPC can very well create inconsistencies.
As for Farmer Joe, well, if he follows the rule for NPC classes, and you have a vague idea of his powers, you´re set. It isn´t even hard to memorize the NPC-Classes progression, at least for Experts, Warriors and commoners, your most common sort anyway. Commoners are made of suck (d4, 0.5 BAB, 2 ranks/lvl, all bad saves, meaning lvl/3 rounded down), warriors, Experts and Aristocrats are modified humanoid HD (Aristocrats gain +2 ranks/lvl, Warriors gain full BAB, Expert have a reduced die size but +4 ranks/lvl).
He can be a Schroedingers NPC for all I care, with some undefined features, but if you decide on his Abilities (he´s ordinary, say 15 PB) and the approximate power, it´s easy to guesstimate what he will actually be capable of. Use only average rolls and the universal ruleset. Say he´s a dumb, ordinary fellow that could possibly take a knife wound but not much more - means 2-4 HP, meaning 1 level/HD and only a minor Con-bonus, or maybe more HD but poor con.
Since the rest of the package includes little capabilities otherwise, he´s probably the simplest explanation around - a Commoner 1 with a Con of 12. If he was the villages old head teacher, he could also be an Expert 3 with a Con of 7 (-3 due to age).
Regardless, you can probably fit his role quite easily with an NPC class. That gives you a number of skill points to play with, some stats, and some other stuff. Assign on the fly, depending on what they should be capable of.

In a session last year, my players (at thaat time ECL 5)fought against a bunch of Ninjas hellbent on setting the city ablaze. They were moderatley tough, quite sneaky, but only mediocre on actually hitting stuff in close combat, and not to dangerous if they hit. They were many though. Not what were they? Did I take half an hour to stat them? No. It took me longer to write this post than to jot them down, and I found that NPCs classes worked for what I wanted - tough, hard to find, but not hard to fight despite the numbers. So they were Expert 4s. It worked. So mooks aren´t that much of a matter to a DM that knows his stuff.
Any DM that needs to reference these basic NPC classes probably also needs to reference other things during the session as well.......and that always spells trouble. Different NPC creation won´t a allay that either.

Muyten
2008-01-29, 10:26 AM
But let's not take it down the other extreme, okay?

Agreed. And as I said it looks very much like the 'monster'-races can have classes too just like in 3.X.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-01-29, 10:42 AM
Any DM that needs to reference these basic NPC classes probably also needs to reference other things during the session as well.......and that always spells trouble. Different NPC creation won´t a allay that either.
Indeed. In fact, it risks exacerbating the problem. A different ruleset means more rules with which the DM must be familiar. Even if the extra rules are simpler, they still take a little more time to familiarize yourself with, an extra moment to switch trains of thought when using them, and so on.


Agreed. And as I said it looks very much like the 'monster'-races can have classes too just like in 3.X.
Oh, indeed, I don't doubt that (at the moment anyway). But can they be used without damaging verisimilitude or consistency any more than necessary for the sake of the game?

Matthew
2008-01-29, 11:00 AM
With regard to simplified stat blocks and the absence of Attribute Scores, I think we're worrying needlessly. I seriously doubt 4e will be doing away with the fundamental mechanics, just the method by which they are implemented. I'm pretty sure that's what was meant by the whole '4e recognises the importance of the tools, blah, blah, blah' quote.

To be clear, though, I don't consider the absence of Attribute Scores for Monsters or NPCs to be a significant hindrance, especially the way that 3e works. If the Monster doesn't have additional Hit Points, Attack Bonuses, Damage Bonuses, Defence Bonuses, Saving Throw Bonuses, etc.. it's a fair guess that they have a 10 or 11 in all their Attributes. In previous editions the possible range was larger, but if Attributes somehow became important (which is not all that common in my experience) the DM was free to decide them and how (or indeed whether) they interacted with other mechanics. Of course, giving Dragons Attributes is part of the problem of 'Touch of Golden Ice' abuses...

Of course, that brings us back to the different preferences people have with regard to 'robust play out of the box' games and more 'flexible decide for yourself' games. :smallwink:

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-01-29, 11:18 AM
To be clear, though, I don't consider the absence of Attribute Scores for Monsters or NPCs to be a significant hindrance, especially the way that 3e works. If the Monster doesn't have additional Hit Points, Attack Bonuses, Damage Bonuses, Defence Bonuses, Saving Throw Bonuses, etc.. it's a fair guess that they have a 10 or 11 in all their Attributes.
And if they do have those additionals? You gotta come up with the crap anyway. Doesn't really save you that much work.


Of course, giving Dragons Attributes is part of the problem of 'Touch of Golden Ice' abuses...
People always focus on dragons as if they were the only creatures with mediocre Dexterities.

Y'know, maybe the problem wasn't with the stat given to the creature, but with the amount of damage dealt by the damage-dealing power? Let's face it, it would even be overpowered when used against the party's Level 20 Cleric with the 12 Dex, too, wouldn't it?

Muyten
2008-01-29, 11:37 AM
Oh, indeed, I don't doubt that (at the moment anyway). But can they be used without damaging verisimilitude or consistency any more than necessary for the sake of the game?

Do I think the new mechanics can be used WITHOUT damaging verisimilitude or consistency? Absolutely. Do I think they can be used so that they DO damage verisimilitude and consistency? Indeed. But so could 3.X.

People are arguing that by being able to create NPCs that do not conform to the way PCs are created that this automaticaly damages verisimilitude. This is only the case if the system is abused...as long as the DM follows the rules of the world and the narative there is no problem. If on the other hand the DM decides to abuse his powers he can indeed use the new system to damage consistency. This could also easily be done in 3.X or in any other system for that matter.

RukiTanuki
2008-01-29, 12:08 PM
Hrm... are people really telling their players the stats of every NPC they face? I'll ask again; if the NPC's stats (and therefore, the things they can do) are reasonable and make sense in the context of the campaign world, yet have no PC character creation equivalent, does the world seem less realistic?

Am I understanding that several people treat classes as concrete things, which actually exist in in-world context, and of which the characters are aware? Yes, there are in-world professions that line up with certain classes. The schools of wizardry are an obvious example. But are your NPCs telling each other, "Oh, best stay away from him. He went to Fighter University. *sniff* Yep, he thought he was too good for Warrior Community College."

Is the guy who sneaks a Ranger, or a Fighter/Rogue? (They both dodged the fireball.) Is the guy wandering the wilderness a Ranger or a Barbarian? (What if both scream in fury as they charge with an axe?) Is the sneaky guy casting spells a Beguiler or a Rogue/Wizard/Unseen Seer? I understand why your players care, but face it, that's not your players truly believing your world for the first time -- that's your players metagaming. The PCs want to know what to expect from the people, they face, sure, but it's not inherently more realistic for players to expect that every person they come across, particularly those whose talents do not revolve around a known casting discipline, to have the the same talents from the same little pool of abilities as the last guy they faced of that archetype.

Now, though I'm not fond of it, the inquoting:


Then how can the PCs learn about and understand the world? If the rules are different for the NPCs than they are for the PCs, then the players either have to learn the rules for NPCs, or they have to rely on the DM to tell them every single fact.

The players already rely on the DM to tell them every single fact. Assuming your PC characters do not, in-world, have full knowledge of, say, the Monster Manual, then anything they know about a monster they see for the first time is limited to what the DM describes to the player. I tell my players "you see a towering green brute, with a foul stench and a strange dangling nose." Am I doing it wrong? Are others saying, "You run across your first troll. It's a barbarian 3. Here's the MM book and its character sheet, as clearly you will be incapable of fighting something unless you know all its stats and are assured that it was levelled using the same tools you have access to."

Unless the PCs have a Pokedex, their sense of reality is not broken by the players not knowing the stats of the opponent they face, because PCs aren't aware of the game mechanic stats for themselves or others. Though it's possible I missed the point where The Matrix became the default campaign setting. :)


How does a player know if the enemy is dangerous? If the bad guy is wearing better armor than the player, then the player could reasonably assume he's more dangerous. If he's wearing poorer armor, then he should be less dangerous. These kinds of cues allow the players to make intelligent decisions. And making choices is what games are about.

Yep, and I heartily recommend DM provide these kinds of descriptive text, in-world cues to players, so that the PCs can sum up their opposition and take appropriate action without hauling out their Pokedex. Then they can get a realistic view of their opponent without knowing its stats directly, at which point it shouldn't matter how those stats were generated.


But under arbitrary NPC rules, the players simply have to ask the DM every single time. "Can we attack this? Will it kill us instantly? Is it a tough fight that we should use our best spells on, or just a pushover that we can try to win on the cheap?"

At this point, I hit the nearest player with a newspaper and say "stop metagaming." If I put the PCs in proximity to a party-killer, it's reasonable that I'm either going to give them fair warning, or I've already assumed the risk of losing at least one PC. Again, the characters themselves do not have a Pokedex. They eye up opponents every day, making judgment calls without knowing someone's levels, spells, or feats. Isn't realism better achieved through describing what the PC perceives, instead of describing a character sheet?


If the NPCs are arbitrary, then the DM makes all the choices. The players attack whatever they're supposed to attack, when they're supposed to attack it, they way they're supposed to attack it. They don't dare try and make their own decisions, because the world doesn't work the way they think it does.

"NPCs are created with rules and options players don't have access to, so free will is an illusion"? That's quite a stretch. Your capacity as DM to railroad or not to railroad is completely independent of whether you drafted a character sheet for each NPC, or whether you winged it, or whether you made realistic, convincing NPCs with the right blend of talents independent of player options.

Again, your players are metagaming if they treat every sentence in the core books as being a known fact in-world. If a Fighter and a Warrior are treated differently in-world, if a tribal shaman can't make it rain without taking Druid levels, if no NPC can have an ability without the players being provided a list of prerequisites... you may as well enact Rule 0 in-world as well: There exists a being more powerful than the gods, who has singled out specific people to whom all important things happen. That is the point where the stuff you describe becomes reality.


Making PCs and NPCs live by the same rules gives players a wealth of information about the world. It makes their characters relevant, and it makes the NPCs relevant. ("Hey! I could be just like him! Or... he could be just like me!") It makes their gains matter ("Haha, now I have a +3 sword, I am better than all the Knights of the Order of Plus One!"). It makes their victories matter ("you're a level higher than me and I still rolled you, sucker!").

Wait. "My Sword of Enhancement Bonus of Arbitrary Abstraction makes me better than Local NPC Group Who Don't Have An Associated Prestige Class"? The +3 weapon is immersive, but not the group of people defined by features with no game-rule parallel?! I think I'm doing something wrong here. I can't remember the last time I awarded roleplay experience to a player for taunting "you just got bested by someone a level lower than you!"


If the NPCs are not comparable to the PCs, then the only thing the PCs can compare themselves to is each other. Which means the only thing they can really interact with is... each other.

I don't follow. The interaction of PC with NPC requires the NPCs stats. Not once did I say "discard NPC stats" or "use inappropriate NPC stats." I meant "exercise the right to use NPC stats created with methods other than the Creating Characters chapter of the Player's Handbook." That chapter means to me, "here's how your players can make characters that make sense in the world," not, "here's now people in the world learn and develop new abilities." Apparently some disagree.


First you cut out the entire PHB as context (the one book you know your players bothered to read :smallbiggrin:); and then you blame the GMs for not providing enough context. That seems... harsh.

Again, I'm just snipping out the sentence that isn't in my PHB (but appears to be in others') that says "These character creation guidelines represent the way that people in the world of Dungeons and Dragons learn everything that they know." I don't think calling that "cutting out the entire PHB" is entirely fair.

And yes, gosh darn it: I *AM* calling to task every DM whose descriptive text is so lacking, that they must increase the presence of the rules in order for their players to feel involved.


Nobody's complaining about making the NPCs at whatever level you want. The issue is whether the players can know anything in advance about the NPCs, short of waiting for the GM to explicitly tell them what this particular NPC can and cannot do in this particular instance.

I'm really worried that I'm pulling a strawman here, so I'll ask first. Are you saying that descriptive text does an inferior job of conveying to players the information their characters have ascertained regarding someone they just met, compared to the information provided by the DM rattling off the NPC's character sheet? And that the latter is more realistic?

If so, I'll be quiet... but man, am I shaking my head in disbelief.

Artanis
2008-01-29, 12:36 PM
I have to throw my vote in with the "I don't see why this is such a big deal" crowd.

For example, if an NPC blasts a character with two shots of 1d4+1 Force Damage each, does it really matter if the NPC did so because the GM decided that he can do that vs. deciding he's a 3rd-level caster with a Magic Missile memorized? Because the players sure as hell shouldn't be able to tell a difference.



Edit: A more elaborated example.

Consider two example NPCs:

NPC1:
*24 hp
*+4 armor bonus
*Attack 1: 5 uses; 2 shots of 1d4+1 Force Damage each
*Attack 2: 6 uses; 1d3 Frost Damage

NPC2:
*Sorcerer 4
*+1 Con Modifier
*Knows Magic Missile, Ray of Frost, Mage Armor, and the rest is stuff that he wouldn't bother with in combat
*Starts the encounter with Mage Armor already up


In both cases, the players see the exact same thing. The only time it wouldn't is if the DM rattles off the exact stat block so that the players can metagame, at which point I find it hard to believe that people care all that much about verisimilitude anyways.

Matthew
2008-01-29, 12:51 PM
And if they do have those additionals? You gotta come up with the crap anyway. Doesn't really save you that much work.

You may be missing my point. If they do have those bonuses, then the chances are that the Attributes will be provided. It's kind of like the difference between 'Tall, Average and Short' and just 'Tall and Short". If Attributes are average you don't need to mention them. If they have no impact on play, you don't need to mention them. If their impact on play is very narrow it's barely worth mentioning.



People always focus on dragons as if they were the only creatures with mediocre Dexterities.

Y'know, maybe the problem wasn't with the stat given to the creature, but with the amount of damage dealt by the damage-dealing power? Let's face it, it would even be overpowered when used against the party's Level 20 Cleric with the 12 Dex, too, wouldn't it?

I do believe I was joking, but in all seriousness I do think that treating Dragons as though they are large Player Characters with some special abilities is a demystification I could do without.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-01-29, 01:06 PM
You may be missing my point. If they do have those bonuses, then the chances are that the Attributes will be provided. It's kind of like the difference between 'Tall, Average and Short' and just 'Tall and Short". If Attributes are average you don't need to mention them. If they have no impact on play, you don't need to mention them. If their impact on play is very narrow it's barely worth mentioning.
But the thing that makes a monster monstrous is that it drastically varies from the norm or average in one or more ways. To this extent, such statting can hardly be thought of as a feature.

KoDT69
2008-01-29, 01:11 PM
I try to keep my NPC's realistic, but I almost never stat them ahead of time. Each NPC becomes what the plot requires.

In the grand scheme the 1st level PC's are inherently more powerful than the average commoners. Now I'm talking about mooks and unimportant NPC's. What makes the PC stand out is that they have the cojones to jump in the way of danger to save the day when the masses run screaming. There can be a PC with the elite array facing down an NPC with 18 in every stat, but that particular NPC never had the determination to leave the farm to adventure. Maybe that guy has a family to raise, corn to grow, a town to help feed. In keeping verisimilitude, the NPC's can have the potential to become PC classes, but for whatever reason never put forth the effort.

The difference between a Fighter and a Warrior is feats. The Fighter is out there fighting either in a small group (which may spread out) or solo against all manner of enemies. The Warrior is in a military unit with others there he can depend on for cover. The Warrior doesn't HAVE to learn how to do a Whirlwind Attack, or a Leap Attack, or adapt a Robilar's Gambit. Those are just not the Warrior's style. He will fight beside his military unit then go home to his farm. Warriors don't venture to far-off lands to experience 1001 different challenges. The Fighter does. He has to learn many fighting styles and of magical beasts, spells, constructs, traps, and whatever to survive.

The mindset and determination decide class, not stat arrays (unless the stats are too low to qualify, but that is a moot point). The highest INT in the land doesn't mean the person wants to be a Wizard, no matter how beneficial it may be to them. Everybody is different. My physical stats would not be so high if I were a D&D character in real life, but I know I could qualify for Wizard, Sorcerer, or Bard, and would give it my best. Other people better off than myself physically would make great fighters but may not have the determination or guts to put themselves in harm's way.

Artanis
2008-01-29, 01:16 PM
But the thing that makes a monster monstrous is that it drastically varies from the norm or average in one or more ways. To this extent, such statting can hardly be thought of as a feature.
But does it really matter?

If the players need to do a zillion damage to drop an enemy, then they need to do a zillion damage to drop an enemy. The players should not - and the PCs WILL NOT - see the difference between "huge hit die and a massive CON mod" and "writing 'one zillion' in the 'hp' column". Either way, it's the same end effect: one zillion hp.

Matthew
2008-01-29, 01:22 PM
But the thing that makes a monster monstrous is that it drastically varies from the norm or average in one or more ways. To this extent, such statting can hardly be thought of as a feature.

It depends on how the creature drastically varies from the norm, and how you define 'monstrous' and 'normal'. Does the average Orc Warrior really need to mechanically differ drastically from the average Human Warrior to be monstrous? Is the difference between a Dragon and Level 20 Fighter really something that needs to represented by Ability/Attribute Scores?

To me, it's just a different mentality, the 'completist' versus the 'improviser'. I prefer leaving Monsters open ended, rather than defining their every capability and feature. The movement towards a 'complete' rule set I find unattractive and inhibiting. This is not an absolute view, just relative to my own preferences towards lighter systems. I find it easier to add than to strip away, but many other people find the reverse to be true.

Neek
2008-01-29, 01:27 PM
Edit: A more elaborated example.

Consider two example NPCs:

NPC1:
*24 hp
*+4 armor bonus
*Attack 1: 5 uses; 2 shots of 1d4+1 Force Damage each
*Attack 2: 6 uses; 1d3 Frost Damage

NPC2:
*Sorcerer 4
*+1 Con Modifier
*Knows Magic Missile, Ray of Frost, Mage Armor, and the rest is stuff that he wouldn't bother with in combat
*Starts the encounter with Mage Armor already up

Your example is good; it's not bad if you have a separate way of generating this stuff, as long as its consistent and provides just enough basics to get you through the encounter.

The only problem I see with this development is this:
1). Apparently WotC thinks there was a problem with NPC generation in 3rd edition. I enjoyed it, to be honest, because the lines between PC and NPC were blurred, unlike 2nd edition NPCs, who had minimal stats. They might appear to think this because how they word each change. They seem to want to justify every change with a good amount of development notes, which brings undue focus to every single change.

I can bet if they implemented rules about characters going to the bathroom, there'd be more material by Wizards about why they implemented this, why it's good, the player basis for implementation, and the thoughts of the system by the designers, than the actual mechanics itself.

2). Is the system actually bad? Not really. Will it detour me from playing 4th edition? Probably not, seeing as I played 2nd edition, which had more limiting rules on NPCs and monsters, and yet I still enjoyed it. If I can make the equivalent of a 3rd level sorcerer in no time, like the example Artanis presents, then I don't really care.

But still, Wizards needs to stop thinking that each change needs a huge justification factor. I'm not interested in why--if I was, I'd read a separate designer notes package. I'm not too interested in them dumping their thoughts on the pages of pre-released material.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-29, 01:28 PM
Hrm... are people really telling their players the stats of every NPC they face? I'll ask again; if the NPC's stats (and therefore, the things they can do) are reasonable and make sense in the context of the campaign world, yet have no PC character creation equivalent, does the world seem less realistic?

That very much depends upon what the NPC is and what the ability is. If the NPC is a member of the same race and there is no equivalent (not just an equivalent that is a pain in the butt to get but none at all) then yes it does. What one human can do, another human ought, with the right training and talent, also be able to do.


I understand why your players care, but face it, that's not your players truly believing your world for the first time -- that's your players metagaming. The PCs want to know what to expect from the people, they face, sure, but it's not inherently more realistic for players to expect that every person they come across, particularly those whose talents do not revolve around a known casting discipline, to have the the same talents from the same little pool of abilities as the last guy they faced of that archetype.

The exact same talents? No. Within a range of talents? Yes, given that the character has the other same basic characteristics (race etc.) as the previous one. That's part of what makes a setting consistant.


Unless the PCs have a Pokedex, their sense of reality is not broken by the players not knowing the stats of the opponent they face, because PCs aren't aware of the game mechanic stats for themselves or others. Though it's possible I missed the point where The Matrix became the default campaign setting. :)

This I think is a confusion, and a common one. PC's aren't aware of the game mechanics... specifically and in numerical terms. They are not aware, for example, that a 17th level wizard can have access to the spell Shapechange. They are aware, even the dumb ones, that one of the tricks a very powerful arcane caster can pull is to turn into a powerful monster.

There is a difference bettween knowing the exact game mechanics and having a good idea of how the world works and what to expect. I do not know the physics, in terms of numbers, of how my car works. I do know generally how an internal combustion engine functions, what to expect from my car in terms of performance, and how to maintain it.



I'm really worried that I'm pulling a strawman here, so I'll ask first. Are you saying that descriptive text does an inferior job of conveying to players the information their characters have ascertained regarding someone they just met, compared to the information provided by the DM rattling off the NPC's character sheet? And that the latter is more realistic?

If so, I'll be quiet... but man, am I shaking my head in disbelief.

No, I think what people are aguing is that there isn't a strict division bettween the two. Certian descriptions lead players and the PC's they portray to expect certian mechanical features within the game. The same way that when I look at a car I assume internal combustion engine and gasoline and if someone told me that it ran on water I'd be shocked. If, cars starting popping up running on 20 different fuels I'd start to wonder if I was awake.


I have to throw my vote in with the "I don't see why this is such a big deal" crowd.

For example, if an NPC blasts a character with two shots of 1d4+1 Force Damage each, does it really matter if the NPC did so because the GM decided that he can do that vs. deciding he's a 3rd-level caster with a Magic Missile memorized? Because the players sure as hell shouldn't be able to tell a difference.


In your example, it's not a problem. However, if an NPC blasts a PC with some spell or ability they have never seen or heard of the players will go 'wtf was that?' This can be fun occasionally, but if done often (as some migt say would be implied by different sets of mechanics) then it can strain the illusion of the game.

Talya
2008-01-29, 01:29 PM
The only real problems with this thread could be very easily corrected. For instance, the title should read:

"Fact: NPCs are more realistic with PC creation rules."

AKA_Bait
2008-01-29, 01:41 PM
The only real problems with this thread could be very easily corrected. For instance, the title should read:

"Fact: NPCs are more realistic with PC creation rules."

I think I'll go you one better and just get to the trusims that power this whole argument/confusion:

"Fact: A Perfect DM Can Create Versimilitude Within Any System."

And

"Fact: The Mechanical Design of A System Often Impacts Versimilitude In Practice"

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-01-29, 01:50 PM
Consider two example NPCs:

NPC1:
*24 hp
*+4 armor bonus
*Attack 1: 5 uses; 2 shots of 1d4+1 Force Damage each
*Attack 2: 6 uses; 1d3 Frost Damage

NPC2:
*Sorcerer 4
*+1 Con Modifier
*Knows Magic Missile, Ray of Frost, Mage Armor, and the rest is stuff that he wouldn't bother with in combat
*Starts the encounter with Mage Armor already up
So now we need a system to tell us we can replace abstract names with more explicit crib notes?

That's all it is there. No different stats, or even different generation near as I can tell, between the two at all.

So is this whole thing really a new system or are they just repackaging the concept of recording information in a fashion that's useful to you?

Matthew
2008-01-29, 01:51 PM
"Fact: A Perfect DM Can Create Versimilitude Within Any system."

I think that's putting it a little strongly. It's more like "A consistant complex system can help an 'unskilled' DM to create verisimilitude. A 'skilled' DM doesn't really need complex systematic rules. Some people like lots of rules, some don't."

AKA_Bait
2008-01-29, 01:59 PM
I think that's putting it a little strongly. It's more like "A consistant complex system can help an 'unskilled' DM to create verisimilitude. A 'skilled' DM doesn't really need complex systematic rules. Some people like lots of rules, some don't."

Since I think the stronger ones are true, by default I think the weaker one is too. :-)

Also, I think that's really three different rules. All of which I agree with, although I'm iffy on the universality of the middle one.

Talya
2008-01-29, 02:02 PM
The DM needs verisimilitude, too! It feels less fun to me, as the DM, if I "cheat" on my humanoid NPC encounters and build them with capabilities that the rules do not support. I won't just mix and match class features to create the opponent I want, for example. What the players fight...as far as humanoid opponents, at any rate, need to be possible for them to make as well, if they so choose.

Counterspin
2008-01-29, 02:02 PM
The idea that NPCs are somehow worse, RP wise, if they fall under different rules is just blatant rubbish. The mechanics of a character obviously don't impact their RP impact because many import NPCs just don't have character sheets. Every time you've run an NPC well without a sheet, you've disproven this notion.

As for the PCs not having access to NPC powers, that has always been the right of the DM. As long as the explanation shows why the players can't get it I don't see what's wrong with it.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-01-29, 02:04 PM
I think that's putting it a little strongly.
He's talking about a perfect DM. That's about as common as an ideal gas. Of course the statement comes off strong.


The mechanics of a character obviously don't impact their RP impact because many import NPCs just don't have character sheets. Every time you've run an NPC well without a sheet, you've disproven this notion.
I'll have to remember that the next time my DM takes me to task for trying to role-play my Int 4 barbarian as a super-genius. "Dude! You let me play that no-combat session before I finished rolling Thaardux up. Obviously the stats don't mean anything with regards to RP!"

Matthew
2008-01-29, 02:10 PM
The DM needs verisimilitude, too! It feels less fun to me, as the DM, if I "cheat" on my humanoid NPC encounters and build them with capabilities that the rules do not support. I won't just mix and match class features to create the opponent I want, for example. What the players fight...as far as humanoid opponents, at any rate, need to be possible for them to make as well, if they so choose.

I think this idea is at the heart of the misunderstanding. It's not cheating to mix and match class features, in fact it's explicitly allowed and supported by the rules of the game, if discouraged (see the DMG section on building 'new classes'). The feeling that you are 'cheating', however, is very real to some people (including players), especially if they enjoy the 'meta game' of building characters, but I would not appreciate having my hands tied in that manner. It is a very preferential complaint, not an absolute one.

Artanis
2008-01-29, 02:12 PM
So now we need a system to tell us we can replace abstract names with more explicit crib notes?

That's all it is there. No different stats, or even different generation near as I can tell, between the two at all.

So is this whole thing really a new system or are they just repackaging the concept of recording information in a fashion that's useful to you?
Pretty much. Because that is, for the most part, all I'm seeing. Most of the complaining I see in this thread is regarding exactly what you quoted, and very little seem to be about capabilities that the PCs simply can't get.


The DM needs verisimilitude, too! It feels less fun to me, as the DM, if I "cheat" on my humanoid NPC encounters and build them with capabilities that the rules do not support. I won't just mix and match class features to create the opponent I want, for example. What the players fight...as far as humanoid opponents, at any rate, need to be possible for them to make as well, if they so choose.
Then do that. There is NOTHING stopping you from building NPCs the "old-fashioned way" by taking a guy of some race and putting PC levels on him.

RukiTanuki
2008-01-29, 02:19 PM
I'll try to provide some insight to my position, so we're not all discussing "rules just get in the way" vs. "rules make everything better" for no reason. :)

I try not to let PC character creation rules get in the way of making an NPC or monster with abilities that make sense in the context of the campaign world. I've combined complementary features from different classes without justifying whether or not it can be done via PC multiclassing. Obviously, there's ways to do this than are grossly overpowered and jarring to the players; no one seems to be arguing that. But it is possible to be done well, and it works because as an NPC, it's not strictly necessary that his power level be identical to that of a ranger or rogue of his level. Similar sure, but I've seen posts in here demanding that all people of the same class have the same access to abilities.

Character classes are an abstract, barring those with strict in-world disciplines, like the oft-mentioned wizardry. Character levels are abstract. Most of all, the character-building choices players make each level are an abstraction, often to a significant degree. A fighter character doesn't inherently know that he had access to training anything on the Fighter Feat list last month; a ranger doesn't inherently know that he could have traded spellcasting for fast movement and some spell-like abilities; a sorceror doesn't inherently know what new spell will evolve from his natural talents.

The fighter character's not going to see an NPC cleric cast a spell that's not in the PHB and wish he could cast that spell (at the very least, he won't care any more than he cares about a spell that's in the PHB!) I encourage DMs to share the wealth if they have the time and resources, and provide players options to better realize their characters. In my own games, I'd be careful about introducing an NPC that specializes in the same things as a PC, but does them better, without making it clear how he does so. However, I just can't take seriously the theory that players abandon their sense of immersion if they, as players, don't have access to every technique, spell, or feat of bravado that anyone in the world has done, ever.

I'm feeling kinda pinched; on one side, I have people railing against the 4e comment that "PCs are the center of the game and deserve to have most of the rulebook dedicated to their abilities," telling me Everyone Has To Use The Same Rules. On the other side, people are upset about the comment that "Monster creation now focuses on what makes the monster interesting and unique, without letting arbitrary rules like type and PC rules for spellcasting getting in the way," telling me Everyone Has To Use The Same Rules.

All I was trying to convey was that an immersive world, a compelling story, and a fun adventure are more important than the rules, and that the rules should be bent if ever they get in the way of presenting that world, telling that story, or having that fun. It looks like I'll be getting a Fourth Edition where most of the PHB is focused on making enjoyable player characters, and most of the Monster Manual is focused on presenting interesting and useful creatures, never letting Hit Dice or player classes get in the way.

*shrug* maybe I'm playing the game wrong. :)

hamlet
2008-01-29, 02:34 PM
Your example is good; it's not bad if you have a separate way of generating this stuff, as long as its consistent and provides just enough basics to get you through the encounter.

The only problem I see with this development is this:
1). Apparently WotC thinks there was a problem with NPC generation in 3rd edition. I enjoyed it, to be honest, because the lines between PC and NPC were blurred, unlike 2nd edition NPCs, who had minimal stats. They might appear to think this because how they word each change. They seem to want to justify every change with a good amount of development notes, which brings undue focus to every single change.

I can bet if they implemented rules about characters going to the bathroom, there'd be more material by Wizards about why they implemented this, why it's good, the player basis for implementation, and the thoughts of the system by the designers, than the actual mechanics itself.

2). Is the system actually bad? Not really. Will it detour me from playing 4th edition? Probably not, seeing as I played 2nd edition, which had more limiting rules on NPCs and monsters, and yet I still enjoyed it. If I can make the equivalent of a 3rd level sorcerer in no time, like the example Artanis presents, then I don't really care.

But still, Wizards needs to stop thinking that each change needs a huge justification factor. I'm not interested in why--if I was, I'd read a separate designer notes package. I'm not too interested in them dumping their thoughts on the pages of pre-released material.

Here's the thing, though: in 2nd edition (and presumably 4th based on comments about the return of non-leveled commoners), many NPC's were, as you say, limited to a base stat line of "0-level human/m/bartender" or something like that. And that was all I needed to play him. For the great unwashed masses of the AD&D world, you didn't need NPC classes or levels. You just needed to know that they were 0-level humans and that was pretty much the end of it.

If you wanted a soldier or mercenary that was tougher than George down the street, just add a couple hit dice and raise the XP accordingly. They've become more of a threat to the PC party and no special rules needed. But of course, for the most part 90% of the game world is still going to be 0-level nobodies. Maybe 99%.

Class levels are saved entirely for NPC's that are special or important. Verminax the Vile, Archmage of Veluna gets fully written stats because he's important. In fact, I'll just break out the PHB and write up a full wizard as if it were a PC for him. But for Verminax's minions? Not a chance. Not even his elite liutenant Grog the Orc, Lt. General of Verminax. He doesn't need a full write up even though he might, in the end, prove important.

This is one of the few things that I think 4th edition might do right, the complete elimination of NPC classes and the assumption that NPC's and Monsters must conform to the standards of PC's. They don't. They're something else. Or, more exaclty, the PC's are something else. Attribute scores, skill ranks, levels, and all that fancy PC stuff is nothing more than an interface for the players to function. Monsters simply don't need it. They function on their own with far less rules required.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-29, 02:35 PM
All I was trying to convey was that an immersive world, a compelling story, and a fun adventure are more important than the rules, and that the rules should be bent if ever they get in the way of presenting that world, telling that story, or having that fun.

Oh, well if that's all I totally agree. As, I suspect, does everyone else. Including the 3.x DMG.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-01-29, 02:35 PM
I think this idea is at the heart of the misunderstanding. It's not cheating to mix and match class features, in fact it's explicitly allowed and supported by the rules of the game, if discouraged (see the DMG section on building 'new classes').
But once you have created a new class, it easily can be made available to a player that is sufficently interested in the new class. Whereas, it's gonna be a lot tougher, potentially verisimilitude-breaking, and come of as very arbitrary if the DM can't address how his NPC managed to assemble her unique combination of abilities when the players make the appropriate lines of inquiry.

Of course, the above will have less impact if the players don't follow those lines. But if the DM is doing something particularly attention grabbing, it would behoove him or her to be prepared for such action on the part of the players.


The feeling that you are 'cheating', however, is very real to some people (including players), especially if they enjoy the 'meta game' of building characters, but I would not appreciate having my hands tied in that manner. It is a very preferential complaint, not an absolute one.
I don't see how anyone could not feel cheated if the rules of the world tie their character's hands but none of the NPCs'.


Pretty much. Because that is, for the most part, all I'm seeing. Most of the complaining I see in this thread is regarding exactly what you quoted, and very little seem to be about capabilities that the PCs simply can't get.
If that is the case, then my disappointment will lift somewhat. But only because I am becoming distressingly used to WotC overhyping absolutely nothing and calling it a feature. As it is, I'm not gonna know what the case is until I get a look at the SRD for 4e, due to my aforementioned anti-hype stance.


Then do that. There is NOTHING stopping you from building NPCs the "old-fashioned way" by taking a guy of some race and putting PC levels on him.
Just as there was nothing preventing the use of these "new," potentially arbitrary methods beforehand. The difference being that when the official version of NPC generation relies heavily on such open-ended judgement, you become much more at risk of the inconsistencies and breakers of verisimilitude mentioned above and make it easier for the game to be ruined by abuse, incompetence, or inexperience on the part of the DM.


Here's the thing, though: in 2nd edition (and presumably 4th based on comments about the return of non-leveled commoners), many NPC's were, as you say, limited to a base stat line of "0-level human/m/bartender" or something like that. And that was all I needed to play him. For the great unwashed masses of the AD&D world, you didn't need NPC classes or levels. You just needed to know that they were 0-level humans and that was pretty much the end of it.
But what's the difference between a 2e 0-level NPC and a 3e 1st-level Commoner? Nothing. Except for the fact that the DM has the option of taking the 1st-level Commoner further if he or she feels it will help the game.

Matthew
2008-01-29, 03:03 PM
But once you have created a new class, it easily can be made available to a player that is sufficently interested in the new class. Whereas, it's gonna be a lot tougher, potentially verisimilitude-breaking, and come of as very arbitrary if the DM can't address how his NPC managed to assemble her unique combination of abilities when the players make the appropriate lines of inquiry.

Why on earth would the Players be inquiring about the mechanics of NPCs? That sounds more versisimilitude breaking than anything else. I have no problem allowing Players access to tweaked or different Classes.



Of course, the above will have less impact if the players don't follow those lines. But if the DM is doing something particularly attention grabbing, it would behoove him or her to be prepared for such action on the part of the players.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean the DM should explain the mechanics of what they are facing.



I don't see how anyone could not feel cheated if the rules of the world tie their character's hands but none of the NPCs'.

I think you may be taking what I said out of context, but let's address this.

What are the purposes of Levels and Classes? To my mind they are just methods of ensuring a certain Power Level for Player Characters. A Level 1 Fighter should be similar in power to a Level 1 Wizard to ensure parity between Player Characters and allow the DM to gauge what will challenge them more easily.

What, then, is the point of applying the rules that govern Classes and Levels to Monsters? Presumably as a guide to figuring what level of challenge they pose to the Player Characters. What, then, does it matter whether the DM decides something is so or uses the mechanics to calculate it.

For instance:

Sneaky the Goblin has +10 Sneak.

Sneaky the Goblin has +10 Sneak [4 Ranks in Sneak, Dexterity 13, Stealth Feat and Skill Focus (Sneak)].

If the only problem is that the Players complain, then the first question to ask is "why are they complaining?" There must be somewhere an idea that something occurred unfairly in the game. The only way that could have happened is if the encounter went badly for them [i.e. the DM used an Encounter of inappropriate difficulty) or the DM for some reason chose to reveal the mechanics behind the game [i.e. "Sneaky the Goblin has +10 Sneak because I say so"]. The first just shows that the DM needs to better understand the mechanics of the game, but the second is an issue as to how you play the game. If you agree beforehand that everything must work by the same rules all the time and that Circumstance Bonuses, Bonus Feats and Bonus Skill Points are not available to the DM, then he is cheating because he broke the rules established by the group. If the group agreed to play by those rules (all of which are legal D20 rules) then he isn't cheating.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-01-29, 04:45 PM
Why on earth would the Players be inquiring about the mechanics of NPCs?
Why? Because the NPC just did something cool and they want their PC to be able to learn how to do that cool thing. In character, the line of inquiry may include things such as going up the the NPC in question and asking, "Oh Awesome NPC Capable Of Totally Kick Ass Feats of Coolness, I humbly ask that you take me on as your apprentice and teach me your Awesome Ways." Or maybe the PC interested in replicating the feat could look up ways to teach him or herself such Awesome Ways.

Should these lines of inquiry be fruitful, the DM is eventually gonna have to let the player doing this study know that the character needs 3 ranks in a particular skill, one of several feats, and a level in a Prestige Class. So the mechanics are bound to come up.


Maybe, but that doesn't mean the DM should explain the mechanics of what they are facing.
Not right in the middle of the game, right there, no, because that interrupts the flow of the game. But if later on a PC wants to replicate a particular ability, the DM would be a total ass to withhold all information on how that feat could be replicated, both mechanically and in-character.

Kioran
2008-01-29, 05:26 PM
The DM needs verisimilitude, too! It feels less fun to me, as the DM, if I "cheat" on my humanoid NPC encounters and build them with capabilities that the rules do not support. I won't just mix and match class features to create the opponent I want, for example. What the players fight...as far as humanoid opponents, at any rate, need to be possible for them to make as well, if they so choose.

I agree. More or less totally. If that NPC is humanoid (meaning a humanoid, monstrous humanoid or Outsider with few, if any, racial HD), it shouldn´t have any abilities or capabilities that a PC couldn´t ever acquire. That would break verisimilitude, big time. And if a DM can "cheat" past these constraints, it will be grating.
Monsters, Dragons or powerful outsiders are a different story entirely, and by all means should be different, but humanoid NPCs are people - perhaps not fortunate enough to have good stats or to be played, but they are the worlds equivalent of people, and thus, all people in a world should "behave" the same.

Unless this is another way of repackaging "NPC generation will run along the lines of a UA generic class, as NPC classes, and these classes have unique Features", in which case some DMs could open the NPC-class to PCs, that generation method is something that worries me.

Matthew
2008-01-29, 07:56 PM
Why? Because the NPC just did something cool and they want their PC to be able to learn how to do that cool thing. In character, the line of inquiry may include things such as going up the the NPC in question and asking, "Oh Awesome NPC Capable Of Totally Kick Ass Feats of Coolness, I humbly ask that you take me on as your apprentice and teach me your Awesome Ways." Or maybe the PC interested in replicating the feat could look up ways to teach him or herself such Awesome Ways.

Should these lines of inquiry be fruitful, the DM is eventually gonna have to let the player doing this study know that the character needs 3 ranks in a particular skill, one of several feats, and a level in a Prestige Class. So the mechanics are bound to come up.

Not right in the middle of the game, right there, no, because that interrupts the flow of the game. But if later on a PC wants to replicate a particular ability, the DM would be a total ass to withhold all information on how that feat could be replicated, both mechanically and in-character.

Sounds like you have something very specific in mind here, but I don't really know what it might be. Honestly, if a Player Character really wanted to learn X 'identified' ability from an NPC, I don't really see why they shouldn't be allowed. That doesn't mean that the DM needs to work out how the NPC acquired it, only how he wants the PC to access it (which may include several years of 'down time'), if and when it comes up.

Honestly, though, that sounds like a very mechanically driven mindset. I doubt I would be interested in playing D&D when the rules are treated as being so visible.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-01-29, 08:55 PM
Honestly, though, that sounds like a very mechanically driven mindset. I doubt I would be interested in playing D&D when the rules are treated as being so visible.
Can't say I can see how you can "hide" the rules very well when you face situations that call for folks constantly rolling dice to attack, dodge, or burn their enemies with fireballs with anything that approaches regularity.

Even in a game that minimizes combat, you've got your Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Gather Information, and Knowledge checks. I assume those come up or why should they be there at all?

The rules are part of the game. It's just as silly to ignore them as it is to let them get in the way of everyone having fun.

Yahzi
2008-01-29, 08:59 PM
don't see much real difference with 4E recognizing that and incorporating it as a deliberate design element.
It's one thing to not interact with a barmaid because she's not important to the plot; it's something else to not interact with her because she's not important to the rules.

VanBuren
2008-01-29, 09:12 PM
It's one thing to not interact with a barmaid because she's not important to the plot; it's something else to not interact with her because she's not important to the rules.

And it's another thing to actually, y'know, roleplay. You know, that thing where you pretend that it's a living breathing world and that they're real people? Sure, there may be a bit of metagaming, but important to the rules or not shouldn't make an impact on the RP.

Matthew
2008-01-29, 09:33 PM
Can't say I can see how you can "hide" the rules very well when you face situations that call for folks constantly rolling dice to attack, dodge, or burn their enemies with fireballs with anything that approaches regularity.

Even in a game that minimizes combat, you've got your Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Gather Information, and Knowledge checks. I assume those come up or why should they be there at all?

The rules are part of the game. It's just as silly to ignore them as it is to let them get in the way of everyone having fun.

I don't believe I am talking about ignoring them. What I'm finding a little bizzare is the idea that the Players know the stats and abilities of their opponents well enough to notice that "something unexpected happened" in combat. Do you tell the Players that the Orc is Power Attacking for 5 Points, or do you tell them he strikes a mighty blow, or do you tell them both? The difference may seem minor, but it can actually be quite significant. There's a huge difference between minimising the degree to which you describe the mechanics as they occur and outright ignoring the mechanics. Players have to tell the DM mechanically what they want their Character to do. The DM is under no such obligation to tell the Players what NPCs and Monsters are mechanically doing. He doesn't need to tell them what kind of Spell is being cast (unless a Character tries to identify it) and he doesn't need to tell them what Feat is being employed, nor its Level/Hit Dice, Attack Bonus, Armour Class, Hit Point Total or even number of Attacks (though much can be guessed from events).

Obviously, people have different preferences when it comes to playstyle, I'm just talking about the way I play D&D. The players don't know what the Monsters are mechanically doing, they only hear me describe what's going on and how it mechanically affects their character. I prefer to minimise the visibility of the mechanics as much as possible, which is one of the reasons I prefer more mechanically light systems.

Ominous
2008-01-29, 09:38 PM
Ominous: unless you obtain the wizard's spellbook, why does your character have any in-world capability to learn that spell? He could research it himself (if your DM allows that), but without the spellbook, the knowledge of that spell is the wizard's and the wizard's alone. And again, if there's an inworld rule for something, there better be an inworld explanation. I never said a unique spell, used by a wizard, had a reason to not be in the spellbook.

Sorry, but I don't play that way. To have something in a game that is knowable only to one NPC, that isn't a deity, completely destroys my sense of immersion. I'm willing to give "beyond mortal comprehension" type knowledge to deities, but the wizard is a mortal, so my character can learn anything he knows.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-01-29, 09:56 PM
I don't believe I am talking about ignoring them. What I'm finding a little bizzare is the idea that the Players know the stats and abilities of their opponents well enough to notice that "something unexpected happened" in combat. Do you tell the Players that the Orc is Power Attacking for 5 Points, or do you tell them he strikes a mighty blow, or do you tell them both?
In game I just describe it with whatever fluff plus the total damage result, but if I describe it with enough flair that my players ask about it after the game and the NPC in question has been sufficiently eliminated from the campaign or plays sufficiently non-mysterious role in the coming events, I see no reason not to be forthcoming with how the NPC did what he did.

It's a game, and every character is represented by certain rules. The DM knows it. The players know it. There's no need to pretend otherwise. Especially after the storytelling's done.

horseboy
2008-01-29, 10:06 PM
I don't believe I am talking about ignoring them. What I'm finding a little bizzare is the idea that the Players know the stats and abilities of their opponents well enough to notice that "something unexpected happened" in combat. Do you tell the Players that the Orc is Power Attacking for 5 Points, or do you tell them he strikes a mighty blow, or do you tell them both? The difference may seem minor, but it can actually be quite significant.
Who says the DM has to tell the players for them to figure it out. Hell, I figure out the monster's BAB to hit me while the casters are digging for some template or the other. It's not like I'm trying to "break the game", after all it's D&D you don't have to try. I'm just keeping myself occupied waiting my turn.

Matthew
2008-01-29, 10:07 PM
In game I just describe it with whatever fluff plus the total damage result, but if I describe it with enough flair that my players ask about it after the game and the NPC in question has been sufficiently eliminated from the campaign or plays sufficiently non-mysterious role in the coming events, I see no reason not to be forthcoming with how the NPC did what he did.

I'm certainly not talking about concealing how things were mechanically accomplished. If I chose to modify an NPC by way of a Bonus Feat, Bonus Skill Points, Class Feature or Circumstance Bonus I wouldn't seek to hide it if questioned. If the follow up question is then "How can I get this?", the answer may be "You cannot." It's no different to me than preventing PCs from getting the Pounce Ability, but allowing it to be used by certain Monsters and I certainly don't see it as unfair.


It's a game, and every character is represented by certain rules. The DM knows it. The players know it. There's no need to pretend otherwise. Especially after the storytelling's done.

I think you are seriously misunderstanding what I am saying here, though I would be interested in an example of what you think would be 'going too far'. There is obviously a distinction to be made between D20 and other RPGs as to expectations, but I'm really not seeing your objection here.


Who says the DM has to tell the players for them to figure it out. Hell, I figure out the monster's BAB to hit me while the casters are digging for some template or the other. It's not like I'm trying to "break the game", after all it's D&D you don't have to try. I'm just keeping myself occupied waiting my turn.

I didn't.

Rutee
2008-01-29, 10:13 PM
In game I just describe it with whatever fluff plus the total damage result, but if I describe it with enough flair that my players ask about it after the game and the NPC in question has been sufficiently eliminated from the campaign or plays sufficiently non-mysterious role in the coming events, I see no reason not to be forthcoming with how the NPC did what he did.
I think you and mathew are on the same page then. He's talking about keeping stuff quiet in the mechanical sense, during the course of the game so as to keep the central focus on the roleplay or story or fighting or whatnot, which you seem to do, and then you got your wires crossed.

Oh, and since it was an issue before, the 4e Pit Fiend stat block seems to indicate that the PCs and NPCs work on similar mechanics, and simply arrive there in different ways.

Pyroconstruct
2008-01-29, 10:24 PM
Perhaps instead of arguing in abstractions, it would be better to consider an actual example of a system for which the mechanics for PCs and NPCs were the same but stat generation systems and the like were significantly different, yes?

An example I'm familiar with (I'm sure there are more) is oWoD Vampire. A quick description: PCs had a pool of stuff with which to buy stats, advantages, and vampire powers. The stats worked out to such and such a total, and were costed in a certain way (I don't want to go into too much detail here).

NPCs didn't really have a creation system, so much as a "The GM assigns stats to NPCs based on what he wants."

The problems set in in the WW modules - NPCs were COMPLETELY out of whack with PCs as a result of the way that they were generated. Specifically, almost all of the NPCs were drastically more powerful than PCs of the same age, even minor NPCs who really had no reason to be.

This was reflected in the minor NPCs who were, according to the "fluff" of the world, supposed to be the same age or younger than the PCs and thus as powerful or less powerful, having a huge amount more powers known, higher stats, and more skills than PCs (I think someone once found a secondary NPC in a WW module that would have taken 800 XP or something to reach the power level of as a PC, in a game where you get a handful of XP a session. Not an elder vampire or anything, mind, a character similar to the PCs with no background justifying this or anything).

This sort of stuff was one of the contributing factors (admittedly not the only one) to most of WW's published modules blowing. Constantly running into minor NPCs with vast powers for no real reason at all really DOES break immersion, and it's annoying to boot.


I'm guessing at least someone is about to respond to this with "The GM shouldn't do that, they should make the NPCs better." Well, the problem is that it's often hard to eyeball, especially for an inexperienced GM. It really does help having NPCs and PCs follow the same creation rules, by default, and then fudge things a bit rather than have the rule sets be different.

For a specific example of how things could go wrong:

NPC wizards just get a few spells, as compared to PC wizards who get more (since the NPCs don't need as many options, right?). Isn't it going to get weird when your wizard knows 40 or 50 spells and every NPC wizard he runs into has only 5 or 6 scribed into his spellbook?




Also, I would like to take entirely seperate issue with the idea of "the way that monsters interact with each other isn't important, just how PCs interact with monsters."

In my opinion, this represents a fundamentally poor game design philosophy because it places unnecessary limits on game play in what should be an open-ended game - namely, it assumes that all that matters is how PCs and NPCs fight with each other. However, this often creates some serious verisimilitude problems.

Examples are present in 3.5 - namely, Demons and Devils. Now, the fluff and such indicates to us that Demons and Devils fight each other in the Blood War. Okay. Now, what happens when a Demon fights a Devil? In particular, lets look at what happens when their respective foot-soldiers fight each other? Lemure versus Dretch.

Well, as it turns out, it is a phenomonally stupid fight. Dretches and Lemures both have DR 5 that their opposition cannot bypass. Lemures can ONLY hurt dretches if the Lemure crits a claw attack and then rolls above average damage. Dretches are only slightly better off: they have a 1d6+1 claw attack which has at least a 1/3 chance of harming a Lemure, and Stinking Cloud has a small chance of temporarily disabling a Lemure (of course, Dretches aren't immune to their own stinking cloud; it is still useful in mass combat, though).

Now, how much sense does this make?

Asmodeus: Hmm, I need to make some sort of foot-soldier devils for the well-organized armies of Hell to use as front-liners in the Blood War. How about.... I've got it! Blob monsters that CANNOT HURT DEMONS WITH ANY OF THEIR ABILITIES. Hot damn, I'm ingenious.

This is a pretty clear-cut case of the monsters being made to fight the PCs, without much thought being given to how they interact with other NPCs.

Now, how does this hurt verisimilitude? Well, suppose your PCs are adventuring into Hell, and stumble across an infernal battlefield.

GM: Hundreds of demons and devils swarm the field of battle, intent on tearing each other apart. The fog of war hangs thick, and the monsters' intent on murdering each other is the only thing preventing more of them from noticing you. All around you, horrible ugly creatures that look to be made of congealed fat....claw completely ineffectually at their opponents, seeing as they can't hurt them.

Or, hell, just stuff like Summon Monster. Demons hate Devils, right, so a summoned Demon would be a great help in our battle against the fiend Asininus, right? Nope, he's worthless, because he can't penetrate DR of devils.

VanBuren
2008-01-29, 10:24 PM
Sorry, but I don't play that way. To have something in a game that is knowable only to one NPC, that isn't a deity, completely destroys my sense of immersion. I'm willing to give "beyond mortal comprehension" type knowledge to deities, but the wizard is a mortal, so my character can learn anything he knows.

If it's a spell that took him 30 years to research and create, then you probably can't learn it unless he teaches you. And if he doesn't want to, because it'll take a few years and he can't spare that time, then you're out of luck.

Curmudgeon
2008-01-29, 10:34 PM
For all NPCs that can be treated as enemies by the PCs, a full character sheet is required. If you generate the NPCs using exactly the same rules as the PCs, they'll be of comparable power. If you use the standard arrays they'll be noticeably wimpier.

I find the most interesting enemies are always the ones who have the most in common with the protagonists -- except, of course, for their goals being in conflict. So it just seems more fitting to me to have smaller numbers of enemies who are built using PC stats, have PC classes, and function identically to the PCs. Then I can play them just as I do my characters when I'm not DMing, and make their actions more believable by virtue of a more familiar role-playing experience. And using PC stats, making these enemies comparable in power to the party members, means the players need to play smarter than if they're opposed by the same old guaranteed-to-die-using-one-quarter-of-your-resources monsters.

Should NPC enemies follow the same rules as the PCs do? Absolutely; otherwise you'll undoubtedly trip over their inconsistencies. Plus if you start ignoring any part of the rules (like prerequisites for feats) you're no longer playing D&D but just doing RPG by hand-waving. But do NPC stats need to follow the same rules? No; that's your biggest variable in tailoring the challenge you want to present to the players.

Matthew
2008-01-29, 10:36 PM
I'm guessing at least someone is about to respond to this with "The GM shouldn't do that, they should make the NPCs better." Well, the problem is that it's often hard to eyeball, especially for an inexperienced GM. It really does help having NPCs and PCs follow the same creation rules, by default, and then fudge things a bit rather than have the rule sets be different.

You'd be right. If that's happening in published modules that's a serious problem. The whole point in Levels, Classes and Monster CRs is to help avoid that sort of thing. On the other hand, it's fair to say that the above haven't really been shown to help overmuch in D20. Of course, there is a difference between games aimed at novice DMs and games aimed at veterans. D&D 3e is certainly aimed at novices, no question there. Does that mean that the option to do things differently shouldn't exist? Of course not, and that is also available in D20. What 4e looks to be doing is placing more emphasis on the 'you can do it differently' part.



NPC wizards just get a few spells, as compared to PC wizards who get more (since the NPCs don't need as many options, right?). Isn't it going to get weird when your wizard knows 40 or 50 spells and every NPC wizard he runs into has only 5 or 6 scribed into his spellbook?

No. It could do if you expect them to have more, it rather depends on the situation. It seems doubtful that your example will be bourne out, though.


Also, I would like to take entirely seperate issue with the idea of "the way that monsters interact with each other isn't important, just how PCs interact with monsters."

An amusing example. Maybe that's why nobody ever wins the Blood War and why the enlist so many others to fight for them. :smallwink:


Should NPC enemies follow the same rules as the PCs do? Absolutely; otherwise you'll undoubtedly trip over their inconsistencies. Plus if you start ignoring any part of the rules (like prerequisites for feats) you're no longer playing D&D but just doing RPG by hand-waving. But do NPC stats need to follow the same rules? No; that's your biggest variable in tailoring the challenge you want to present to the players.

The 'one true way' to play D&D raises its head again. Aren't there examples of Monsters with Feats that don't meet the prerequisites?

Ominous
2008-01-29, 10:39 PM
If it's a spell that took him 30 years to research and create, then you probably can't learn it unless he teaches you. And if he doesn't want to, because it'll take a few years and he can't spare that time, then you're out of luck.

So you're telling me that for some arbitrary reason I can't devote thirty years of my character's life to learning the exact same spell?

Rutee
2008-01-29, 10:41 PM
This sort of stuff was one of the contributing factors (admittedly not the only one) to most of WW's published modules blowing. Constantly running into minor NPCs with vast powers for no real reason at all really DOES break immersion, and it's annoying to boot.
Your example doesn't serve your point. You're basically saying the problem with Vampire modules was they didn't use the same rules. No, the problem was they didn't use rules in the first place. You're comparing complete, utter DM Fiat that has absolutely no guidelines to "Different rules for generation"


So you're telling me that for some arbitrary reason I can't devote thirty years of my character's life to learning the exact same spell?
We're talking about a gamebreakingly powerful spell, yes?

Yeah, you're damn right I'm going to tell you you can never learn that.

Ominous
2008-01-29, 10:47 PM
We're talking about a gamebreakingly powerful spell, yes?

Yeah, you're damn right I'm going to tell you you can never learn that.

Then I won't play your game, as you've destroyed my sense of immersion. If Wizard A can learn it, so can Wizard B.

And no, we're talking any spell.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-01-29, 10:50 PM
If the question is then "How can I get this?", the answer may be "You cannot." It's no different to me than preventing PCs from getting the Pounce Ability, but allowing it to be used by certain Monsters and I certainly don't see it as unfair.
But we aren't talking PCs vs. monsters with certain inherent abilities, we're talking PCs vs. NPCs of otherwise similar ability.

Now, I'm not saying there cannot be the occasional NPC with a unique gift, but for the most part there better be a damn good in-game reason for such a gift. Of course, depending on the role of the NPC and the nature of the gift something as simple as "'Cause Pelor likes me!" may be sufficiently damn good. Then again, it might not be.

Without good reason, the whole thing comes off as pure DM arbitrariness. And, depending on your group, playstyle, and experiences, that could easily lead to trust problems.

And just to put things into perspective, my posts on this subject were launched in part by comments about things much more drastic than the bonus feats and skills that you use as example. For instance, someone mentioned a human with a reflective carapace. Something like that requires big-time justifcation.

Now, such an example may or may not be justified. I really don't know. I guess I'm really being rather irresponsible about the whole thing by trying to address the larger principle and philosophy of the thing without getting into the specifics largely on account of my aforementioned anti-hype attitude. I just don't want to get worked up one way or the other on the piecemeal bits WotC is spouting off 'cause so much of it is liable to change anyway, and to this end stubbornly refuse to read those piecemeal bits. As a result, I'm somewhat lost at a number of specific examples and am largely reacting out of a general sense of principle.


I think you are seriously misunderstanding what I am saying here,
Guess I am. To that extent, I've been trying not to make any real new points in my last few posts and just answer your questions as well as possible.


though I would be interested in an example of what you think would be 'going too far'.
Definitely don't know what you mean here. Never said anything about anyone 'going to far' anywhere, and I have no idea how such a concept fits into the discussion at hand.

And I seriously feel like I'm losing grasp of the context of this discussion as it is.

Pyroconstruct
2008-01-29, 10:54 PM
Your example doesn't serve your point. You're basically saying the problem with Vampire modules was they didn't use the same rules. No, the problem was they didn't use rules in the first place. You're comparing complete, utter DM Fiat that has absolutely no guidelines to "Different rules for generation."

My point was actually "Let's see how systems that have very different rules for PC and NPC generation tend to work out." I used oWoD as an example because it has very "Night and Day" mechanics differences in generation and I'm reasonably familiar with it.

In my experience, RPGs with more than minimal crunch tend to experience problems with NPCs being harder to work with as a GM and to "believe" as a player. Systems I have had experience with:

Shadowrun 5e (Very different generation systems. Caused problems - why are the NPC runners we're fighting so unlike us?)

HERO 4e and 5e (Everything works the same way. Having run games in HERO, for years, I really like this aspect of it. Sometimes, PCs will really like the schtick of an NPC they meet, and either try to learn it, or the player uses it in another game).

D&D 2e: Got covered pretty thoroughly. Although, note that NPCs were supposed to be generated the same way as PCs.

D&D 3/3.5: Covered quite thoroughly.

White Wolf: Already discussed.

L7R (homebrew version of L5R): There are "classes," I think about 25ish, of which most are PC classes. PCs have a PC class, NPCs have any class. The NPC classes are stuff like peasant soldiers which aren't supposed to be played because the PCs are assumed to be samurai. Works great - an NPC Crab Samurai is reasonably similar to a PC Crab Samurai, for example, and while there's room for customization you can tell that they come from the same school of fighting.

Rutee
2008-01-29, 11:01 PM
Then I won't play your game, as you've destroyed my sense of immersion. If Wizard A can learn it, so can Wizard B.

And no, we're talking any spell.

Works for me. My goal isn't to describe a completely immersive, perfectly consistent world. It's to tell a story. At least this keeps the dramaz out.

And in general terms, by all means. You're just not getting the uber spell I handed the BBEG to help keep him a challenge.

Matthew
2008-01-29, 11:08 PM
But we aren't talking PCs vs. monsters with certain inherent abilities, we're talking PCs vs. NPCs of otherwise similar ability.

I dunno, I thought we were talking about Monsters a while back. Wasn't that when you said something about Monstrousness?


Now, I'm not saying there cannot be the occasional NPC with a unique gift, but for the most part there better be a damn good in-game reason for such a gift. Of course, depending on the role of the NPC and the nature of the gift something as simple as "'Cause Pelor likes me!" may be sufficiently damn good. Then again, it might not be.

Probably.


Without good reason, the whole thing comes off as pure DM arbitrariness. And, depending on your group, playstyle, and experiences, that could easily lead to trust problems.

It certainly could, as I say it's just my preference not an absolute truth.


And just to put things into perspective, my posts on this subject were launched in part by comments about things much more drastic than the bonus feats and skills that you use as example. For instance, someone mentioned a human with a reflective carapace. Something like that requires big-time justifcation.

I would imagine so. Can't say I recall that particular example, but I would imagine it would need justification.


Now, such an example may or may not be justified. I really don't know. I guess I'm really being rather irresponsible about the whole thing by trying to address the larger principle and philosophy of the thing without getting into the specifics largely on account of my aforementioned anti-hype attitude. I just don't want to get worked up one way or the other on the piecemeal bits WotC is spouting off 'cause so much of it is liable to change anyway, and to this end stubbornly refuse to read those piecemeal bits. As a result, I'm somewhat lost at a number of specific examples and am largely reacting out of a general sense of principle.

Fair enough.


Guess I am. To that extent, I've been trying not to make any real new points in my last few posts and just answer your questions as well as possible.

Sure.


Definitely don't know what you mean here. Never said anything about anyone 'going to far' anywhere, and I have no idea how such a concept fits into the discussion at hand.

Heh, the quote marks weren't from you, they were just 'as they say' marks. I was just wondering what kind of things you had in mind in terms of 'cool NPC moves' that are identifiable. I suppose the Carapace thing might be an example?


And I seriously feel like I'm losing grasp of the context of this discussion as it is.

I think that's probably an indication of the lateness of the hour or else that we are passing each other by in our exchanges. :smallwink:



D&D 2e: Got covered pretty thoroughly. Although, note that NPCs were supposed to be generated the same way as PCs.

I think you would be hard pressed to show that.

Ominous
2008-01-29, 11:20 PM
Works for me. My goal isn't to describe a completely immersive, perfectly consistent world. It's to tell a story. At least this keeps the dramaz out.

And as the DM for my group, I view it as my goal to provide a story that is believable. Not one where I tell the players "No, you can't learn that spell the bad guy cast at you, because, well, he's special." If I tried that with them, they'd probably tell me to either DM right or not at all, but I have a pretty intelligent group of players, who demand a well thought out world and story.


And in general terms, by all means. You're just not getting the uber spell I handed the BBEG to help keep him a challenge.

Then make the spell have requirements that are met only 5,000 years or so, or have the BBEG's race be the only race capable of casting the spell. It doesn't take a great deal of thought to come up with ways of keeping things out of players hands that don't break their immersion in the world.

Pyroconstruct
2008-01-29, 11:25 PM
I think you would be hard pressed to show that.

I meant NPCs as in people with PC classes who are not PCs, not monsters. Monsters weren't generated at all.

Rutee
2008-01-29, 11:26 PM
And as the DM for my group, I view it as my goal to provide a story that is believable. Not one where I tell the players "No, you can't learn that spell the bad guy cast at you, because, well, he's special." If I tried that with them, they'd probably tell me to either DM right or not at all, but I have a pretty intelligent group of players, who demand a well thought out world and story.
While the insinuation is cute, I've got a pretty sharp group of friends myself. We just have enough suspension of disbelief that less-than-perfect versimilitude doesn't throw them off. You paint it as if anything less then perfect following of the rules makes for utterly, completely destroyed immersion. Perhaps it is for you, but this is not a universal thing.




Then make the spell have requirements that are met only 5,000 years or so, or have the BBEG's race be the only race capable of casting the spell. It doesn't take a great deal of thought to come up with ways of keeping things out of players hands that don't break their immersion in the world.

Why should I? My players don't care enough about versimilitude to require me to justify absolutely everything and something obviously done for dramatic or gamist reasons isn't going to yield a simulationist query.

Jack Zander
2008-01-29, 11:29 PM
I'm just gonna knock down a few strawmen.

The people who are upset about separate NPC creation rules aren't concerned about Monsters having abilities PCs can't learn. We are concerned about another human who has spell-like abilities when my human only has a spellbook. If I had the choice, I'd take spell-like abilities over a spellbook any day. Thank you, now where do I sign up to learn them? What do you mean I can't? Generic Wizard Man must have learned them somewhere!

But as long as I am still able to do things my way and everyone else can do things their way, we all can be happy. Not likely, considering they removed NPC classes :smallannoyed:

horseboy
2008-01-29, 11:30 PM
For all NPCs that can be treated as enemies by the PCs, a full character sheet is required. If you generate the NPCs using exactly the same rules as the PCs, they'll be of comparable power. If you use the standard arrays they'll be noticeably wimpier.


IDK. (http://www.drunkduck.com/NPC/index.php?p=2746) That could be a very long list (http://www.drunkduck.com/NPC/index.php?p=2770).

Matthew
2008-01-29, 11:31 PM
I meant NPCs as in people with PC classes who are not PCs, not monsters. Monsters weren't generated at all.

I don't recall off hand, but I'm pretty sure Attribute generation was not legislated for NPCs in 2e. Instead, the DMG provided the helpful assertion that they should be between 3 and 18. Gygax had more to say on the subject in 1e.


I'm just gonna knock down a few strawmen.

The people who are upset about separate NPC creation rules aren't concerned about Monsters having abilities PCs can't learn.

Not actually a Straw Man, just something that came up.


We are concerned about another human who has spell-like abilities when my human only has a spellbook. If I had the choice, I'd take spell-like abilities over a spellbook any day. Thank you, now where do I sign up to learn them? What do you mean I can't? Generic Wizard Man must have learned them somewhere!

Who said you can't? Is this Spell Like Ability stuff something mentioned in the 4e hype?

Pyroconstruct
2008-01-29, 11:46 PM
I think perhaps it would be useful to clarify what is meant by "a different system for NPCs and PCs."

1st: If you can't tell the results apart, it's not really a difference. Example: PCs generated by 4d6b3. NPC adventurers generated by elite array, or occasionally a better-than-elite array for rare NPCs who are supposed to be able to take on the whole party at once. You can't really tell the GM isn't rolling without looking at all his stats, as compared to seeing how NPCs perform in combat. Nonexample: NPCs have max HP for HD, PCs do not. Why are the NPC adventurers so much harder to kill than the PC adventurers? Even though the PCs could have rolled max HP, it's a large enough statistical anomaly that they'll notice and wonder why.

2nd: If there's a good in-world reason. "Why can't I cast Wish as a spell-like ability 1/day? That Solar did." "Because you're a wizard, not a solar." I wouldn't even mention this, but people keep on referring to it....

3rd: If it's rare, kept to a minimum, and done by DM Fiat, it's not really an issue. Allowing one BBEG to cast a super-powerful spell PCs can't learn for plot purposes is fine. Having NPC spellcasters and PC spellcasters who are supposedly practicing the same school of magic work on different rules is not.

I think this should help clarify; if everyone doesn't agree that those three axioms are what they mean by "NPC generation and PC generation don't work the same way," it's at least what I mean.

EvilElitest
2008-01-29, 11:47 PM
oh god, i didn't even notice this thread


Well so much for sleep, i'll get back to this soon



PCs being super? That's not fallacy, that's the way it should be
that varies, the 3.5 system could support both super PCs and normal PCs pretty easily


will have to heartily agree with you on this. I am getting quite tired of reading posts by people whining about 4E having said that they are differentiating stat generation for NPCs versus PC race/class combos. These do not seem to be coming from people who regularly DM. When I DM, anything that helps me create "quick n' dirty" NPCs and/or monsters on the fly (or at least on the quick) is money in the bank.
sign, if complaining about a system you don't like is whining, then nobody is allowed to make fun of 3.5

Anyways, why keeps you from running the NPCs on teh same level with pre made stats, it is really easy



I'd do it too, even in an ostensibly 'better' RPG. Do you know why? Because in all likelihood, this is a BBEG for the duration of an Arc. Thus, the final battle is much, much more suitably done with the NPC fighting alone. As he is fighting alone, if he fights without any buff whatsoever from the PC form he's going to get? He's going to be creamed. It's called Plot Armor.
except you need a reason. Why does he have special powers? How did he get them? how do the fit into the world scheme? Do they violate teh established laws of magic? Saying "well he is the villain" in fact kinda kills the RP
from
EE

Ominous
2008-01-29, 11:58 PM
While the insinuation is cute, I've got a pretty sharp group of friends myself. We just have enough suspension of disbelief that less-than-perfect versimilitude doesn't throw them off. You paint it as if anything less then perfect following of the rules makes for utterly, completely destroyed immersion. Perhaps it is for you, but this is not a universal thing.

True, but I'm arguing against the original post not against this being something universal. The idea of whether an NPC is realistic or not is going to be subjective, as our differing views show; thus, we cannot conclude that it's a fallacy to argue that NPCs created using differing rules from PCs aren't as realistic as NPCs created using the same rules as PCs. It's all opinion.


Why should I? My players don't care enough about versimilitude to require me to justify absolutely everything and something obviously done for dramatic or gamist reasons isn't going to yield a simulationist query.

Good. My group is different and I have to DM accordingly, and using rules for NPCs that create inconsistencies is going to be something that I have to resolve. It sounds like your friends don't care if NPCs create inconsistencies or not, so WoTC can choose to use the same rules for NPCs and PCs and keep both of our groups satisfied, or use differing rules for NPCs and PCs and risk turning away my group.

Ominous
2008-01-30, 12:01 AM
3rd: If it's rare, kept to a minimum, and done by DM Fiat, it's not really an issue. Allowing one BBEG to cast a super-powerful spell PCs can't learn for plot purposes is fine. Having NPC spellcasters and PC spellcasters who are supposedly practicing the same school of magic work on different rules is not.

Sorry about that slightly derailing topic. I started on topic, but I slowly got sidetracked as differing people came up with arguments against my arguments against someone else, until we were on this odd tangent.

VanBuren
2008-01-30, 12:09 AM
So you're telling me that for some arbitrary reason I can't devote thirty years of my character's life to learning the exact same spell?

Let's put it this way, if the guy won't tell or teach you, and he invented the spell himself, what are the odds that you'll come up with the exact same thing he did in the same amount of time?

Incidentally, you'd be out of several campaigns for a very long time.

Ominous
2008-01-30, 12:19 AM
Let's put it this way, if the guy won't tell or teach you, and he invented the spell himself, what are the odds that you'll come up with the exact same thing he did in the same amount of time?

Back to the odd tangent, I see. Fine, if you want to keep arguing, I'll go along for the ride.

The same odds that two scientist discover the same thing at the same time without knowing of the research being conducted by each other, which is something that has happened in real life.


Incidentally, you'd be out of several campaigns for a very long time.

And?

Yahzi
2008-01-30, 01:18 AM
if the NPC's stats (and therefore, the things they can do) are reasonable and make sense in the context of the campaign world
Part of how you know they are reasonable and make sense is that they are the same as what the PCs can do.

The entire PHB exists to describe what is reasonable and makes sense for people to be able to do. Why would you throw it out?


Am I understanding that several people treat classes as concrete things,
I do; however, it's not necessary to the argument. In fact, not treating them as concrete things makes it even clearer that NPCs should be built with PC rules. It's easy to tell your players "He can do that because he took a prestige class;" it's not so easy to tell them "He can do that because he can do that."


The players already rely on the DM to tell them every single fact.
No, they don't. They fill in with context, derived from all sorts of sources. The PHB is a significant source.


Are others saying, "You run across your first troll. It's a barbarian 3. Here's the MM book and its character sheet, as clearly you will be incapable of fighting something unless you know all its stats and are assured that it was levelled using the same tools you have access to."
Was there anything in the preceding discussion that suggested that is what people are doing?

What we are saying is that if you build your NPC as a Barbarian 3, then you'll have a pretty good idea if it is reasonable for him to fight a PC who is a Barbarian 3. That's a trivial example, but the point is that the PHB describes a great deal of the world, and if you limit that description to only applying to the PCs, you've making things more difficult on everybody.


Then they can get a realistic view of their opponent without knowing its stats directly, at which point it shouldn't matter how those stats were generated.
It's not just stats you want to hide; it's abilities. For instance, the PCs know that to defeat Damage Reduction 5/Magic, they need a magic sword. Can they assume that if they somehow gain Damage Reduction 5/Magic, their enemies will need a magic sword to defeat them? You seem to be saying, No, they cannot assume that.


At this point, I hit the nearest player with a newspaper and say "stop metagaming." If I put the PCs in proximity to a party-killer, it's reasonable that I'm either going to give them fair warning, or I've already assumed the risk of losing at least one PC.
At this point, I hit the DM with a newspaper and say "stop railroading." :smallbiggrin:

I don't have to give my parties fair warning on what a party-killer is. They already know, because they know the Baron is a high-level Fighter with a Wizard cohort. Even if I describe it as "The Baron is a man with bulging muscles, a glowing sword, and the innate grace to be able to dance a waltz in full plate armor, while his beautiful wife can literally float on air."


Again, your players are metagaming if they treat every sentence in the core books as being a known fact in-world.
Yes, they are. But meta-gaming isn't all bad. Remember, this is a team effort. Your players are telling the story as much as you are. If they understand how the world works, they can help tell a better story.


If a Fighter and a Warrior are treated differently in-world, if a tribal shaman can't make it rain without taking Druid levels, if no NPC can have an ability without the players being provided a list of prerequisites...
Nobody said you had to provide the players with the list of prerequisites. We said that such a list should exist, and it should apply to players as well as NPCs.

Now if you find your ability to tell your story is hampered by the need to be fair to your players, perhaps you should reconsider your story-telling skills.


you may as well enact Rule 0 in-world as well: There exists a being more powerful than the gods, who has singled out specific people to whom all important things happen.
You know what? You can totally tell cool stories without that rule. In fact, you can tell better stories without it. The minute that rule becomes apparent, it destroys all drama, suspense, and immersion. So you can either try really hard to not let that rule become visible, or you can just play without it at all.

Your PCs don't have to be The Only Story In The World; they can just be a story. Yes, they just happen to be at the center of some amazing things; but there's absolutely no reason why there can't be other amazing things happing to other people. Your players might be singled out by Destiny, but that doesn't mean they have to be singled out by the laws of physics.


I think I'm doing something wrong here. I can't remember the last time I awarded roleplay experience to a player for taunting "you just got bested by someone a level lower than you!"
So you're saying your players would not derive any satisfaction out of besting someone a level higher than they were?

One of us doesn't know your players very well, and it isn't me. :smallbiggrin:


I meant "exercise the right to use NPC stats created with methods other than the Creating Characters chapter of the Player's Handbook."
Either these other methods are written down, in which case you've simply created two sets of rules to learn; or they aren't, in which case they're arbitrary.


That chapter means to me, "here's how your players can make characters that make sense in the world," not, "here's now people in the world learn and develop new abilities."
But the PHB specifically states how PCs learn and develop new abilities! Are they a different species than NPCs?


"These character creation guidelines represent the way that people in the world of Dungeons and Dragons learn everything that they know."
Nobody said "everything." DM's are totally allowed to make up their own Prestige Classes and stuff. We're just suggesting that those Prestige Classes should be like other classes: balanced (at least theoretically) and available to anyone who tries hard enough.


And yes, gosh darn it: I *AM* calling to task every DM whose descriptive text is so lacking, that they must increase the presence of the rules in order for their players to feel involved.
One could equally assert that any DM who can't tell a good story without totally making up the rules needs to put a little more effort in.

Or one could just say that DMs should be allowed to tell the stories however works best for them; and if establishing that you have to be at least 5th level Fighter to be called a Knight, and then introducing an NPC as a Knight, works for them, nobody should be complaining. Least of all us. :smallsmile:


I'm really worried that I'm pulling a strawman here, so I'll ask first. Are you saying that descriptive text does an inferior job of conveying to players the information their characters have ascertained regarding someone they just met, compared to the information provided by the DM rattling off the NPC's character sheet? And that the latter is more realistic?
It is a strawman. No one ever suggested reading out the NPCs stats to the players. What they suggested was that NPCs should follow the same rules as players, so that players could find common ground with the NPCs and thus gain more information about them than what the DM has time to explicitly say.

If a player loves being a Fighter, so much so that he makes his characters with Knowledge:Fighting skill maxed out, and he sees an NPC carrying a greatsword, and he deduces that he better not challenge this guy to an arm-wrestling match because clearly the guy has a STR of 14 (otherwise the greatsword would be a sub-optimal fighting choice), are you really going to be unhappy about that?

What we are saying is that by sharing the rules of the world with the PCs, you are sharing more of the world, and thus more of the telling of the story. Even if you never actually mention the rules during play.

Yahzi
2008-01-30, 01:24 AM
And it's another thing to actually, y'know, roleplay. You know, that thing where you pretend that it's a living breathing world and that they're real people? Sure, there may be a bit of metagaming, but important to the rules or not shouldn't make an impact on the RP.
But rules do flavor a game. That's why playing D&D is different than playing GURPS.

And a game where the rules explicitly state that NPCs are a different species than PCs is going to have a particular kind of flavor. One I happen to find... icky.

But hey, I find asparagus icky. :smallbiggrin:

Yahzi
2008-01-30, 01:28 AM
Also, I would like to take entirely seperate issue with the idea of "the way that monsters interact with each other isn't important, just how PCs interact with monsters."
A excellent example, Pyro.

Yahzi
2008-01-30, 01:30 AM
Works for me. My goal isn't to describe a completely immersive, perfectly consistent world. It's to tell a story.
Not to cramp your style; but I personally find that the more immersive and consistent my world is, the more the players can contribute to the story.

Rutee
2008-01-30, 01:43 AM
Not to cramp your style; but I personally find that the more immersive and consistent my world is, the more the players can contribute to the story.

Yeah, that's true, but only to a point. Having a realistic force that grants power to BBEGs or other plot-important villains so that they're a significant obstacle to be overcome (If they must be fought alone) isn't really going to help them contribute. It's not like I have 0 immersion or versimilitude. I'm well aware that a good story requires both. I just don't feel the need to have an explanation for everything I do mechanically to enhance the drama.

Woot Spitum
2008-01-30, 01:47 AM
You know, I find it odd that so many people are arguing that if one human can get x ability, then any human should be capable of getting it, otherwise versimilitude is broken, considering most (if not all) fantasy I've read involved characters from heroic, to villainous, to minor bit players that had unique abilities that no one else had, or could even obtain.

Ah well, I suppose it is to be expected living in the era of entitlement.:smallfrown:

Artanis
2008-01-30, 02:49 AM
So you're telling me that for some arbitrary reason I can't devote thirty years of my character's life to learning the exact same spell?
"Sure, go ahead and learn it."
"Hooray!"
"Now roll a new character."
"Wait, what?"
"You're spending the next thirty years learning a single spell. The rest of the party has things it wants to do during that time, and is not inclined to wait three decades for you to catch up. So start rolling."

There. Versimilitude maintained :smalltongue:

Blue_C.
2008-01-30, 03:08 AM
This is somewhat related to the problem of players being unable to seperate fluff from crunch. The kind of people who, if you want to play a samurai, you need to have levels in the Samurai class. Or who insist that full attacks MUST involve 4 weapon swings in 6 seconds rather than "The Barbarian raises his axe, and brings it crashing down on the Dragon's head in a single terrible blow.". Some people just can't handle the fluff being mutable. =/

You know, it has never occurred to me to describe multiple attacks per round as one big blow that deals somewhere between twice to four times the damage as a lower level strike. Thanks, that explanation makes a lot more sense in most cases.

And I'm a fan of simpler NPC creation rules. Of course, a couple of my experiments in that direction wound up backdoored into Standard classes, but whatever. I once wrote an NPC healer that could do two things: heal 1d6 damage, and cast command (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/command.htm). Both of these he did at will. I eventually made it into a base class.

Edited to add: I really began to think about simpler ways to run NPCs when I began to play MMO games. My character has, once in the mid levels, a dozen or more tricks to pull off every second and a half. As I am reasonably intelligent, I vary which actions I perform based on the task at hand, and based on the enemy I fight.

But if a the computers trying to run my enemies had that many abilities to call on, and varied their fighting based on the player they are fighting, those computers would crash. There is too much going on at once for that level of verisimilitude to happen. Instead NPCs have a select number of actions they can perform, and that's it. And that's all it needs to be.

Table-top RPGs have the same problem of "too many things to keep track of," with the additional worry that an encounter isn't going to last more than half a minute of game time anyways, so why plan for more standard action than that slot can accommodate?

Talic
2008-01-30, 03:22 AM
I come from the school of DMing that states that I am in opposition to the PCs. Maybe not in the goal of having fun, but if I'm not adversarial, then where's the challenge? The accomplishment? The agonizing PKs?

As such, I have a certain code of honor about it. I deny myself any source or ability that I deny my players, unless it's directly on account of the character's physical limitations (for example, the barbarian can't get multiattack, as he doesn't have the prerequisites... The dragon can). I find I can generally create anything I need by the book, thus obviating the need to use differing mechanics for the bad guys. While I'm a fan of normal and elite arrays for purposes of "normal" and "special" monsters, I realize that in any society, there are some people with better attributes, and others with worse. PC's are generally pulled from the better side, and NPCs are generally pulled from the average. Certainly, more capable enemies are better, and follow the elite array, which is roughly on par with a pretty low point buy. If I'm running higher power stats for PCs, I bump the elite array up some to account for that.

I think that there's no error at all in differing stats from normal versus special people. I think it actually is MORE intuitive, than everyone on earth being roughly equal.

Blackadder
2008-01-30, 03:29 AM
Time to chip in my 2c


First let me link the insight essays by Justine Alexander about NPC's
http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html

Let me quote one portion, the "Einstein in D&D"

Quote:
There’s a common fallacy when it comes to D&D, and it goes something like: Einstein was a 20th level physicist. So, in D&D, Einstein – that little old man – has something like a bajillion hit points and you’d need to stab him dozens of times if you wanted to kill him. That’s ridiculous!

The problem with this argument is that Einstein wasn’t a 20th level physicist. A 20th level physicist is one step removed from being the God of Physicists. Einstein was probably something more like a 4th or 5th level expert.

This can be a little bit difficult for some people to accept, so let’s run the math. At 5th level an exceptional specialist like Einstein will have:

* +8 skill ranks
*+4 ability score bonus
*+3 Skill Focus

In the case of our 5th level Einstein, that gives him a +15 bonus to Knowledge (physics) checks. He can casually answer physics-related questions (by taking 10) with a DC of 25. Such questions, according to the PHB description of the Knowledge skill, are among the hardest physics questions known to man. He’ll know the answers to the very hardest questions (DC 30) about 75% of the time.

And when he’s doing research he’ll be able to add the benefits of being able to reference scientific journals (+2 circumstance bonus), gain insight from fellow colleagues (+2 bonus from aid another), use top-of-the-line equipment (+2 circumstance bonus), and similar resources to gain understanding of a problem so intractable that no one has ever understood it before (DC 40+).

(This 5th level Einstein can also be modeled with as few as 5 hit points – 1 per hit die. Even if he rolled an average number of hit points on each hit die (3 each), as an old man his average Constitution of 10 will have dropped two points. With the resulting Constitution penalty, he still only has 10 hit points. This is the other reason why the hit point argument holds no water.)
End Quote.
I did not quote tag it to ensure that it would not be mistaken for something posted in this thread already.

Per 3.0(Little changed in 3.5E) mechanics, it's very possible to create various living breathing NPC's who are the top of their game, yet won't be able to take a sword to the face and survive easy(Like say a 16 con 5th level Barbarian could)

It's perfectly possible within 3.5 to create NPC's that feel realistic. Keep that difference in mind, they don't need to be totally realistic, but the feeling of realism is highly important not to break immersion. Which is why NPC classes work. You can be an Expert without being a Rogue, could Einstein sneak attack? No? But Expert gives him enough skill points for all of his various skills and a comparable hit-die and BaB progression. So it's useful to give him an NPC class.

That's a key difference between PC's and NPC's. NPC's don't come expecting combat. They don't live life on the edge each day, so they don't need to be trained in 15 different weapon styles and have the training to wear full-plate. They just need enough to live their lives and work their jobs. The feeling that your PC's think your NPC's lives go on when they are not around is highly important to any kind of social D&D, even causal, the feeling that theses NPC' are not just robot's to off-load their treasure to once the've finished up their last dungeon cleaning. That's a useful thing.

Curmudgeon
2008-01-30, 03:31 AM
The 'one true way' to play D&D raises its head again. Aren't there examples of Monsters with Feats that don't meet the prerequisites? Sure. For instance, there's the Varag (MM IV). It's got Spring Attack without either Dodge or Mobility. Of course it's really

Spring AttackB
so that's clearly a racial bonus feat, which is a standardized exception to the feat prerequisite rules. But whatever races and classes you choose for the NPC enemies, their abilities should always obey the rules for those race and class choices. This isn't the 'one true way' to play D&D; it's just playing by D&D rules, or not playing by D&D rules.

Aquillion
2008-01-30, 05:11 AM
Can someone please nail down exactly what we're discussing here? It feels like everyone is shooting at different targets.

Are we just talking about, say, generic noncombat NPCs having all-10s unless there's a reason otherwise, averaged HD, no feats, no need to track skill points, etc? I don't think there's anything particularly controversial there; that's what people do already. Giving a 'simple NPC table' would just be formalizing it.

I don't see anything wrong with saying that NPCs can have skill points that exceed what a player could have at that HD, either. Keep a few things in mind: First, NPCs don't earn XP. Period. That's always been the rules. So they have no ECL and no real advantage to having a low level + high-level skills.

Say you have an expert who has studied one thing a lot. They have, in effect, earned enough xp to go up a level, but have only bothered to advance in their skills; since they never fight and don't care about anything else, they're no better at fighting.

Why should Einstein be even a level 5 commoner? The idea is absurd; it would still give him an overwhelming advantage, in terms of skill, against any level 1 and 2 people of the same age and general health. No matter how you slice it, the less BAB you give Einstein, the better your system; he shouldn't have any advantage at all against someone of the same age and general health, and should be at a severe disadvantage against anyone with even a 'level or two' of combat experience. (And, obviously, he has no weapon proficiencies, but that goes without saying.)

This system, from what I understand, is not intended to give NPCs advantages; just the opposite. It's intended to give NPCs disadvantages by letting them advance in only one area while neglecting everything else. Could a PC do this? A PC wouldn't want to do it. A PC is assumed to always be training all their abilities -- even a wizard gets a bit of BAB as they go. These rules, as I understand them, just say that there are wizards out there who don't bother to train their BAB or work out enough to get even another d4 of HD. This is common sense, and I don't see how anyone would object to it...

To put it more plainly, of course, that means the DM can assign whatever BAB, HD, skills, and so forth to an NPC that they want. Giving them abilities that the PC can never access at all would usually be bad form (although even in 3.5 they might have access to an obscure setting-specific PRC or whatever, after all... there could be a 'follower of [insert big-bad here]' PRC for greater mooks, say.), but there is absolutely no reason why the DM should have to assign a specific level to an NPC, then make sure that they have the absurdly broad range of abilities that a PC would have at that level. Instead, if you want someone who has the casting ability of a level 5 wizard, say? Well, you can give it to them, and say they've otherwise got the stats of a level 1 character. Why not? Not every wizard is going to be proficient with even simple weapons.... just the adventurers.

Of course, if you bring WBL and advancement speed into it, the PCs no longer map to NPCs at all; in that regard, they never have. XP, CR, ECL, and WBL are all entirely and exclusively PC-centric concepts with no relevence to an NPC.

Kami2awa
2008-01-30, 07:35 AM
1) Trying to think of an interesting backstory for each and every NPC met is really hard, especially when the PCs are just going to kill half of them anyways.



Most NPCs only need about 1 sentence of background if they are not be major characters. If all else fails, so many people have boring lives:

Blacksmith: My background, sir? Learned the trade from me dad, took it over when he died o' too many eels sir, terrible business. Why be you askin'?

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-01-30, 08:47 AM
I dunno, I thought we were talking about Monsters a while back. Wasn't that when you said something about Monstrousness?
That was when, as Aquillion would put it, I was shooting at a different target. That was simply about whether it really mattered that you wouldn't bother to record non-exceptional stats when you are dealing with a creature that is entirely exceptional. Had very little to do with the abilities to which PCs have access or any of the other tangents we've gone through.

Aquillion is right. There are way to many sub-topics in this thread, and I've been trying to hit them all with a very inaccurate shotgun.


Heh, the quote marks weren't from you, they were just 'as they say' marks. I was just wondering what kind of things you had in mind in terms of 'cool NPC moves' that are identifiable. I suppose the Carapace thing might be an example?
In that case, yes, that would be a good example.


I think that's probably an indication of the lateness of the hour or else that we are passing each other by in our exchanges. :smallwink:
Maybe. But then then that's only part of it. The rest of it is the many targets mentioned above.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong. At the time you posted this, wasn't it just about to switch from "late hours" to "early hours" in your part of the world?

And for my part of the world, many people would laugh at the suggestion that 10:00 qualifies as a late hour. But then, I'm not one of them, as that's my unofficial bedtime. (Yes, I'm one of those legendary morning people.)

Saph
2008-01-30, 10:04 AM
Well, going back through this thread, the OP is actually addressing such a minor and specific point (generation of NPC stats) that I honestly don't care much about it one way or the other. The discussion since then's more interesting, though. :P

As a DM, I often have to make stuff up completely on the fly, but as a player, I much prefer it when the DM goes to as much effort as possible to make the world consistent. I want to feel that the NPCs and monsters are basically playing with the same rules as my PC. I don't mind if they start at higher levels or with various homebrewed advantages, but when it comes right down to it they have to follow the same rules as me, or I'm going to get frustrated.

A good DM will often make NPCs up and improvise their abilities without statting them, but he'll go to some effort to keep them consistent with the game rules. An NPC caster with a CL of 10 should not be able to use 8th-level spells, and if she can, then there should be some kind of explanation as to why, because my wizard is going to (in-character) see that something weird is going on and try and find out what it is.

One thing that annoys me in particular is when DMs determine their monster's stats and abilities in terms of what it's going to do. E.g. "This enemy will fight the PCs until half of them are down, at which point he'll be forced to flee". So no matter what you hit the NPC with, you can't kill him and you can't wound him until his 'cue card' comes up. With some DMs I've had in the past, I've actually had to get into the habit of throwing fights - I know the DM won't let me defeat the enemies until he feels the fight's been sufficiently hard, so I act ineffective until things look serious, and only stop holding back right at the end. I don't really like doing it, though, and much prefer playing in games where I don't have to.

- Saph

VanBuren
2008-01-30, 11:14 AM
Back to the odd tangent, I see. Fine, if you want to keep arguing, I'll go along for the ride.

Is the point I'm trying to make that unobvious? It's perfectly reasonable than an NPC will have an ability that you won't be able to learn, simply because it would take enough time and effort that the campaign itself is slightly more pressing.


The same odds that two scientist discover the same thing at the same time without knowing of the research being conducted by each other, which is something that has happened in real life.

But does it happen that often? And if the final result was an accident, you'd have to repeat that exact accident. And if you don't know how it works, then you're fighting up a hill from the start.


And?

If you want to put your character out of action for that long, you probably deserve whatever spell it is that you're trying to learn, considering that the rest of the party will be levels ahead of you by then.

Yahzi
2008-01-30, 11:42 AM
I just don't feel the need to have an explanation for everything I do mechanically to enhance the drama.
Don't you hate it in books when the hero suddenly gains a power because the plot calls for him to have that power now? Or the villain escapes for no better reason than because the plot requires him to escape?

I'm not saying your NPCs should be audited. I'm just the NPCs should be in the same physical universe as the PCs.

Yahzi
2008-01-30, 11:47 AM
You know, I find it odd that so many people are arguing that if one human can get x ability, then any human should be capable of getting it, otherwise versimilitude is broken,
We used to not believe that. We used to believe that Kings were born, not made, and they were somehow different and better than ordinary people.

Then we (re)invented democracy.


Ah well, I suppose it is to be expected living in the era of entitlement.:smallfrown:
Indeed. How dare people assume they are equal, in any way, shape, or form; how dare they assume that success is a product of hard work, education, resources, and opportunities, rather than a divine blessing handed down from on high.

:smallannoyed:

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-01-30, 11:51 AM
But does it happen that often?
Probably more often than you'd think.

At least in software development it happens all the time. Which is why there's always so much controversy over software patents.


And if the final result was an accident, you'd have to repeat that exact accident.
No, you don't because unlike the original researcher, you have some idea of what to look for.


And if you don't know how it works, then you're fighting up a hill from the start.
But you've seen the spell in action. So if you've learned anything from your master to the point you could concievably research the same spell on your own, you should have some inkling of how it works.

Matthew
2008-01-30, 11:54 AM
Sure. For instance, there's the Varag (MM IV). It's got Spring Attack without either Dodge or Mobility. Of course it's really

Spring AttackB
so that's clearly a racial bonus feat, which is a standardized exception to the feat prerequisite rules. But whatever races and classes you choose for the NPC enemies, their abilities should always obey the rules for those race and class choices. This isn't the 'one true way' to play D&D; it's just playing by D&D rules, or not playing by D&D rules.

No, you're thinking of playing by the RAW or not playing by the RAW. I wouldn't be inclined to use the D&D drowning rules, but luckily one of the rules of D&D is that I don't have to. Of course, this opens us up to the question 'What is D&D?'


Keep a few things in mind: First, NPCs don't earn XP. Period. That's always been the rules. So they have no ECL and no real advantage to having a low level + high-level skills.

A very agrreeable post altogether. Just to clarify, though, in 3e 'NPCs earn experience the same way PCs do'. Sadly, that sentence appears on p. 107 of the DMG. It's the only edition to subscribe to such an idea, as far as I am aware.


That was when, as Aquillion would put it, I was shooting at a different target. That was simply about whether it really mattered that you wouldn't bother to record non-exceptional stats when you are dealing with a creature that is entirely exceptional. Had very little to do with the abilities to which PCs have access or any of the other tangents we've gone through.

Aquillion is right. There are way to many sub-topics in this thread, and I've been trying to hit them all with a very inaccurate shotgun.

Okay.


In that case, yes, that would be a good example.

Right


Maybe. But then then that's only part of it. The rest of it is the many targets mentioned above.

I do believe that's virtually the same thing as passing one another by. :smallwink:


Now, correct me if I'm wrong. At the time you posted this, wasn't it just about to switch from "late hours" to "early hours" in your part of the world?

And for my part of the world, many people would laugh at the suggestion that 10:00 qualifies as a late hour. But then, I'm not one of them, as that's my unofficial bedtime. (Yes, I'm one of those legendary morning people.)

I think it was getting on for about 6am here; it was certainly late enough to be early, but for me it was late.

Yahzi
2008-01-30, 12:01 PM
Can someone please nail down exactly what we're discussing here?
Quite simply: should NPCs be constructed according to the same rules as PCs?

Note we are not saying the DM can't justify any particular choice: if he wants all the farmers in this town to be 20th level wizards, fine. We're just saying that if a PC and an NPC do X activity for Y amount of time, they should both get the same Z result.

Or, in other words, should the same laws of physics apply to PCs and NPCs?


I don't see anything wrong with saying that NPCs can have skill points that exceed what a player could have at that HD, either.
If you routinely need to give NPCs more skill points than their level calls for, either your NPCs are more powerful than you think they are, or you are admitting the rules are broken.


Why should Einstein be even a level 5 commoner?
If you want people with high skill who aren't high level, you don't want to be playing D&D. As dumb as the link between level and skill is, it is the rules of D&D. You can houserule this away, but why would you do that for NPCs and not PCs?

Of course you can change the rules all you want, but at some point you have to admit you've changed so many you aren't playing D&D.


It's intended to give NPCs disadvantages
Which is an aspect I find just as odious.

NPCs are not supposed to be scenery. They are supposed to be real people, however much or little you interact with them. They have their own lives, which are as important to them as yours is to you.

D&D, with its elitism encoded directly into the rules, poisons all normal moral intuitions. Which, to my mind, breaks versimilitude.


To put it more plainly, of course, that means the DM can assign whatever BAB, HD, skills, and so forth to an NPC that they want.
And now you're back to your players having no knowledge of the world.

They see a wizard. They know he's a wizard because he has wizard written on his robes. Can he use a sword? Is he a better archer than the party Ranger? Does he cast divine magic while wearing platemale, or breathe fire out of his mouth, or regenerate? Who knows?

Next they see a pig-farmer, and they have exactly the same questions.



but there is absolutely no reason why the DM should have to assign a specific level to an NPC, then make sure that they have the absurdly broad range of abilities that a PC would have at that level.
I gather you don't use the CR system, either. You make up a foe, and then you make up the XP he's worth, totally independent of any other considerations than "this is how tough a fight I want the PCs to have, and this is how much XP I want them to get."

Which is fine, for you: but some of us DMs (read: me :smallbiggrin: ) expect the rules to help us out a bit more.

Yahzi
2008-01-30, 12:03 PM
One thing that annoys me in particular is when DMs determine their monster's stats and abilities in terms of what it's going to do. E.g. "This enemy will fight the PCs until half of them are down, at which point he'll be forced to flee".
From what I have seen of 4e, that's exactly the feel they're trying to create...

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-01-30, 12:21 PM
I do believe that's virtually the same thing as passing one another by. :smallwink:
Hm.

Yeah. That's right.

Even this morning person had trouble shaking the confusion out on that one! :smallredface:

EvilElitest
2008-01-30, 12:24 PM
What do you get when you take the R out of RPG?

A first-person shooter.

:smallannoyed:

If a single quote would be capable of making me not buy an entire game system, the above quote would be it. And apparently, it is capable.

See, that is what i've been saying this whole time. Did you read what i said or did you come to it on your own?

Hrm... are people really telling their players the stats of every NPC they face? I'll ask again; if the NPC's stats (and therefore, the things they can do) are reasonable and make sense in the context of the campaign world, yet have no PC character creation equivalent, does the world seem less realistic?o
No, but my PCs expect the NPCs to follow the same rules as they do. If they meet a wizard, then they expect the wizard to cast arcane magic
from
EE

Rutee
2008-01-30, 12:35 PM
Don't you hate it in books when the hero suddenly gains a power because the plot calls for him to have that power now? Or the villain escapes for no better reason than because the plot requires him to escape?

No, in fact, I do not.

Cybren
2008-01-30, 12:37 PM
No, in fact, I do not.

So you have a pretty wide margin of suspension of disbelief?

Rutee
2008-01-30, 12:40 PM
So you have a pretty wide margin of suspension of disbelief?

Well, it's not like explaining it better changes the intention. I can and have used a wide variety of NPC escape strategies, and they worked within their worlds, power of plot or no. It's just that either way, the end result is the same, and the reason why that result came about is the same.

So the direct answer to the question is yes, I have a wide suspension of disbelief. If you don't, that's just super, but don't sit here and tell me I can only run or play a game by having 0 suspension of disbelief.

EvilElitest
2008-01-30, 12:48 PM
No, in fact, I do not.

That is such a badd show of writing. Why did the hero gain these super powers? Because the plot demanded it (Eragon, i'm looking at you)

It is a sign of sloppy writing if you have the mian character become powerful simply to advance the plot. If the villian escapes for not reason, i'm all like "What"

Eventually it ruins the plots, as i no longer feel afraid that the main character will die or the villain won't escape. bad taste. If the hero wins, they should win because they are skilled or use good tactics, not because the plot demands it


Why should I? My players don't care enough about versimilitude to require me to justify absolutely everything and something obviously done for dramatic or gamist reasons isn't going to yield a simulationist query.
Well what if I play in your world? When you pull something that doesn't make sense, i'd be going "hey wait a second"
if things don't make sense, i'd be like Roy or Complains about names and point that out

from
EE

Frosty
2008-01-30, 01:54 PM
If you want to put your character out of action for that long, you probably deserve whatever spell it is that you're trying to learn, considering that the rest of the party will be levels ahead of you by then.

The whole point isn't the fact that he wants to learn that spell for the campaign so he can use it. In fact, because of the time restrictions, he will probably not get to learning the spell until after the campaign is over.

The whole point is, in-character wise, there should be nothing preventing him from the option of learning the should he choose to spend the time to do so.

The fact that the character will not be spending the time *now* due to time contraints does not mean he should never be able to learn it, when he has time, after the campaign is over. Otherwise, it breaks immerson.

Aquillion
2008-01-30, 01:56 PM
If you routinely need to give NPCs more skill points than their level calls for, either your NPCs are more powerful than you think they are, or you are admitting the rules are broken.


If you want people with high skill who aren't high level, you don't want to be playing D&D. As dumb as the link between level and skill is, it is the rules of D&D. You can houserule this away, but why would you do that for NPCs and not PCs?Simple. The advancement system given for PCs is for adventurers. Non-adventurers don't bother to advance in all categories; ivory-tower researcher-type wizards and professional scholars don't bother to improve their BAB or HD, say. The game doesn't provide the non-adventurer advancement system to PCs for the same reason that it doesn't provide a detailed economics system; for them, it would have to be more finely balanced, and this would unnecessarily complicate a game intended to be used exclusively for adventuring.

But letting NPCs use 'Non-adventurer advancement' that doesn't advance everything the way an NPC would makes perfect sense, and allows for easier-to-generate, more-believable NPCs.


Of course you can change the rules all you want, but at some point you have to admit you've changed so many you aren't playing D&D....well, from the looks of things, you are going to be the one who will have to change rules, come fourth edition.


Which is an aspect I find just as odious.

NPCs are not supposed to be scenery. They are supposed to be real people, however much or little you interact with them. They have their own lives, which are as important to them as yours is to you.

D&D, with its elitism encoded directly into the rules, poisons all normal moral intuitions. Which, to my mind, breaks versimilitude.That doesn't make any sense. They're real people, yes. They have real lives. These lives don't involve weapons training; handwaving them into PC level advancement designed for adventurers is ignoring their lives. You're the one who wants to turn them into scenery; giving them stats that could reasonably derive from their lifestyle instead of absurdly misfit +x bab, +x HD adventurer advancement is clearly a better way to represent them.


And now you're back to your players having no knowledge of the world.

They see a wizard. They know he's a wizard because he has wizard written on his robes. Can he use a sword? Is he a better archer than the party Ranger? Does he cast divine magic while wearing platemale, or breathe fire out of his mouth, or regenerate? Who knows?You're being even worse, now. You just said that NPCs should have their own lives, and now you say they should be nothing more than a generic race/class combination?

You see a wizard. When you attack him, it turns out he was an Eldritch Knight, and higher-level than you thought! Whoops. He had spells or a race that let him breathe fire or regenerate... you get the idea. That's D&D. Players shouldn't be able to judge this by looking at him. They also shouldn't be able to flip open a book and say "ok, I think he's class XYZ... that means he has abilities A, B, and C..."

That's just silly. Classes are abstractions intended to give PCs a way to advance in a balanced manner; for the most part, they don't exist in the game world. PCs can't look up and see a stat sheet; as far as they're concerned, the Eldritch Knight and the straight Wizard are both just as much wizards, basically identical. One has studied combat arts a bit more, but that's the only difference... and nobody would suggest that he's any less a wizard for this (maybe he spent extra time training on that; a PC would have to give up a level. But NPCs can be any level and don't care about XP or ECL, so he might have simply spent more time training so that he mastered both.)


I gather you don't use the CR system, either. You make up a foe, and then you make up the XP he's worth, totally independent of any other considerations than "this is how tough a fight I want the PCs to have, and this is how much XP I want them to get."

Which is fine, for you: but some of us DMs (read: me :smallbiggrin: ) expect the rules to help us out a bit more.No. You're not making any sense at all, now. Have you been reading the thread?

Anyone who is supposed to fight the PCs still uses the old system, since they need something that lets them be balanced against the PCs in combat. This makes sense, since the PC levelling system is focused on combat-type people. The only people who the new system is intended for are NPCs who don't focus on combat; for them, it basically just lets them advance without taking additional HD, BAB, or any other level-attendent benefits that they wouldn't reasonably gain from their lifestyle. If they get into a fight with the PCs, nobody's going to care about their balance, since the PCs will stomp them.

Jack Zander
2008-01-30, 02:10 PM
Anyone who is supposed to fight the PCs still uses the old system, since they need something that lets them be balanced against the PCs in combat. This makes sense, since the PC levelling system is focused on combat-type people. The only people who the new system is intended for are NPCs who don't focus on combat; for them, it basically just lets them advance without taking additional HD, BAB, or any other level-attendent benefits that they wouldn't reasonably gain from their lifestyle. If they get into a fight with the PCs, nobody's going to care about their balance, since the PCs will stomp them.

Source?

If that's the case, this system may not be so flawed after all provided the DM is skilled enough not to abuse it. However, from everything I've read, the system does things like take a goblin, and stamp a template or two on him to make him into 'Stronger Goblin' or 'Goblin Mage.' In fact, it was created specifically with combat encounters in mind. Seriously, why would you bother having rules for stating people who aren't intended to fight?

Daimbert
2008-01-30, 02:11 PM
Okay, I'm going to sum up my views on this thread, disagree as you wish:

1) In order to build a world, NPCs should have rules that determine what they do and how they generally go about life.
2) Those rules should be known to the PCs, since they live in the world and many of them have wonderful skill checks on various things related to knowledge so they can certainly know at least part of this.
3) The easiest way to give NPCs rules that the PCs know is to give them the same rules as PCs. After all, the PCs should know the rules by which the world works for them, right?
4) Not giving the NPCs rules leads to an inconsistent world and the inability of PCs to figure out how NPCs work or what they can do, which they should be able to know, being in the world and all and having all those wonderful knowledge checks.
5) Giving the NPCs the same rules as the PCs does NOT mean that things cannot occur outside of those rules or just for the sake of plot. It merely establishes the rules as a default and the DM can deviate as it makes sense and based on what their players will accept.
6) Giving the NPCs the same rules as the PCs does NOT mean that the DM has to fully flesh them out in terms of all the mechanics if they don't want to, as long as they make the abilities that they DO note consistent with those rules AND are aware that PCs may indeed in any number of ways create a situation where things that the DM didn't think the NPC would need become critical.

Jack Zander
2008-01-30, 02:19 PM
Okay, I'm going to sum up my views on this thread, disagree as you wish:

1) In order to build a world, NPCs should have rules that determine what they do and how they generally go about life.
2) Those rules should be known to the PCs, since they live in the world and many of them have wonderful skill checks on various things related to knowledge so they can certainly know at least part of this.
3) The easiest way to give NPCs rules that the PCs know is to give them the same rules as PCs. After all, the PCs should know the rules by which the world works for them, right?
4) Not giving the NPCs rules leads to an inconsistent world and the inability of PCs to figure out how NPCs work or what they can do, which they should be able to know, being in the world and all and having all those wonderful knowledge checks.
5) Giving the NPCs the same rules as the PCs does NOT mean that things cannot occur outside of those rules or just for the sake of plot. It merely establishes the rules as a default and the DM can deviate as it makes sense and based on what their players will accept.
6) Giving the NPCs the same rules as the PCs does NOT mean that the DM has to fully flesh them out in terms of all the mechanics if they don't want to, as long as they make the abilities that they DO note consistent with those rules AND are aware that PCs may indeed in any number of ways create a situation where things that the DM didn't think the NPC would need become critical.

This is exactly what many of us are saying, but the other side doesn't seem to understand...

You want your frail Wizard NPC to be a little sub-par in the fighting department? Great, you can already do that. But don't go making rules for giving NPCs spell-like ability templates if my PC can't have them either.

Frosty
2008-01-30, 02:19 PM
If you wish to advance levels and skills and such without giving more HP or BAB or something, I have a solution:

Create a custom NPC class with like a d1 dit-dice, no BAB advancement, but gives skills and stuff.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-01-30, 02:27 PM
Simple. The advancement system given for PCs is for adventurers. Non-adventurers don't bother to advance in all categories; ivory-tower researcher-type wizards and professional scholars don't bother to improve their BAB or HD, say. The game doesn't provide the non-adventurer advancement system to PCs for the same reason that it doesn't provide a detailed economics system; for them, it would have to be more finely balanced, and this would unnecessarily complicate a game intended to be used exclusively for adventuring.
Okay, but you're not answering that last question, which I think is the most interesting part. If this is all the "new system" is about, why not build it into the PC system, too?

If I'm playing an enchanter, I don't need BAB. I got Fighty McFightpants dominated over there to take care of the violence, and I don't even have any spells that require attack rolls. Might want to bump up the hp a little in case of unforseen accidents, but that's it. Why do I have to advance the whole package any more than Farmer Joe?

Woot Spitum
2008-01-30, 02:31 PM
We used to not believe that. We used to believe that Kings were born, not made, and they were somehow different and better than ordinary people.

Then we (re)invented democracy.That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is talent. For example, anyone can learn to play the guitar, but few, if any, will ever be able to play it as well as Jimi Hendrix, because he was born with the sort of talent that just doesn't come along every day. The idea that a fantasy world can reflect this concept (as opposed to being like an MMORPG where, since everyone can have the same stuff, you often run into areas with hundreds of characters with the same faces, weapons, armor, and abilities; I call this bland and boring) is not a bad thing in my opinion.



Indeed. How dare people assume they are equal, in any way, shape, or form; how dare they assume that success is a product of hard work, education, resources, and opportunities, rather than a divine blessing handed down from on high.

:smallannoyed:Once again, that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the idea so many people (especially young people) have these days that to simply want something is to deserve it. Or the the idea that because someone else has something, regardless of the hard work they put into obtaining it, that everyone deserves it, regardless of whether or not everyone is willing to put the same amount of effort into obtaining it. In D&D terms, I don't see why I, as DM, am obligated to put the entire game on hold just so player x can obtain ability y that he saw npc z use. Especially if it doesn't make any sense for player z (in-character) to want it.

Matthew
2008-01-30, 02:31 PM
This is exactly what many of us are saying, but the other side doesn't seem to understand...

You want your frail Wizard NPC to be a little sub-par in the fighting department? Great, you can already do that. But don't go making rules for giving NPCs spell-like ability templates if my PC can't have them either.
Er what? I think it probable that they do understand, they just don't agree. I certainly understand and yet don't agree.


Okay, but you're not answering that last question, which I think is the most interesting part. If this is all the "new system" is about, why not build it into the PC system, too? If I'm playing an enchanter, I don't need BAB. I got Fighty McFightpants dominated over there to take care of the violence, and I don't even have any spells that require attack rolls. Might want to bump up the hp a little in case of unforseen accidents, but that's it. Why do I have to take advance the whole package any more than Farmer Joe?

I think he did answer that. The Class and Level System is a short hand to make game play easier. There is actually no reason why you couldn't do as described, except that the Class has already been put together. If the DM was open to such alterations and it didn't affect the Power Level of the Player Character, it would be perfectly acceptable to allow it.

I guess it's the difference between expressing Conan in 3e (where he's typically a collection of Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue/Prestige Class X) and expressing Conan in 2e (where he's a Fighter with a couple of extra abilities).

Jayabalard
2008-01-30, 02:41 PM
Note: I say Realism since that's the thread topic, but we're really talking about verisimilitude.

There's nothing inherently realistic about the PC generation rules; nor is there anything inherently unrealistic about having some people in the world that don't fit the normal molds in odd ways.

Giving an npc abilities and limitations in a combination that cannot be generated by the PC generation rules can actually lead to having more realistic characters than forcing them into the PC creation mold.

The only thing that you get out of using the same rules for PC and NPC creation is consistency, which isn't necessary for realism in a fantasy world; as a matter of fact, the inconsistencies (people and items with strange, unexplained powers) are often the focus in the fantasy genre.


Well what if I play in your world? When you pull something that doesn't make sense, i'd be going "hey wait a second"
if things don't make sense, i'd be like Roy or Complains about names and point that out Seems like his point that you, and people like you, aren't invited. He doesn't want to play with people who are more concerned with realism than story/gameplay.

Saph
2008-01-30, 02:45 PM
In D&D terms, I don't see why I, as DM, am obligated to put the entire game on hold just so player x can obtain ability y that he saw npc z use. Especially if it doesn't make any sense for player z (in-character) to want it.

Well, it depends on the type of player.

If Dimenpeecee the Awesome uses a special ability that lets him wipe out an attacking army with a wave of his hand, but then tells the party of 5th-level PCs to go and kill the leader who sent out said army, without any extra help or support, some players will say "Sure."

On the other hand, if it's me, I'm likely to say something like: "Wouldn't it be much more effective if you did it?" And when Dimenpeecee the Awesome gives some excuse, I'm going to say, "Okay, then would you mind telling us how you just took out their entire army? Because if I could learn to do it, it would make the mission a lot easier."

I know the DM's never going to let me do it, of course, but how he answers that question will tell me a lot about what style of game he's running.

- Saph

AKA_Bait
2008-01-30, 02:50 PM
Anyone who is supposed to fight the PCs still uses the old system, since they need something that lets them be balanced against the PCs in combat. This makes sense, since the PC levelling system is focused on combat-type people. The only people who the new system is intended for are NPCs who don't focus on combat; for them, it basically just lets them advance without taking additional HD, BAB, or any other level-attendent benefits that they wouldn't reasonably gain from their lifestyle. If they get into a fight with the PCs, nobody's going to care about their balance, since the PCs will stomp them.

Are you getting this 'some NPC's are supposed to use class levels' thing from some WotC Source I have not read? If so, can you direct me to it? I was under the impression that the paralell generation method for NPC's / Monsters that 4e was creating was intended to be useable for all NPCs/Monsters.


That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is talent.

I had always thought 'talent' in D&D was represented by ability scores. Hence, why only characters with certian stats (CHA for sorcerers for example) could cast some spells. I hadn't realized that 'talent level' was something arbitrarily determined by the DM and assigned to NPCs and PCs alike without reference to the game statics. My bad.



Once again, that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the idea so many people (especially young people) have these days that to simply want something is to deserve it. Or the the idea that because someone else has something, regardless of the hard work they put into obtaining it, that everyone deserves it, regardless of whether or not everyone is willing to put the same amount of effort into obtaining it.

Bitter much? Seriously though, this is not what is being advocated. If you recall, the very thing you quote mentions hard work. There is a marked difference bettween a game design that says 'you want y ability that NPC z has? Ok, but it has a long list of prerequs and will take your character a long time to get.' and 'sorry, that's for NPC's only. No matter how much effort you put it, you can never have it.'


In D&D terms, I don't see why I, as DM, am obligated to put the entire game on hold just so player x can obtain ability y that he saw npc z use.

Well, you are not 'obligated' to keep from saying 'rocks fall, everyone dies' every time one of your players does something unexpected either. It just means your group will probably not have as much fun.


Especially if it doesn't make any sense for player z (in-character) to want it.

How exactly does one determine this? I think it makes perfect sense for any character of any class when faced with a truly neat ability they see an NPC use to want to be able to do it too, if only to be on even footing with future potential enemies.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-01-30, 02:57 PM
There's nothing inherently realistic about the PC generation rules; nor is there anything inherently unrealistic about having some people in the world that don't fit the normal molds in odd ways.
But you have problems with realism when "odd ways" are more common than the "normal ways". And character creation rules can have a large impact on whether or not that happens.


Seems like his point that you, and people like you, aren't invited. He doesn't want to play with people who are more concerned with realism than story/gameplay.
But you see, he is concerned with the story. Overreliance on too many cheap and jarring tropes tends to ruin a story (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife). The story plays out in such a way the improbability of every plot twist and obvious contrivances to make the plot play out in a certain way take the stage more than the actual plot itself. To that end, verisimilitude is just as important to a plot-centric game where the players are railroaded and like it as it is to the "simulationist" games.

Jayabalard
2008-01-30, 03:08 PM
But you have problems with realism when "odd ways" are more common than the "normal ways". And character creation rules can have a large impact on whether or not that happens.Yes, a DM could make all of their peasants epic level wizards. If you don't use some sense when creating npcs then they won't be believable.

The potential for problems is identical whether you're using the PC rules to generate NPCs. Consistency does not, in and of itself, mean greater verisimilitude.


To that end, verisimilitude is just as important to a plot-centric game where the players are railroaded and like it as it is to the "simulationist" games.Consistency is not required for verisimilitude, nor is it required to having a good story. Whether you prefer it, or like it at all, is a matter of preference. EE obviously seems like he'd prefer it, which is why he shouldn't game with people who prefer it's absense.

Curmudgeon
2008-01-30, 03:27 PM
That is such a badd show of writing. Why did the hero gain these super powers? Because the plot demanded it (Eragon, i'm looking at you) Ah! Yes, I remember distinctly thinking "OK, he just leveled up in Half-Elf Paragon".

Thanks, EE, for pointing out how plot-driven mechanics just seem so very contrived. In contrast, if the NPCs behave like the PCs, with their own abilities and motivations but following the same rules, then the world functions organically. It's the difference between having a tense, pitched battle, and "All three enemies line up perfectly for your throw and your spear pierces all their heads in one clean shot, killing them instantly." :smalltongue:

Jack Zander
2008-01-30, 03:30 PM
Disagreeing is not the same thing as not understanding.

I'm not saying no one is disagreeing with us. That' just stupid. I'm saying that there are some people who are not understanding our points and throwing strawmen up at us instead. The above quoted post is a good example (while not a strawman, it doesn't show any understanding of my point).

So let me restate: You want your frail Wizard NPC to be a little sub-par in the fighting department? Great, you can already do that. But don't go making rules for giving NPCs spell-like ability templates if my PC can't have them either.

Now please, no one make arguments that we want our PCs to have monster abilities or the like. We aren't saying that.

There is no real way to prove either side in this argument. It's all a matter of opinion. Some of us (myself included) think that consistency is vital to a realistic world. After all, we aren't playing Shrooms and Acids, we're playing DnD, and DnD tries to model real life (which happens to be the most consistent thing I know). The others say that only the illusion of consistency is important, which is understandable but still not my cup of tea. Then there is the very small few who seem like they do want to play Shrooms and Acids, but I could be guilty of misinterpretation.

Are any of these right or wrong? No. Personally I think the best solution is to simply not play DnD. The perfect system would give both players and DMs all the options available to all characters while still maintaining consistency.

And that is why WoTC will not be receiving my monies for their new flawed product. Does anyone know if GURPS does this well?

AKA_Bait
2008-01-30, 03:35 PM
Consistency is not required for verisimilitude, nor is it required to having a good story.

I'm pretty sure that I could not disagree with you more. There need to be basic consistances in the world you are creating or there is NO CHANCE of it having versimilitude. If your mideval setting suddenly has cars, and then rockets, and then doesn't again without any explanation of a governing principle or say, players and NPCs grow and lose limbs/change races etc without any explanation or pattern your players aren't going to buy it.

Does that mean everything needs to be 100% consistant? Of course not. The villian can have some wonky power everyone else doesn't have. But then the story itself is at least partly the PC's trying to solve the riddle of why the villian has a power that is inconsistant with the rest of the consistant world.

horseboy
2008-01-30, 03:40 PM
Er what? I think it probable that they do understand, they just don't agree. I certainly understand and yet don't agree.

I think he did answer that. The Class and Level System is a short hand to make game play easier. There is actually no reason why you couldn't do as described, except that the Class has already been put together. If the DM was open to such alterations and it didn't affect the Power Level of the Player Character, it would be perfectly acceptable to allow it.

I guess it's the difference between expressing Conan in 3e (where he's typically a collection of Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue/Prestige Class X) and expressing Conan in 2e (where he's a Fighter with a couple of extra abilities).
Conan was a 1st edition barbarian (Check your Dieties and Demigods for stats) But most of your disagreements come from you being from an edition where the DM was encouraged to have skeletons shoot their phalanges as magic missiles and creating quartlings. :smallamused:

Rutee
2008-01-30, 03:48 PM
And that is why WoTC will not be receiving my monies for their new flawed product. Does anyone know if GURPS does this well?
Send me your 4e book plox. Incidentally, this board apparently lives on False Dichotomies where only the extremes are acceptable options. It's rather irritating.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-30, 03:54 PM
Incidentally, this board apparently lives on False Dichotomies where only the extremes are acceptable options. It's rather irritating.


Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed to an extreme;" not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case.


-On Liberty, Chapter 2
Of The Liberty Of Thought and Discussion.

:smallbiggrin:

Dead but correct philosophers aside, I think that tends to happen on this board because one person makes a sweeping generalization, another disagrees with the generality of the notion, and the first (who tends to think in generalizations) accuses the second of a position they never advocated, forcing the second to defend the position they took and so on.

Ominous
2008-01-30, 04:01 PM
"Sure, go ahead and learn it."
"Hooray!"
"Now roll a new character."
"Wait, what?"
"You're spending the next thirty years learning a single spell. The rest of the party has things it wants to do during that time, and is not inclined to wait three decades for you to catch up. So start rolling."

There. Versimilitude maintained :smalltongue:

And? I don't see what your point is?


Is the point I'm trying to make that unobvious? It's perfectly reasonable than an NPC will have an ability that you won't be able to learn, simply because it would take enough time and effort that the campaign itself is slightly more pressing.

And? The campaign revolves around the PCs. If I want my PC to spend the next thirty years researching a spell, that's what my PC does. Whether or not that's the logical thing to do, doesn't matter. the option should always be there, even if no one is going to take it. by stating that Spell A is completely off-limits to the PCs, you have effectively killed it as an option and destroyed the immersion of the world by stating that Wizqard A is the only one that knows Spell A, because "he's special."


But does it happen that often? And if the final result was an accident, you'd have to repeat that exact accident. And if you don't know how it works, then you're fighting up a hill from the start.

No, it doesn't happen often. You asked what the odds were and I gave you something that has happened wioth even greater odds. You didn't ask if something like that was a common occurence.

I have knowledge of how the spell works considering that I've seen the foci and the somatic and material components, and I've heard the verbal component.


If you want to put your character out of action for that long, you probably deserve whatever spell it is that you're trying to learn, considering that the rest of the party will be levels ahead of you by then.

And? As I stated before, it should always be an option, even if no one will take it, simply so that the feeling of a living breathing world is maintained.


You know, I find it odd that so many people are arguing that if one human can get x ability, then any human should be capable of getting it, otherwise versimilitude is broken, considering most (if not all) fantasy I've read involved characters from heroic, to villainous, to minor bit players that had unique abilities that no one else had, or could even obtain.

Ah well, I suppose it is to be expected living in the era of entitlement.:smallfrown:

I never said that any human should be capable of getting it. I said that any human with equal ability should be capable of getting it.


Well, it's not like explaining it better changes the intention. I can and have used a wide variety of NPC escape strategies, and they worked within their worlds, power of plot or no. It's just that either way, the end result is the same, and the reason why that result came about is the same.

So the direct answer to the question is yes, I have a wide suspension of disbelief. If you don't, that's just super, but don't sit here and tell me I can only run or play a game by having 0 suspension of disbelief.

I'm the exact opposite. I can't stand it in Science Fiction when they don't explain how they are capable of travelling faster than light. I don't care if it's only a semi-realistic answer, as long as there is an adequate answer.

Matthew
2008-01-30, 04:05 PM
Conan was a 1st edition barbarian (Check your Dieties and Demigods for stats)

Heh, heh. That'll be why I said 2e.


But most of your disagreements come from you being from an edition where the DM was encouraged to have skeletons shoot their phalanges as magic missiles and creating quartlings. :smallamused:

Well, D20 does seem to encourage a rather straight jacketed point of view, but I am not sure the fact that I have played AD&D (warts and all) makes much difference to my point of view, except in the same way that experience of playing Savage Worlds might.


Dead but correct philosophers aside, I think that tends to happen on this board because one person makes a sweeping generalization, another disagrees with the generality of the notion, and the first (who tends to think in generalizations) accuses the second of a position they never advocated, forcing the second to defend the position they took and so on.

I would say that's a fair assessment; however, I think it's when a generalisation is couched as an abolsolute that the knives come out. "I don't like X because it will result in Y" appears to be a very common formulation.

Rutee
2008-01-30, 04:07 PM
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.

Regardless, it just seems to be a very strange board sometimes, where you can only exist on the absolute end of a spectrum and things never fall outside of black or white.

Artanis
2008-01-30, 04:09 PM
And? I don't see what your point is?
Mostly that if you want fluff that has no impact on mechanics, make the fluff you want that has no impact on mechanics. If you want them to theoretically be able to learn that uberspell, nothing's stopping you from just saying, "yeah, sure, but not right now because it'll take too long in game time" and moving on. The end mechanical effect - the player not learning the spell - is literally identical in every way to the mechanical effect of just saying "no, you can't", so if making it a theoretically possible but effectively impossible option, just go ahead and do so.

Jayabalard
2008-01-30, 04:11 PM
Conan was a 1st edition barbarian (Check your Dieties and Demigods for stats) But most of your disagreements come from you being from an edition where the DM was encouraged to have skeletons shoot their phalanges as magic missiles and creating quartlings. :smallamused:I'm pretty sure he wasn't in either of my copy of Deities and Demigods.

He was statted out as a fighter/thief as I recall; check CB1 (Conan Unchained!) and CB2 (Conan Against Darkness!). I don't recall if he appeared in RS1 (Red Sonja Unconquered).

Matthew
2008-01-30, 04:13 PM
I'm pretty sure he wasn't in either of my copy of Deities and Demigods.

He was statted out as a fighter/thief as I recall; check CB1 (Conan Unchained!) and CB2 (Conan Against Darkness!). I don't recall if he appeared in RS1 (Red Sonja Unconquered).

Is he not in the rare version with the Cthulu mythos? (I don't have that one, but I assumed that was what Horseboy was referring to).

Ominous
2008-01-30, 04:17 PM
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.

Regardless, it just seems to be a very strange board sometimes, where you can only exist on the absolute end of a spectrum and things never fall outside of black or white.

Not entirely true. People naturally divide others into people who are a part of their group and people who are outside of their group. It's not that people only think there is a black or white viewpoint and no others. It's that people only care if you support their view, and, if you don't, you are an outsider. It doesn't matter if you are gray, off-white, or light black; if you do not adhere to the group enough to be considered part of it, you are an outsider, and will be treated the same as any other outsider, even if the other outsiders are the complete opposites, instead of gray like you.

Rutee
2008-01-30, 04:18 PM
Not entirely true. People naturally divide others into people who are a part of their group and people who are outside of their group. It's not that people only think there is a black or white viewpoint and no others. It's that people only care if you support their view, and, if you don't, you are an outsider. It doesn't matter if you are gray, off-white, or light black; if you do not adhere to the group enough to be considered part of it, you are an outsider, and will be treated the same as any other outsider, even if the other outsiders are the complete opposites, instead of gray like you.

Maybe 2ch is on the right track then, since it's custom for everyone on the board to be anonymous. Means you MUST respond to an argument, not to your perception of the person posting it. In theory at least.

Tormsskull
2008-01-30, 04:20 PM
Ok....

As someone already said, there are so many little things that people are talking about, that it is getting hard to nail down the issues so to speak. I'm going to try to summarize them.

1.) NPCs should follow the same mechanics as the PCs.


This would mean that a DM shouldn't have arbitrary statistics for a NPC, they should be statted up with a race and a class.

Example:

Joe the farmer is a Commoner 1 with 4 ranks in Profession (Farmer) and 10 Str, 10 Dex, 10 Con, 9 Int, 10 Wis, 11 Cha. His BAB is +0, his saves are all +0.

Or, I could simply write:

Joe is a farmer who has some experience in farming.

If the PCs ask "What is Joe?" I say "A farmer." His stats don't matter because he is just Joe.

Personally, I'd prefer not to have to stat out each NPC, and assume that they are completely average unless it is otherwise listed


2.) NPCs shouldn't be allowed to have special skills/feats/abilities/spells that are not available to the PCs


Bob walks over to the PC party, and though his lips don't move, he speaks to them in their minds. One of the PCs says "How did he do that?" As the DM I respond "I don't know, how did he?"

Maybe Bob has an undefined magical ability that lets him do that. Maybe Bob is a special race that can communicate telepathically. Now, whatever it happens to be, if the PCs try to discover how Bob is doing that, and take the appropriate steps to do so, they should have the ability to discover how Bob is communicating to them.

If it turns out to be a spell that falls on the wizard/sorceror spell list, a wizard or sorceror should be able to learn it assuming they have whatever the DM requires of them, respectively (maybe a book or scroll for a wizard, and maybe seeing the spell cast several times for a sorceror).

If it turns out it is a racial ability, maybe the PCs discover that by researching in a vast library and they find out that a certain humanoid race called "Zardiaks" are able to communicate telepathically. They run into Bob again and ask him if he is a Zardiak, and he says yes.

As the DM, up until this point the only thing I wrote down about Zardiaks might have been a paragraph or two of fluff/substance and "can communicate telepathically". If a player asks if he can be a Zardiak, I'd THEN flesh them out entirely, and meet with that player and go over LA and abilities and such, and see if they still wanted to be that race.

So, on this issue, I'd say the DM is allowed to give the NPCs any kind of abilities/skills/classes/PrCs, races, etc. The DM should have some rationale as to why the NPC has the ability, and the reason should determine if the PCs could possibly learn/use the ability.

Ominous
2008-01-30, 04:21 PM
Mostly that if you want fluff that has no impact on mechanics, make the fluff you want that has no impact on mechanics. If you want them to theoretically be able to learn that uberspell, nothing's stopping you from just saying, "yeah, sure, but not right now because it'll take too long in game time" and moving on. The end mechanical effect - the player not learning the spell - is literally identical in every way to the mechanical effect of just saying "no, you can't", so if making it a theoretically possible but effectively impossible option, just go ahead and do so.

No, because you've destroyed the immersion. That's comparable to an author writing at the climax of the fight scene, where the BBEG has the hero prone on the ground at his mercy, "The hero wins, because he's the hero and of course he's going to win." without revealing how the hero wins. Yes, most people with the intelligence of a monkey, knows that the hero is going to win (not always, but most of the time he/she does), but the author isn't going to be an idiot and completely destroy the illusion of a living, breathing world. It's the same for a DM. The option MUST be there, or you've made it feel more like a game, not a world.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-01-30, 04:23 PM
Does anyone know if GURPS does this well?
What? Consistency?

Oh, yeah. Pretty much every single freakin' thing is built with the same point system, for one. And even when you need something more unique, it's largely a matter of tweaking it out with the library of enhancements and limitations. Of course, the whole thing sticks with the "Generic" part of the game's name in letting any ability represent almost anything you need.

Like D&D most everything uses the same mechanic. But since GURPS is based on 3d6, you wind up with results that skew towards the average (meaning even probabilities of success are consistent).

Of course, as someone else on the board once said, GURPS isn't so much a game itself. It requires a lot of prep work to start a campaign in order to set up the baseline measurements for what can be considered consistent. Of course, if you don't do that kind of work, then the game can be "'Shrooms and Acid." But the rulebooks strongly stresses that prep work and give you the tools and hints necessary to play it out. And to the best of my knowledge, the purpos various worldbooks and other supplementary materials is to give you not-quite-as-generic settings with most of the prep work required for consistency already done for you.

Disclaimer: I've yet to actually play a game of GURPs. I got the primary sourcebooks just a few weeks ago and am just going by theoretical analysis.


I have knowledge of how the spell works considering that I've seen the foci and the somatic and material components, and I've heard the verbal component.
Heh! Yeah, consider that in 3e you can potentially identify a spell you've never ever encountered before just from those items. Kinda points to the idea that magic follows pretty standard rules in such a way that most effects can be pretty easily reverse engineered, doesn't it?

...Why does this thread only move fast when I'm in the middle of typing up a post?

Rutee
2008-01-30, 04:24 PM
...Yeah, this forum runs on false dichotomies and a world where there is no gray.

Ominous
2008-01-30, 04:26 PM
Bob walks over to the PC party, and though his lips don't move, he speaks to them in their minds. One of the PCs says "How did he do that?" As the DM I respond "I don't know, how did he?"

Maybe Bob has an undefined magical ability that lets him do that. Maybe Bob is a special race that can communicate telepathically. Now, whatever it happens to be, if the PCs try to discover how Bob is doing that, and take the appropriate steps to do so, they should have the ability to discover how Bob is communicating to them.

If it turns out to be a spell that falls on the wizard/sorceror spell list, a wizard or sorceror should be able to learn it assuming they have whatever the DM requires of them, respectively (maybe a book or scroll for a wizard, and maybe seeing the spell cast several times for a sorceror).

If it turns out it is a racial ability, maybe the PCs discover that by researching in a vast library and they find out that a certain humanoid race called "Zardiaks" are able to communicate telepathically. They run into Bob again and ask him if he is a Zardiak, and he says yes.

As the DM, up until this point the only thing I wrote down about Zardiaks might have been a paragraph or two of fluff/substance and "can communicate telepathically". If a player asks if he can be a Zardiak, I'd THEN flesh them out entirely, and meet with that player and go over LA and abilities and such, and see if they still wanted to be that race.

So, on this issue, I'd say the DM is allowed to give the NPCs any kind of abilities/skills/classes/PrCs, races, etc. The DM should have some rationale as to why the NPC has the ability, and the reason should determine if the PCs could possibly learn/use the ability.

Exactly! You have effectively summed up my position. Thank you.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-30, 04:29 PM
I would say that's a fair assessment; however, I think it's when a generalisation is couched as an abolsolute that the knives come out. "I don't like X because it will result in Y" appears to be a very common formulation.

That's what I was going for really. It's the universal statements that tend to get the fire started. Which, as I'll explain below, is why I quoted Mill.


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.

That is also why programmers work within a limited frame work. Logicians however also have the Universal Quantifier (For all x...) and that quote is is referring to the testing of universal statements (old school philosophical notions for example). It's the flip side of the notion that any universal proposition can seem to work so long as you only apply it in favorable circumstances.

I brought it up because it is the reason extremes tend to be part of discussion on the boards. When someone makes a universal statement (which happens all too often), the quickest way to disprove it is to test it in what would be an unfavorable extreme. That way you have already disproven the universality of the propsition and can work toward seeing if it is true some of the time or not.

Oh, I'd be careful comparing J.S. Mill poorly to a logician considering he was arguably the most important logician alive when he wrote the statement I quoted.


Regardless, it just seems to be a very strange board sometimes, where you can only exist on the absolute end of a spectrum and things never fall outside of black or white.

Spend some more time here. There are plenty of reasonable posters around. Matthew, for example, is one of them. I, for example, am not. :smallbiggrin:

Ominous
2008-01-30, 04:29 PM
...Yeah, human civilization runs on false dichotomies and a world where there is no gray.

Fixed your post for you.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-30, 04:43 PM
1.) NPCs should follow the same mechanics as the PCs.


This would mean that a DM shouldn't have arbitrary statistics for a NPC, they should be statted up with a race and a class.

Example:

Joe the farmer is a Commoner 1 with 4 ranks in Profession (Farmer) and 10 Str, 10 Dex, 10 Con, 9 Int, 10 Wis, 11 Cha. His BAB is +0, his saves are all +0.

Or, I could simply write:

Joe is a farmer who has some experience in farming.

If the PCs ask "What is Joe?" I say "A farmer." His stats don't matter because he is just Joe.

Personally, I'd prefer not to have to stat out each NPC, and assume that they are completely average unless it is otherwise listed




I agree, although I don't think that's exactly what they are arguing. They are saying that by having the default rule be that if you stat out an NPC then you do it in the same manner as if it were a PC then you promote versimilitude because the mechanics bleed into the RP.



2.) NPCs shouldn't be allowed to have special skills/feats/abilities/spells that are not available to the PCs


Bob walks over to the PC party, and though his lips don't move, he speaks to them in their minds. One of the PCs says "How did he do that?" As the DM I respond "I don't know, how did he?"

Maybe Bob has an undefined magical ability that lets him do that. Maybe Bob is a special race that can communicate telepathically. Now, whatever it happens to be, if the PCs try to discover how Bob is doing that, and take the appropriate steps to do so, they should have the ability to discover how Bob is communicating to them.

If it turns out to be a spell that falls on the wizard/sorceror spell list, a wizard or sorceror should be able to learn it assuming they have whatever the DM requires of them, respectively (maybe a book or scroll for a wizard, and maybe seeing the spell cast several times for a sorceror).

If it turns out it is a racial ability, maybe the PCs discover that by researching in a vast library and they find out that a certain humanoid race called "Zardiaks" are able to communicate telepathically. They run into Bob again and ask him if he is a Zardiak, and he says yes.

As the DM, up until this point the only thing I wrote down about Zardiaks might have been a paragraph or two of fluff/substance and "can communicate telepathically". If a player asks if he can be a Zardiak, I'd THEN flesh them out entirely, and meet with that player and go over LA and abilities and such, and see if they still wanted to be that race.

So, on this issue, I'd say the DM is allowed to give the NPCs any kind of abilities/skills/classes/PrCs, races, etc. The DM should have some rationale as to why the NPC has the ability, and the reason should determine if the PCs could possibly learn/use the ability.


I totally agree.


Why does this thread only move fast when I'm in the middle of typing up a post?

Because that is the nature of the OotS Boards. That and false dichotomys.


Fixed your post for you.

You are aware that doing that is not a counter argument right?

horseboy
2008-01-30, 04:55 PM
Is he not in the rare version with the Cthulu mythos? (I don't have that one, but I assumed that was what Horseboy was referring to).
Yup, Cthulthu, Conan, Elric and uh, Grey Mouser and crew.

RukiTanuki
2008-01-30, 05:11 PM
Sigh, the boards are trying to eat this one. Thank you Notepad! :D


This is exactly what many of us are saying, but the other side doesn't seem to understand...

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:

(Bold Text Originally Posted by Daimbert)
Okay, I'm going to sum up my views on this thread, disagree as you wish:

1) In order to build a world, NPCs should have rules that determine what they do and how they generally go about life.
Agreed, clearly, but the discussion seems to center on the relative importance of whether the rules and limitations players have for selecting their PC's abilities are an inherent part of the world setting, and therefore, rules and limitations that the DM should apply to the NPCs as well. Most notably, can NPCs demonstrate abilities the players cannot give their PCs? If so, which reasons are appropriate? (Examples: the ability is in a book banned for player use, the PC requisite skills/feats are impossible to acquire, the in-world requirements are either impossible or heavily tied to circumstances the PC can't control, or the PC simply isn't given the opportunity through sheer DM fiat.)

My own thoughts are that the campaign world is big and mysterious, and the PCs are not omniscient. There are many things in the world they don't see or understand (hence the need for Knowledge checks). It breaks my sense of immersion that I (as DM) am interacting with real characters, if they insist that no knowledge, no magic, no physical feat lies beyond their grasp, if only the player could see more rules. I reserve my right to grant NPCs abilities without drafting PC rules, creating the latter only if a player expresses interest, and their inclusion makes for a better game.

2) Those rules should be known to the PCs, since they live in the world and many of them have wonderful skill checks on various things related to knowledge so they can certainly know at least part of this.
The way NPCs live and work should be known to the players, as their characters live around these people. That's obvious. The abilities of the NPCs represented through stats should interact with the world itself the same way a PC using the same ability would work. I don't think that's being argued.

However, I consider creating reasonable NPC stats a primary goal, with "use of the PC creation rules" not as a secondary goal, but merely a tool, used to better achieve that goal when appropriate. I will choose a character with good stats made off-the-cuff, over an NPC with ubercheese (or worse, stats that aren't even usable) done by-the-book. An NPC can provoke the suspension of disbelief with either method; hence, my initial theory that "applying PC creation rules all the time makes more realistic NPCs" was a fallacy.

3) The easiest way to give NPCs rules that the PCs know is to give them the same rules as PCs. After all, the PCs should know the rules by which the world works for them, right?
NPC creation using PC guidelines is certainly the easiest method to use. I question, however, whether it's the best method to realize every NPC concept. As mentioned, PCs can't know everything about, say, magic, or they'd never need to make Knowledge checks when they see something new. If I present a unique individual with an ability not seen before, and I do not expect the players to take interest in that ability, I reserve my right to use that ability without taking the unnecessary effort of drafting PC creation rules for a one-round action for a (potentially) one-off NPC.

There's another significant thing here that I haven't seen discussed. There are a wealth of abilities that make for very interesting BBEG encounters, but would be campaign-smashing in the hands of a player. That's why there's so many "monsters" (who seem exempt from the discussion as currently running) with once-per-day abilities and a very high LA (or LA --), the LA serving as Wizard's subtle warning: "Hey, this works as an opponent but not as a PC." And of course, the idea that PCs should have access to every ability ever written indirectly led to one of the most broken spells in the game (polymorph).

4) Not giving the NPCs rules leads to an inconsistent world and the inability of PCs to figure out how NPCs work or what they can do, which they should be able to know, being in the world and all and having all those wonderful knowledge checks.
No one's arguing "do not give the NPCs rules," so this falls apart pretty fast. Not specifically using PC creation guidelines can lead to NPCs made with unreasonable abilities; these abilities can lead to the NPC performing actions that go beyond "something I don't recognize or understand (yet, perhaps)" to "something that doesn't seem possible." This, in turn, can lead to disillusionment. However, this whole slippery slope is a bit like saying "going to a new barber results in you becoming bald"; there's ample opportunity along the way to avoid the fate described as a foregone conclusion.

Again, unless the PCs are omniscient, they're going to run into someone who does something they've never seen. Thus, to truly provide a living world, your PHB-memorizing players need to play along. My players don't memorize spell lists for classes they're not currently playing, and they don't insist their players have knowledge of every magical discipline. If a woodsy character in hide armor with a scimitar made lightning coming from his hands, my players do not interrupt with the following: "Wait, that's not how Call Lightning works! Gimme the book... hrm, it's not a Lightning Bolt either (though that'd be ridiculous, using Lightning Bolt instead of Call Lightning, snerk). I guess Ruki's homebrewing again. Quick, let's knock this guy out so I can Charm him into scribing a scroll; I'll learn the arcane version for my book.") My players, thankfully, have seen guys in the woods throw lightning before; when a guy throwing BIGGER lightning comes around, they're in character, focused on avoiding the bigger lightning and trying to prevent more lightning from heading their direction in the future.

I'm seeing a lot of wizard-think in the comments: the idea that, because I learned magic through a strict discipline, the better I understand that discipline and its rigid rule structure, the better I understand magic. Which is exactly why, in the context of a campaign world, wizards get flustered when sorcerors and warmages and beguilers and swordsages and shadowcasters come along and throw around abilities wizards can't emulate; thus the wizard just dismisses their magic as "crude" and "inferior" as a result. (/me waits for the first "but wizards ARE better!" response.) The rules present (and keep on presenting) new classes that approach magic differently and do things that other magic wielders can't, simply by virtue of approaching this mysterious force from another angle. I think, if your players dismiss anything (magic notably) that doesn't fit what they know about magic, they've lost a lot of the fun of magic and its potential. In this case, your game's sense of realism (as it applies to fireballs and demons) may be lost already.

5) Giving the NPCs the same rules as the PCs does NOT mean that things cannot occur outside of those rules or just for the sake of plot. It merely establishes the rules as a default and the DM can deviate as it makes sense and based on what their players will accept.
Well, if everyone agrees with this, then mine's just a rewording of the same goal: I reserve my right to step away from the PC creation guidelines regularly, and when I do, I'm focused on making the NPC make sense in the context of the world itself, not justifying my decision with Prestige Classes and Prerequisites. I stop using the tool provided to achieve my goal better the moment setting up the tool takes up more time and effort than adjusting the numbers and flavor of the final result crafted without said tool.

6) Giving the NPCs the same rules as the PCs does NOT mean that the DM has to fully flesh them out in terms of all the mechanics if they don't want to, as long as they make the abilities that they DO note consistent with those rules AND are aware that PCs may indeed in any number of ways create a situation where things that the DM didn't think the NPC would need become critical.
By the same token, if the NPC doesn't violate anything the PC knows about the world, provides the flavor, abilities, and power I would have had in mind while selecting classes and feats, and whose singular crime is "wasn't generated with rules the PCs use" ... in other words, if I got the NPC I wanted out of the deal and the end result makes context in-world ... then I don't care if I wrote the stats down using a Magic 8-Ball, as long as it consistently generates good results. As such, I'll continue to use whatever method is fast and reliable. :D

Jayabalard
2008-01-30, 05:13 PM
Hmm, I don't recall whether the Cthullu mythos was represented in my books (I wasn't particularly a fan), so perhaps that explains it.

Edit: or perhaps not.


Yup, Cthulthu, Conan, Elric and uh, Grey Mouser and crew.hmm, well, I know Elric and the Grey mouser were in mine... I just don't remember Conan, and considering that I got into D&D specifically because of Conan, you'd think that I'd remember him... then again, it's been quite a while since I've picked that particular book up, so who knows.


I'm pretty sure that I could not disagree with you more. There need to be basic consistances in the world you are creating or there is NO CHANCE of it having versimilitude. I'm specifically disagreeing with the "any inconsistencies break verisimilitude" (which is a sweeping generalization), so by consistency I mean 100% consistency. That's not required for verisimilitude or good story.

Certainly, different people have differing tastes as to what level of consistency that they want in their games.

There's nothing wrong with different people doing magic in very different ways, or people having odd powers that others don't; building NPC without being wedded to the PC creation rules just means that you have options to add npcs that don't fit the normal molds, and to fine tune those to be exactly what you want. To me, that means they are much more believable characters.

It's not important for the players to be able to create characters with all of the same abilities that are available to NPCs, just like they shouldn't be able to create magic items with all of the same effects as artifacts. Nor is it important that the players know all of the rules involved (or even i there are rules).


If your mideval setting suddenly has cars, and then rockets, and then doesn't again without any explanation of a governing principle or say, players and NPCs grow and lose limbs/change races etc without any explanation or pattern your players aren't going to buy it.That depends on the players, no? Some players will buy that just fine (it doesn't really sound much worse than some text adventures)

Woot Spitum
2008-01-30, 05:36 PM
All right, before I make my argument, I want to make one thing clear: I think the idea of the DMPC that adventures along with the party is an abomination that should never have a place in any game. So when I refer to NPC's in combat, I refer to them solely as antagonists. I don't like NPC's fighting alongside my players, and if I had no choice but to let them, I would want the players to write up their stats and run them in combat.


I had always thought 'talent' in D&D was represented by ability scores. Hence, why only characters with certian stats (CHA for sorcerers for example) could cast some spells. I hadn't realized that 'talent level' was something arbitrarily determined by the DM and assigned to NPCs and PCs alike without reference to the game statics. My bad.Well, the analogy isn't perfect. After all, there is no real world equivilant to being able to hold up the sky because you are the son of Zeus(Heracles), or heal any wound you receive given time (Wolverine), or be able to heal others because of your heritage(Aragorn). Are things like this balanced or fair? No. But do they make for interesting story material? And to be sure, I certainly do not mind letting PC's have unique powers and abilities that no one else gets when they create their characters. At the same time, I expect them to accept that they may not be able to ever learn every spell cast by the evil wizard they just killed.





Bitter much? Seriously though, this is not what is being advocated. If you recall, the very thing you quote mentions hard work. There is a marked difference bettween a game design that says 'you want y ability that NPC z has? Ok, but it has a long list of prerequs and will take your character a long time to get.' and 'sorry, that's for NPC's only. No matter how much effort you put it, you can never have it.'Not really. I merely want things to move along, as opposed to the game grinding to a halt simply because an NPC enemy cast an electrical version of Melf's Acid Arrow and now all the PC's want to learn it now. And I am not bitter. Well, not much.:smallwink: I do find the whole "if I want it, I deserve to have it" attitude annoying at times, when referring to luxuries. It reminds me too much of those smarmy Lexus commercials.



Well, you are not 'obligated' to keep from saying 'rocks fall, everyone dies' every time one of your players does something unexpected either. It just means your group will probably not have as much fun.I think there is a good bit of difference between TPKing for arbitrary reasons and simply telling the players that you would prefer it if they kept the "kids in a candy store" mentality to a minimum whenever an enemy NPC uses an ability they don't immediately recognize.




How exactly does one determine this? I think it makes perfect sense for any character of any class when faced with a truly neat ability they see an NPC use to want to be able to do it too, if only to be on even footing with future potential enemies.Really? Even if the party of LG types sees an evil cleric gain power by ripping a soul out of the body of a minion to regain a spell or two, rather than be shocked or horrified at such a vile act, it is perfectly normal of them to think: "Cool. I want to do that." I know that this is a rather extreme example, but if a player in one of my games wants to learn one of the abilities of a fallen foe, he better have a pretty good in-character reason. This isn't MegaMan after all.:smallamused:

Rutee
2008-01-30, 05:39 PM
Really? Even if the party of LG types sees an evil cleric gain power by ripping a soul out of the body of a minion to regain a spell or two, rather than be shocked or horrified at such a vile act, it is perfectly normal of them to think: "Cool. I want to do that." I know that this is a rather extreme example, but if a player in one of my games wants to learn one of the abilities of a fallen foe, he better have a pretty good in-character reason. This isn't MegaMan after all.:smallamused:

...Excuse me, I need to go write a setup for this in New Mage.

horseboy
2008-01-30, 06:09 PM
Well, with the new article, then we can see WHY NPC's are different from PC's. All the PC's use magic. Mundane NPCs (read those without PC classes) don't. That's why they're being built on two different systems.


Wizards, warlocks, clerics, sorcerers, bards, paladins, and even rogues, fighters, rangers, and other adventurers call upon personally derived threads of magic to cast mighty spells, enforce pacts with enigmatic entities, heal injury, ward against evil, or accomplish physical feats that transcend purely mortal means.

Edit:

...Excuse me, I need to go write a setup for this in New Mage.
Does nWoD have Salubri?

Ominous
2008-01-30, 07:01 PM
You are aware that doing that is not a counter argument right?

I'm not arguing against it. I firmly believe that.


I'm seeing a lot of wizard-think in the comments: the idea that, because I learned magic through a strict discipline, the better I understand that discipline and its rigid rule structure, the better I understand magic. Which is exactly why, in the context of a campaign world, wizards get flustered when sorcerors and warmages and beguilers and swordsages and shadowcasters come along and throw around abilities wizards can't emulate; thus the wizard just dismisses their magic as "crude" and "inferior" as a result. (/me waits for the first "but wizards ARE better!" response.) The rules present (and keep on presenting) new classes that approach magic differently and do things that other magic wielders can't, simply by virtue of approaching this mysterious force from another angle. I think, if your players dismiss anything (magic notably) that doesn't fit what they know about magic, they've lost a lot of the fun of magic and its potential. In this case, your game's sense of realism (as it applies to fireballs and demons) may be lost already.

It depends on the campaign setting. In my setting the wizards are the ultimate scholars of magic. They can, through study, emulate any other caster and can learn ANY spell. The other casters ARE inferior, but they get benefits from their inferior use of magic, and the wizards do have disadvantages.

Yahzi
2008-01-30, 08:30 PM
No, in fact, I do not.
Well, that explains our different views, then.


If you don't, that's just super, but don't sit here and tell me I can only run or play a game by having 0 suspension of disbelief.
See, the thing is, we aren't.

Even if 4e makes the NPCs follow the same rules as the PCs, you can easily ignore this rule and make up whatever random crazy stuff you want. Your ability to believe anything is not hampered by a system that is consistent.

However, the reverse is not true. While you can ignore consistency quite easily, we cannot inject it without a lot of effort.

What we are asking for is that the rules of D&D be written in such a way as to allow both you and us to play it the way we want. What 4e is actually doing is writing it so that only you can play.

Basically, 4e is going to require everyone to have a wide suspension of disbelief. And I don't think that's a very smart market move...

Yahzi
2008-01-30, 08:31 PM
See, that is what i've been saying this whole time. Did you read what i said or did you come to it on your own?
It's my impression from a wide variety of sources, of which, I must confess, you are one.

:smallsmile:

Yahzi
2008-01-30, 08:45 PM
Simple. The advancement system given for PCs is for adventurers. Non-adventurers don't bother to advance in all categories; ivory-tower researcher-type wizards
That's a good idea; but it's not D&D. The DMG explicitly provides the Expert and the Sage classes. and they follow the same ludicrous "I can fish better than you so I can take a battle-ax to the head and still laugh" mechanic.


But letting NPCs use 'Non-adventurer advancement' that doesn't advance everything the way an NPC would makes perfect sense, and allows for easier-to-generate, more-believable NPCs.
It also borks the CR system right out the window. What CR is a guy who can cast 9th lvl spells but has 1d4 hitpoints?

Now maybe you weren't planning on having your Expert fight the PCs. Well, any seasoned GM should know how safe that plan is... :smallbiggrin:


...well, from the looks of things, you are going to be the one who will have to change rules, come fourth edition.
Ha! I have my Tome of Anti-Silliniess right in front of me. It's called the PHB 3.5. :smallbiggrin:


You see a wizard. When you attack him, it turns out he was an Eldritch Knight, and higher-level than you thought!
Um. Now you're arguing for my side. :smallsmile:


Players shouldn't be able to judge this by looking at him.
Then how can they make any decisions? If they can't judge anything by appearences, then they have to rely on the GM to tell them what to do, when to do it, and how to do it.

Now mind you I'm not saying they can't be wrong or deceived sometimes. But to blatantly state that appearances mean nothing, and the PCs know nothing about what other people can do, is to reduce the game to a very narrow set of railroad tracks.


They also shouldn't be able to flip open a book and say "ok, I think he's class XYZ... that means he has abilities A, B, and C..."
If they're a high-level wizard, and he's a wizard, then they bloody well should be able to. What's the point of studying an arcane career for 20 years if you don't learn anything about the career?


That's just silly. Classes are abstractions intended to give PCs a way to advance in a balanced manner; for the most part, they don't exist in the game world. PCs can't look up and see a stat sheet;
Do you let your players see the damage dice a weapon has before they decide what kind of weapon to use?

Isn't that exactly the same thing?

The corallory here would be to assert that a longsword in the hands of an NPC does something other than 1d8 damage. If you think that's silly, then you're on my side again. :smallsmile:

as far as they're concerned, the Eldritch Knight and the straight Wizard are both just as much wizards, basically identical. One has studied combat arts a bit more, but that's the only difference... and nobody would suggest that he's any less a wizard for this (maybe he spent extra time training on that; a PC would have to give up a level. But NPCs can be any level and don't care about XP or ECL, so he might have simply spent more time training so that he mastered both.)


You're not making any sense at all, now.
It is entirely possible that there is an alternate explanation for your confusion that you have not yet considered. :smalltongue:


Anyone who is supposed to fight the PCs still uses the old system,
Apparently, in your world, players only fight who they are suppose to fight.

Railroad much? :smalltongue:

Seriously, the idea that you have two NPC generation systems is even more problematic than the OP. :smallbiggrin:

Yahzi
2008-01-30, 08:47 PM
2) Those rules should be known to the PCs, since they live in the world
An elegant way to sum up my many, many posts into a single sentence.

Rutee
2008-01-30, 08:52 PM
What we are asking for is that the rules of D&D be written in such a way as to allow both you and us to play it the way we want. What 4e is actually doing is writing it so that only you can play.
.....Did you miss the part where you can construct NPCs the same way you construct PCs? Because this entire rant seems predicated on a lack of the ability to use similar rules, which the MM is going to include as an option. It is in fact being written for us both. What's the problem?

Yahzi
2008-01-30, 08:57 PM
What I'm talking about is talent. For example, anyone can learn to play the guitar, but few, if any, will ever be able to play it as well as Jimi Hendrix, because he was born with the sort of talent that just doesn't come along every day.
You state that like it is a scientific fact. It is not.

While it is clear that people have different tendencies, strengths, and inclinations, it is not clear that genius is merely a product of the genetic lottery.

We used to think that kings were just plain better, and now we don't.


The idea that a fantasy world can reflect this concept
You have run far afield of the conversation. The original question was whether NPCs could have the same "talents" as PCs, or vice versa.


Once again, that's not what I'm talking about.
I realize you don't think that is what you are talking about; it may not be what you intend to be talking about; but I assure you, it is.


What I'm talking about is the idea so many people (especially young people) have these days [/rant]


The idle chatterer is the sort who says that people nowadays are much more wicked than they used to be.
:smalltongue:


Or the the idea that because someone else has something, regardless of the hard work they put into obtaining it, that everyone deserves it, regardless of whether or not everyone is willing to put the same amount of effort into obtaining it.
Now you're arguing our side! If the players do what the NPCs did, then they should be able to get what the NPCs got. And vice versa!

So you totally agree with us. Excellent! :smallbiggrin:

Yahzi
2008-01-30, 09:01 PM
Consistency is not required for verisimilitude
At least Rutee had the sense to recognize that her suspension of disbelief is different than other people's.

Trust me, Jay; for the vast majority of the world, consistency is almost indistinguishable from verisimilitude.


nor is it required to having a good story. Whether you prefer it, or like it at all, is a matter of preference.
So all perception of quality in stories is merely a matter of preference? Somebody call the Pulitzer Prize people and let them know they're wasting their time.

Yahzi
2008-01-30, 09:07 PM
.....Did you miss the part where you can construct NPCs the same way you construct PCs?
I thought the issue in this thread was that 4e was explicitly not going to do that.


Because this entire rant seems predicated on a lack of the ability to use similar rules, which the MM is going to include as an option. It is in fact being written for us both. What's the problem?
The problem is that 4e is going to enshrine the notion that NPCs are a different species than PCs, even more so than 3e did, which was even worse than 2e. (In 2e most people were merely 0th level shrubbery; but when an NPC did break out of that and into levels, he was the same as the PCs. In 3e, NPCs get promoted to... Warrior. And Adept. Sucker classes designed to gimp them so the PCs can kill them without trouble. In 4e, apparently, PCs will just be an AC, HP total, and damage-per-round, scaled to CR. :smallyuk: )

Rutee
2008-01-30, 09:16 PM
I thought the issue in this thread was that 4e was explicitly not going to do that.
No, it's not.



The problem is that 4e is going to enshrine the notion that NPCs are a different species than PCs, even more so than 3e did, which was even worse than 2e. (In 2e most people were merely 0th level shrubbery; but when an NPC did break out of that and into levels, he was the same as the PCs. In 3e, NPCs get promoted to... Warrior. And Adept. Sucker classes designed to gimp them so the PCs can kill them without trouble. In 4e, apparently, PCs will just be an AC, HP total, and damage-per-round, scaled to CR.

They are. The entire sum and point, seemingly, is that you only need PCs and NPCs to run EXACTLY THE SAME if you want PERFECT VERSIMILITUDE. Maybe that's true, but I'm not interested in 100% perfect, utter consistency. I'm sure it'd help a bit if they were, but not on any scale me or my friends will find noticeable. Really, people will pick which of the two systems they prefer, regardless of what WotC puts in. And they still support both our options.

Really, what's the problem?

EvilElitest
2008-01-30, 09:22 PM
Indeed. How dare people assume they are equal, in any way, shape, or form; how dare they assume that success is a product of hard work, education, resources, and opportunities, rather than a divine blessing handed down from on high.

:smallannoyed:

Those bastards, with their ideas of a consistent world and clearly understood worlds



Wait.....
from
EE

VanBuren
2008-01-30, 09:28 PM
Those bastards, with their ideas of a consistent world and clearly understood worlds



Wait.....
from
EE

Yeah, those bastards, giving you multiple ways to create NPCs! Why can't there be only one way, y'know, the right one.

Wait.....

EvilElitest
2008-01-30, 09:31 PM
I'm talking about is the idea so many people (especially young people) have these days that to simply want something is to deserve it
Speaking of which, why do the PCs deserve those extra powers and abilities that aren't available to everybody to everyone else.


Yeah, those bastards, giving you multiple ways to create NPCs! Why can't there be only one way, y'know, the right one.

Wait.....

Yeah, i hate them. I hate them ever more when they claim that they needs such things like consistency and realism in their worlds. And how dare they point out the fact that the system apparently doesn't support their way of gaming and they will all be forced to ether not play 4th Edition or not enjoy the game they want to. Bastards.


Seems like his point that you, and people like you, aren't invited. He doesn't want to play with people who are more concerned with realism than story/gameplay

But Rutee, we go so far back, how could you exclude me like that :smallfrown: sniff, how could you be so cruel, you've made me cry

(goes home and sings angsty sterotypical teenager songs about how nobody understands me while listening to greenday's "In the end")


from
EE

VanBuren
2008-01-30, 09:33 PM
Yeah, i hate them. I hate them ever more when they claim that they needs such things like consistency and realism in their worlds. And how dare they point out the fact that the system apparently doesn't support their way of gaming and they will all be forced to ether not play 4th Edition or not enjoy the game they want to. Bastards.
from
EE

Those bastards and their lack of specific examples!

horseboy
2008-01-30, 09:38 PM
Speaking of which, why do the PCs deserve those extra powers and abilities that aren't available to everybody to everyone else.
Because all classes now do magic.

EvilElitest
2008-01-30, 09:38 PM
Those bastards and their lack of specific examples!

No, their specific examples and cries for consistency are what makes us mad at them, we are the ones who don't need to resort to specific examples, we just try to point out the holes in their generally stable argument and laugh at their attempt to hit all the many targets. Duh, don't you know the system? Do i have to repeat the rules all over again?

Because all classes now do magic.
1. How does that even start to make sense
2. However it is worth pointing out the 4E book does still say teh PCs are still unique compared to the monsters and NPCs, with special abilities and everything


Ah! Yes, I remember distinctly thinking "OK, he just leveled up in Half-Elf Paragon".

Thanks, EE, for pointing out how plot-driven mechanics just seem so very contrived. In contrast, if the NPCs behave like the PCs, with their own abilities and motivations but following the same rules, then the world functions organically. It's the difference between having a tense, pitched battle, and "All three enemies line up perfectly for your throw and your spear pierces all their heads in one clean shot, killing them instantly."
ether you are complimenting me (a far to rare thing) or are being really sarcastic. If the former, thanks happy to oblige, if the latter, well then [insert witty retort here]

from
EE

Matthew
2008-01-30, 09:55 PM
That's a good idea; but it's not D&D. The DMG explicitly provides the Expert and the Sage classes. and they follow the same ludicrous "I can fish better than you so I can take a battle-ax to the head and still laugh" mechanic.

Let's try and be a bit more precise here. It's not normal in D&D 3e/D20 to have NPCs without Classes and Levels. However, that is the only edition to apparently function exclusively by those rules. It looks like 4e is going to revert to type.

That said, it is possible to have NPCs that don't have a Class or Level in D20, but the rules aren't as open as previous editions as to what can be done with them.

A system with Classes and Levels does not have to implement them universally. It's not a dichotomy of absolutes.



Do you let your players see the damage dice a weapon has before they decide what kind of weapon to use?

Isn't that exactly the same thing?

The corallory here would be to assert that a longsword in the hands of an NPC does something other than 1d8 damage. If you think that's silly, then you're on my side again. :smallsmile:

The Player may see it, the Character does not. The Character may see a wide variety of blades that each handle in a different manner, but for game purposes they are all 'Long Swords' and do 1D8 Damage. That doesn't mean that you then have to say to the Player, "the Goblin attacks your Character with a Long Sword" (though this is likely very common). You might say "the Goblin attacks your Character with a wicked looking blade"; there is a difference and it is sometimes felt.

horseboy
2008-01-30, 09:57 PM
1. How does that even start to make sense
2. However it is worth pointing out the 4E book does still say teh PCs are still unique compared to the monsters and NPCs, with special abilities and everything

from
EE


Wizards, warlocks, clerics, sorcerers, bards, paladins, and even rogues, fighters, rangers, and other adventurers call upon personally derived threads of magic to cast mighty spells, enforce pacts with enigmatic entities, heal injury, ward against evil, or accomplish physical feats that transcend purely mortal means. So a fighter isn't just going to be someone skilled, but a physical adept, like in Shadowrun or more likely Earthdawn. (Yes, I'm going to be harping on this for a while, now) People that lack the innate magical talent can't have player classes. That's why they're built on a different system. If it's going to work like in Earthdawn, then you just assign skill levels (including melee, thrown or missile weapons) to what they need for the story. Since they don't do magic, then they won't get the class bonus stuff.

EvilElitest
2008-01-30, 10:13 PM
So a fighter isn't just going to be someone skilled, but a physical adept, like in Shadowrun or more likely Earthdawn. (Yes, I'm going to be harping on this for a while, now) People that lack the innate magical talent can't have player classes. That's why they're built on a different system. If it's going to work like in Earthdawn, then you just assign skill levels (including melee, thrown or missile weapons) to what they need for the story. Since they don't do magic, then they won't get the class bonus stuff.

are you pro or against?
from
EE

Jack Zander
2008-01-30, 11:17 PM
Hooray for Yahzi!

EDIT: Also... Hooray for EvilElitist!

EvilElitest
2008-01-30, 11:33 PM
Hooray for Yahzi!

EDIT: Also... Hooray for EvilElitist!

Wow, i never expected that, thanks a lot, hooray for Yahzi
(what am i being honored for again?)
Hooray for Jack Zander
from
EE

horseboy
2008-01-30, 11:39 PM
are you pro or against?
from
EE
It depends on how WotC screws up FASA's product.
Here let me give you an example of how it can be done well. (I'll try and convert the ED over to what I can of D&D 4, but not everything will)(Also note I'm a skill whore)

Obasa Obsidiman Warforged NPC (Smith)
Dex: 10 Str:22 Con:14 Int 16 Wis: 10 Cha:13 HP: 28
Defenses: Physical: 6 Spell 9 Social 7 Physical Armour: 8 Tower Shield, Natural Armour (Still not sure which is which in the new edition)
Languages: Dwarven, ObsidimanWarforged
Skills:
Melee Weapons 4/+9, Blacksmith 8/+13, Craft Armour 6/+13, Craft Weapon 6/+13, Economics 2/+9, Etiquette 1/9, Forge Blade 3/10, Haggle 3/9, Local Geography 1/8

Weapon Battle Axe +3 (Non-magical)This is a "bad-ass normal". It's got 53,100 LPXP worth of abilities. But what if it were a PC? Well, it would have the Discipline class of Weaponsmith, and with 53,100XP worth of upgrades would look like this:

Obasa Obsidiman Warforged Weaponsmith CircleLevel 6
Dex: 10 Str:22 Con: 14 Int: 19 Wis: 10 Cha: 13 HP: 53
Defenses: Physical: 6 Spell 10 Social 7 Physical Armour: 8 Tower Shield, Natural Armour Recovery Tests: 3/day, Recovery dice: d10
KarmaAction Points: 20
Skills:
Blacksmith: 4/+9, Climbing 3/+8, Disarm Trap 2/+7, Economics 1/+9, Etiquette 1/+9, First Impression 1/+7, Fishing 1/+9, Legend and Heroes 1/+9, Resist Taunt 2/+7, Runic Carving 3/+11, Search 2/+10, Swim 1/+10, Taunt 2/+8
Talents:
First Level:Weapon History 6/+14, Melee Weapons 6/+11, Karma Ritual Get-action-points-back ritual 4, Avoid Blow 6/+11, Forge Blade 6/+14, Steel Thought 6/+11, Second Circle: Durability 6(Hit point increases), Haggle 6/+12, Read & Write Languages: 6/+14, Third Level: Abate Curse 4/+11, Detect Weapon 4/+12 Forth Level: Weapon Weaving 6/+14, Speak Language 6/+14, Fifth Level: Warp Missile 4/+12, Temper Self 6/11, Ritual of the Ghost Master 3/11, Sixth Level: Spot Armour Flaw 1/9

1/2 magic: Craft Weapon/Armour: 3/+11

Weapon: Battle Axe +4 (Non-magical)
Okay, now why does this work? Well, because EVERYONE PC and NPC alike gets access to skills. What's different? PC classes get access to magic. Everything under Talents is a magical ability. They also get access to action points that they can spend on some magic an all 1/2 magic abilities. It also got more use out of Int so I bumped it up more. It also needed a few different skills because it's not staying home every day. It can also apply a bigger buff to his weapon.
Is it stronger because he's a PC class? Yes, but that's never been the problem.
Would it be as strong if it were a played PC or an NPC yes.
Why have The non-classed NPC version if the PC Classed NPC exists? Because 10% of the total population has the magical aptitude and drive needed to be an Adept PC class. So you still need "normal" people doing normal things.
How bad can WotC screw up this concept? I'm willing to be A LOT.

That took a lot longer to type than I thought it would.

Jack Zander
2008-01-30, 11:58 PM
Wow, i never expected that, thanks a lot, hooray for Yahzi
(what am i being honored for again?)
Hooray for Jack Zander
from
EE

Lawl. I'm hooraying people because every time I come on here, prepared to defend against counter agreements of my statements, someone else has already done it for me. Specifically, you and Yahzi.

Jack Zander
2008-01-31, 12:00 AM
How bad can WotC screw up this concept? I'm willing to be A LOT.

True story. We all know that Edition 4.5 will come out about 3 years from now with all the fixes that should be free online errata.

EDIT: It actually wouldn't surprise me if they are already working on 5th Edition. They simply put intended flaws into the system so they can "fix" it later, and with each new edition they "fix" things that aren't broken (like NPC creation rules). Where do you think THAC0 came from?

horseboy
2008-01-31, 12:08 AM
True story. We all know that Edition 4.5 will come out about 3 years from now with all the fixes that should be free online errata.
Well, if they were half competent, errata would be "On page 354 the Sword of Amazing Zappiness is referred to as a staff, it is a sword." "Because we just published rules to allow dragonborn to be able to tie short swords to their tails, we need to adjust the base tail damage down one die type." You know, small things, and reaction to newly published items, not "Holy crap! Don't use the Polymorph line of spells that's in the main rulebook! What were we smoking that day?"

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-01-31, 12:24 AM
Here's my problem with NPC's who don't follow the same rules as I do: we're both human(ish). Both of us are born with similar talents and abilities, so why should he be able to do something that I can't if my character is willing to put the effort into it? If I want to give my PC a level of expert in 3.x, I can. By the new rules, it looks like the difference will be more pronounced, and that leads to a break in verisimilitude for me because it makes my character seem less human. If I don't have the ability to (theoretically) gain the same ability NPC X is using, it makes me feel like there is something that different between the 2 of us beyond what there should be. I don't object to DMs not statting characters, I only object to those characters not following the rules of the world when they do get stats.

Rutee
2008-01-31, 12:25 AM
Incidentally, if Wizards stays true to form, it'll be about 6 years from 4e's release to 4th Ed Revised. People exaggerate somewhat how long it took between editions. Not criminally so, but exaggerate they do.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-31, 10:18 AM
I think the idea of the DMPC that adventures along with the party is an abomination that should never have a place in any game.

Agreed. With my group this can be particularly annoying because they will attempt to recruit NPC's into the party and occasionally I don't have a good enough reason prepared to say 'no' so I pretty much have to run one.


Well, the analogy isn't perfect. After all, there is no real world equivilant to being able to hold up the sky because you are the son of Zeus(Heracles), or heal any wound you receive given time (Wolverine), or be able to heal others because of your heritage(Aragorn). Are things like this balanced or fair? No. But do they make for interesting story material? And to be sure, I certainly do not mind letting PC's have unique powers and abilities that no one else gets when they create their characters. At the same time, I expect them to accept that they may not be able to ever learn every spell cast by the evil wizard they just killed.

Those are all unique powers that one individual has and by virtue of race (half-god, mutant, and Numonerian (sp?)). Those are fine with me so long as it's recognized and explainable to the PC's if they inquire, that this particular NPC can do it by virtue of a species trait they don't share. However, when this is extended into a class of otherwise fluff identical characters (NPC's) then it can be bad for the game. I'm of the view, which others clearly don't totally agree, that having separate mechanics for NPCs of the same race etc. makes this break in versimilitude more likley to happen.


Not really. I merely want things to move along, as opposed to the game grinding to a halt simply because an NPC enemy cast an electrical version of Melf's Acid Arrow and now all the PC's want to learn it now.

Well, if that's the concern I'm with you, but that seems to be an issue not really tied to the mechanics/fluff one we are talking about. That's just a player immaturity one. A mature group can also want to know what some thing was without the game grinding to hault simply by accepting the DM's reply of 'I'll tell you after the session'.


It reminds me too much of those smarmy Lexus commercials.

Agreed. I hate those. "It's christmas. Surprise your loved one with a 40k vehicle that uses the same engine as a 25k vehicle, neither of which spending decisions should be made alone in anything resembling a healthy relationship. She'll like it anyway. Really."



Really? Even if the party of LG types sees an evil cleric gain power by ripping a soul out of the body of a minion to regain a spell or two, rather than be shocked or horrified at such a vile act, it is perfectly normal of them to think: "Cool. I want to do that." I know that this is a rather extreme example, but if a player in one of my games wants to learn one of the abilities of a fallen foe, he better have a pretty good in-character reason. This isn't MegaMan after all.:smallamused:

Well, I think the LG party can have a good reason for wanting to know how the evil cleric did it. Mainly so they can figure out how it works, or learn it to potentially counterspell it. There are lots of reasons, although I'll admit I was thinking more along the lines of non-alignment related spells and should probably back off of the extreme position I took before. :smallfrown:


.....Did you miss the part where you can construct NPCs the same way you construct PCs? Because this entire rant seems predicated on a lack of the ability to use similar rules, which the MM is going to include as an option. It is in fact being written for us both. What's the problem?

Send me your copy of the completed 4e MM? :smallwink:


The entire sum and point, seemingly, is that you only need PCs and NPCs to run EXACTLY THE SAME if you want PERFECT VERSIMILITUDE. Maybe that's true, but I'm not interested in 100% perfect, utter consistency. I'm sure it'd help a bit if they were, but not on any scale me or my friends will find noticeable.

My general problem was that I took the OP to be saying something different than you are there. By labeling a relationship bettween the two a fallacy it is impled that you don't need the same mechanics to have perfect versimilitude.


Let's try and be a bit more precise here. It's not normal in D&D 3e/D20 to have NPCs without Classes and Levels. However, that is the only edition to apparently function exclusively by those rules. It looks like 4e is going to revert to type.


That, actually, is one of the things that made me prefer 3.x over the earlier editions I played. Because typically NPCs were functioning by the same rules as PC's DM decisions and combat frequently felt less arbitrary and railroaded. But, as we have discussed before, we have different preferences bettween editions.


It actually wouldn't surprise me if they are already working on 5th Edition. They simply put intended flaws into the system so they can "fix" it later, and with each new edition they "fix" things that aren't broken (like NPC creation rules). Where do you think THAC0 came from?

You give them too much credit. I have faith in the fact that they can screw it up entirely accidentally over and over again to release new editions.


People exaggerate somewhat how long it took between editions. Not criminally so, but exaggerate they do.

On this forum? Never! :smallbiggrin:

EvilElitest
2008-01-31, 12:22 PM
Lawl. I'm hooraying people because every time I come on here, prepared to defend against counter agreements of my statements, someone else has already done it for me. Specifically, you and Yahzi.

Glad to be of service, thanks for the support

Oh and great job Yahzi
from
EE

Woot Spitum
2008-01-31, 02:28 PM
Agreed. With my group this can be particularly annoying because they will attempt to recruit NPC's into the party and occasionally I don't have a good enough reason prepared to say 'no' so I pretty much have to run one.Your players actively want DMPC's? I suppose it's a compliment to your abilities as a DM that you can run DMPCs that the players don't want to kill within a session of their appearance.


Those are all unique powers that one individual has and by virtue of race (half-god, mutant, and Numonerian (sp?)). Those are fine with me so long as it's recognized and explainable to the PC's if they inquire, that this particular NPC can do it by virtue of a species trait they don't share. However, when this is extended into a class of otherwise fluff identical characters (NPC's) then it can be bad for the game. I'm of the view, which others clearly don't totally agree, that having separate mechanics for NPCs of the same race etc. makes this break in versimilitude more likley to happen.I suppose I'm one of the others that doesn't agree that seperate mechanics for NPC ruin versimilitude. I think that if players are too curious (or suspicious) about what happens behind the DM screen, versimilitude cannot be maintained, no matter what mechanics are being used. I would like for players to have a little trust in the DM.


Well, if that's the concern I'm with you, but that seems to be an issue not really tied to the mechanics/fluff one we are talking about. That's just a player immaturity one. A mature group can also want to know what some thing was without the game grinding to hault simply by accepting the DM's reply of 'I'll tell you after the session'. I completely agree on the first point. On the second point, however, I don't think a DM should always have to explain differences after a session. If I introduce a new organization that is simply a group of blue-skinned, white-haired human clerics that use a lot of elemental domain spells, but that I describe in game as a mysterious new race of warrior-mages, then the sense of wonder and mystery is ruined if I have to explain to my group after the session that these guys are just human clerics with some flavor tweaked.


Well, I think the LG party can have a good reason for wanting to know how the evil cleric did it. Mainly so they can figure out how it works, or learn it to potentially counterspell it. There are lots of reasons, although I'll admit I was thinking more along the lines of non-alignment related spells and should probably back off of the extreme position I took before. :smallfrown: Well, as I said, that is a rather extreme example.:smallwink: And I suppose I don't have too much of a problem letting the players look into it as long as they do so with the understanding that delving to deeply into the dark secrets of evil magic, even with good intentions, is to risk becoming corrupted by it's tainted power.:smallamused:

AKA_Bait
2008-01-31, 02:50 PM
Your players actively want DMPC's? I suppose it's a compliment to your abilities as a DM that you can run DMPCs that the players don't want to kill within a session of their appearance.

Well, I think it's more that I never plan to have any DMPC's at all but my players are usually sort of terrified about what I might throw at them, so they ask for help from any even remotely powerful looking (this can be any level from 5 below them and up. The brought one wizard along just so he could cast 'identify' for them...) NPC they meet.



I suppose I'm one of the others that doesn't agree that seperate mechanics for NPC ruin versimilitude. I think that if players are too curious (or suspicious) about what happens behind the DM screen, versimilitude cannot be maintained, no matter what mechanics are being used. I would like for players to have a little trust in the DM.

I'm sure this varies from group to group. At least two of the players in my group tend to metagame quite a bit. They enjoy playing that way so I allow it, although I don't prefer it.


ntroduce a new organization that is simply a group of blue-skinned, white-haired human clerics that use a lot of elemental domain spells, but that I describe in game as a mysterious new race of warrior-mages, then the sense of wonder and mystery is ruined if I have to explain to my group after the session that these guys are just human clerics with some flavor tweaked.

Well, true, but I think that for stuff like that a mature group will be satisfied with 'you will just have to find out later eh?' Mine usually are. They translate it into 'more will be revealed later in the story lunkheads!'


As I said, that is a rather extreme example.:smallwink: And I suppose I don't have too much of a problem letting the players look into it as long as they do so with the understanding that delving to deeply into the dark secrets of evil magic, even with good intentions, is to risk becoming corrupted by it's tainted power.:smallamused:

Heh. True. The main point is that I think it helps versimilitiude to have the option exist in the world, and the PCs be aware of it, even if it is set up in such a way ("dark powers will eat your soul if you learn it!") that their character never would actually want to do so.

RukiTanuki
2008-01-31, 04:11 PM
True story. We all know that Edition 4.5 will come out about 3 years from now with all the fixes that should be free online errata.

EDIT: It actually wouldn't surprise me if they are already working on 5th Edition. They simply put intended flaws into the system so they can "fix" it later, and with each new edition they "fix" things that aren't broken (like NPC creation rules). Where do you think THAC0 came from?

Hanlon's Razor: Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice. Though I usually reserve the label of stupidity for those who make bad decisions for bad reasons, when given ample opportunity to make a clearly presented good choice instead.

Can we just assume that someone after me will post a snarky comment to the extent of "I guess Wizards counts then," and save the internet a few bytes? :smalltongue:

EvilElitest
2008-01-31, 05:37 PM
No, it's not.


It is kinda, because apperently the PCs are the only ones with this special magic, NPCs are more like plot devices


They are. The entire sum and point, seemingly, is that you only need PCs and NPCs to run EXACTLY THE SAME if you want PERFECT VERSIMILITUDE. Maybe that's true, but I'm not interested in 100% perfect, utter consistency. I'm sure it'd help a bit if they were, but not on any scale me or my friends will find noticeable. Really, people will pick which of the two systems they prefer, regardless of what WotC puts in. And they still support both our options.

Rutee you complain about lack of greyness and then go onto this? I like verisimilitude, i enjoy worlds that make sense. I dislike Final Fantasy, 300, Eragon, some of assassin's creed, some of Ruroni kenshin and Kindom Hearts because the world doesn't make sense (though kindom hearts also has a bad plot and awful writing/acting). I like worlds that i feel like aren't existing solely as a stage for PC drama. However in the 3.5 system, we can both be happy. You can tweak NPCs not problem at all, and i can keep them the way they are (warrior classes exist for a reason). However in 4E, only you get happy, i don't. How is that fair?

from
EE

Ominous
2008-01-31, 05:48 PM
Do you watch Bleach any Evil Elitest? That's an anime that has recently started to grate against my dislike of inconsistency, and you could probably add it to your list.

EvilElitest
2008-01-31, 05:51 PM
Do you watch Bleach any Evil Elitest? That's an anime that has recently started to grate against my dislike of inconsistency, and you could probably add it to your list.

whoops, i forgot bleach

My deal with bleach is that it has some very cool aspects, but that damn inconsistency is just nerve wracking. That is a very good example

Others include Naurto and Grand theft auto, the new star wars

Now i admit a world can be slightly inconsistent, but it needs to still make logical sense. Full Metal Alchemist, Avatar (i haven't seen the latest ones however) and the first season of Death note are examples (the last one is a bit iffy) if i use only anime

Song of fire and ice is a great example
from
EE

Jack Zander
2008-01-31, 06:42 PM
the new star wars

Which are you talking about here? Inconsistencies within the first three movies, or inconsistencies between the original trilogy and the new trilogy (Obi-Wan not remembering R2-D2).

Rutee
2008-01-31, 06:43 PM
Send me your copy of the completed 4e MM?
The podcast explicitly says as much. I'm going by direct developer word, which I'm pretty sure is admissible as evidence.


My general problem was that I took the OP to be saying something different than you are there. By labeling a relationship bettween the two a fallacy it is impled that you don't need the same mechanics to have perfect versimilitude.

Yeah, but I'm not the OP :P


It is kinda, because apperently the PCs are the only ones with this special magic, NPCs are more like plot devices
Yeah, they /are/ 'plot' (you mean "Meta", I think) devices. Do you not, like, read any form of fiction ever?


Rutee you complain about lack of greyness and then go onto this? I like verisimilitude, i enjoy worlds that make sense. I dislike Final Fantasy, 300, Eragon, some of assassin's creed, some of Ruroni kenshin and Kindom Hearts because the world doesn't make sense (though kindom hearts also has a bad plot and awful writing/acting). I like worlds that i feel like aren't existing solely as a stage for PC drama. However in the 3.5 system, we can both be happy. You can tweak NPCs not problem at all, and i can keep them the way they are (warrior classes exist for a reason). However in 4E, only you get happy, i don't. How is that fair?
I knew I had you on ignore for a reason. How am I the only one happy in 4e? You can still use classes for NPCs the same as you can in 3e (It's not like they can really stop you from doing it in the first place, tbh). The developers have said as much. Why do you think you can't use classes for NPCs? As far as I can tell, All that's really happening is that the HD advancement rules have been expanded, and that there are much better guidelines for inventing new abilities or skills. Seriously, how are you not happy? Because your preference is no longer the system's preference, even if it is still supported? Because that would be a logical complaint, if a minor one.

horseboy
2008-01-31, 07:56 PM
It is kinda, because apperently the PCs are the only ones with this special magic, NPCs are more like plot devices

Rutee you complain about lack of greyness and then go onto this? I like verisimilitude, i enjoy worlds that make sense. I dislike Final Fantasy, 300, Eragon, some of assassin's creed, some of Ruroni kenshin and Kindom Hearts because the world doesn't make sense (though kindom hearts also has a bad plot and awful writing/acting). I like worlds that i feel like aren't existing solely as a stage for PC drama. However in the 3.5 system, we can both be happy. You can tweak NPCs not problem at all, and i can keep them the way they are (warrior classes exist for a reason). However in 4E, only you get happy, i don't. How is that fair?

from
EE
Boo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b8G8delDlk) Kingdom Hearts! Hooray Beer!

Rutee
2008-01-31, 07:58 PM
I'm not sure how one could say it's got a bad story, really. Granted that Disney has more "Growing Up" plots then Michael Jackson has pedophilia jokes, but that doesn't make it bad. Overdone, however, hm.

EvilElitest
2008-01-31, 11:38 PM
Yeah, they /are/ 'plot' (you mean "Meta", I think) devices. Do you not, like, read any form of fiction ever?

Yeah, the kind that isn't inconsistent. A pc can be the main character without being inherently better than everybody else. In a good fiction story the main character isn't super 'just because" That is bad writing and sloppy, and amaturish. It also ruins the willing suspense of disbelief ("Oh yeah, of course he is the chosen one after all, wow that is original.)
Also role playing games aren't like as story. A story has a set plot and no matter how hard the characters might try, they will meet their end. A story is set, the characters have no true free will
That is the most fundamental difference between a role playing game and a book. In a book no matter how hard you wish for Eragon to die at the hands of the shade, he won't, because the plot will send Deus ex machina to the rescue. In a roleplaying game, that isn't the case

In D&D, the heros don't have to follow the arbitrarily story line. They don't have to have the personalities of the main characters, they can have their own. In D&D, the good guys don't win simple because they are the good guys, they win because they are smart, because they are skilled, because they bloody well earned it. In D&D your players can die. LIke permanently and in non dramatic way from being stupid, not only in dramatic or plot for fulling moments. In D&D your stupid moves come back to haunt you, not ignored by everyone around you (Sora, Nautro, Eragon, i'm looking at you). In D&D, villains can win, quite easily, and heroes can serve them or not fight them or break off the rails. In D&D the world can feel like a real world, not an story who's ending you can predict from chapter 4 (Eragon, I'm looking at you, and laughing).
The point of role playing games is that your not restricted by the plot or the story, you are free to act as you want in as if your in a real world. As such, the world should damn well act like a consistent realistic world


I knew I had you on ignore for a reason.
Because ignoring people is easier than facing them?
Because if you ignore it, maybe it will go away/won't notice you?
Because if you pretend something doesn't exist, you can't let them bother you?
If you ignore something, you aren't forced to address it?
take your pick:smallwink:


How am I the only one happy in 4e? You can still use classes for NPCs the same as you can in 3e (It's not like they can really stop you from doing it in the first place, tbh). The developers have said as much. Why do you think you can't use classes for NPCs? As far as I can tell, All that's really happening is that the HD advancement rules have been expanded, and that there are much better guidelines for inventing new abilities or skills.

No because NPCs with classes are still different fundamentally from PCs, as well as being lucky to appear more than once out of combat. PCs are automatically are special with unique abilities. Apart from destroying the idea that this world is consistent or at all logical, it makes the game run like a video game world that bends backwards to accommodate teh PCs, and centers around them. It spoils the PCs, and kills the sense that the world runs based on some sort of rules, but instead it seems to run on the drama at the time



Seriously, how are you not happy? Because your preference is no longer the system's preference, even if it is still supported? Because that would be a logical complaint, if a minor one.
Because in order to keep gaming in the style i enjoy, i have to break off from the system that was until now very open ended towards personal preference.
If i am forced to stop playing the current edition simply because the writers focus upon the rule of cool rather than the the rules of logic, then i feel isolated by the hobby when it could have easily accommodated both types of players. It also doesn't make sense and ruins the parts of 4E i enjoyed




I'm not sure how one could say it's got a bad story, really. Granted that Disney has more "Growing Up" plots then Michael Jackson has pedophilia jokes, but that doesn't make it bad. Overdone, however, hm.
hehehehe, your so funny rutee, i love your satire in pretending that Kindom hearts has a good plot[


wait....

from
EE

Cuddly
2008-01-31, 11:55 PM
Verisimilitude (i.e. your campaign world's ability to seem lifelike) is primarily a function of descriptive text, not mechanics.

I understand that this is directed at the "Should NPCs and PCs use the same rules?" arguments, but here's a corollary:

Bob the commoner destroys utterly (as an orb of annihilation) 1d4 adventurers per round.

How the bloody hell do those mechanics make any sense.

horseboy
2008-02-01, 12:10 AM
Because in order to keep gaming in the style i enjoy, i have to break off from the system that was until now very open ended towards personal preference.
If i am forced to stop playing the current edition simply because the writers focus upon the rule of cool rather than the the rules of logic, then i feel isolated by the hobby when it could have easily accommodated both types of players. It also doesn't make sense and ruins the parts of 4E i enjoyed
Dude, if you want a completely setting neutral game system where everyone works under the exact same rule set I urge you to check out Rolemaster. Works far better than D&D ever could.

Ominous
2008-02-01, 12:33 AM
Dude, if you want a completely setting neutral game system where everyone works under the exact same rule set I urge you to check out Rolemaster. Works far better than D&D ever could.

I have thought about Rolemaster, but I can't find any of the books at my local game shops. I like to read over a system before I buy it.

horseboy
2008-02-01, 12:43 AM
I have thought about Rolemaster, but I can't find any of the books at my local game shops. I like to read over a system before I buy it.
It takes a little house ruling to clear up some of the stuff. Like getting rid of the orientation phase, and helping out the semi spell casters. You ever see those people saying that WotC should publish a book with nothing but rules and no fluff? That's Character Law. Nothing but rules, optional rules and charts.

Ominous
2008-02-01, 12:49 AM
It takes a little house ruling to clear up some of the stuff. Like getting rid of the orientation phase, and helping out the semi spell casters. You ever see those people saying that WotC should publish a book with nothing but rules and no fluff? That's Character Law. Nothing but rules, optional rules and charts.

I am a mechanics nut. I can supply fluff easily enough. So it sounds good from that; however, I like to see the mechanics and play through a battle in my head before I purchase a system. So I'll have to keep looking for a Rolemaster book on a store shelf somewhere.

Jack Zander
2008-02-01, 12:56 AM
Surely someone could post the basic idea of Rolemaster mechanics without getting sued here can't they?

Rutee
2008-02-01, 12:58 AM
Because ignoring people is easier than facing them?
Because if you ignore it, maybe it will go away/won't notice you?
Because if you pretend something doesn't exist, you can't let them bother you?
If you ignore something, you aren't forced to address it?
take your pick:smallwink:
I pick "Because expressing my opinion of you will break my own standards on how to treat people, and I'm tryign to get better at that." Or maybe mix that with "Because you do not grasp the basics of game design or narrative-based roleplaying, then further choose to tell me why what I'm doing is bad based on your goals". It's pointless to try to explain to you that my goals are different, that I don't necessarily expect you to like something that supports my goals, and that I don't really care how you have your fun.

Incidentally, it's the height of self absorption to truly believe people aren't responding to you because they're afraid. There can be laundry lists of reasons, which may include "They're busy RL", "They're too tired to formulate an intelligent response to an important thread" or "They just don't think you're worth dealing with anymore". Seriously, learn this.


No because NPCs with classes are still different fundamentally from PCs, as well as being lucky to appear more than once out of combat. PCs are automatically are special with unique abilities. Apart from destroying the idea that this world is consistent or at all logical, it makes the game run like a video game world that bends backwards to accommodate teh PCs, and centers around them. It spoils the PCs, and kills the sense that the world runs based on some sort of rules, but instead it seems to run on the drama at the time
You can create reasons why the "PCs are better" (Which I don't think is a position you can support without having the 4e MM in front of you, FYI) within the setting, if you wish. Unless you'd like to tell Homer that the Odyssey was unbelievable and illogical just because the main characters were all better then the grunts, perhaps? And spoiling the Players? You're playing a game.

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j227/RuteeKatreya/172798457_9735ffddda.jpg

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/. I'm sorry, but we're in a hobby. If I have any intention of doing something that feels like work, I'll go make money for doing it, instead of paying gaming companies to facilitate it. Of course, the young and unemployed will always have more tolerance for games that feel like work, so that's sensical.

Anyway, if they're going to have class-based advancement as an option for NPCs, why do you believe that only a Warrior-like option will exist for them? Do you truly believe they'll discourage you from picking Fighter, or Cleric, or what have you? I imagine there'll be a note that it represents extra training over Warrior or Adept (Incidentally, if you wanted an explanation on why the Warrior/Adept/Whatnot classes are all worse then the PC ones, it's already present. NPC classes imply a more imperfect understanding of a similar 'art'.)


Because in order to keep gaming in the style i enjoy, i have to break off from the system that was until now very open ended towards personal preference.
According to the developers, both systems (Their new one, and Class advancement) are both options. Options supported by the system. There is no reason to believe that your only option is the new one at this time.


If i am forced to stop playing the current edition simply because the writers focus upon the rule of cool rather than the the rules of logic, then i feel isolated by the hobby when it could have easily accommodated both types of players. It also doesn't make sense and ruins the parts of 4E i enjoyed
You think DnD focused on logic before?
Oh-HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO

Oh I can't help those too blind to help themselves.



hehehehe, your so funny rutee, i love your satire in pretending that Kindom hearts has a good plot
Yes, because it was. An overdone plot of the difficulties of growing up, certainly, and hardly a work on par with Don Quixote de la Mancha, say, but it was a good plot. That you dislike it doesn't detract from that.

Incidentally, do you manage to go 2 threads without insulting an object or setting? Or 3 posts in a 4e thread without invoking this omega wolf syndrome-based obsession with comparing RPGs with Video Games in incorrect ways? Oh well, that crap is why I had you on ignore. This'll teach me to click "View Post" on people I simply don't consider worth the effort.

Tren
2008-02-01, 01:03 AM
No because NPCs with classes are still different fundamentally from PCs, as well as being lucky to appear more than once out of combat. PCs are automatically are special with unique abilities.

If I understand you right (and correct me if I'm wrong) you're saying you believe that NPCs statted out with PC class levels are still somehow inferior or different mechaically from the player characters? You make this argument often but I haven't seen any evidence of this claim. The way you're phrasing it sounds like you're saying players somehow gain inherent bonuses-- not for having levels in PC classes, but simply being PCs-- and that somehow a lvl 1 fighter PC will have some mechanical advantage over a lvl 1 NPC fighter.

On the other hand, if you're saying with the above statement that NPC classes are fundamentally different from PC classes, well, absolutely. PC classes are inherently superior (at the very least in a combat situation, if not also in terms of class skills) because they represent the adventuring population of the world, which is a small minority of the overall population. If you want to break the verisimilitude of a setting quickly, populate it only with adventurers.

horseboy
2008-02-01, 01:10 AM
Surely someone could post the basic idea of Rolemaster mechanics without getting sued here can't they?
Core mechanic? If Bonus+d100+-modifiers>100 then success! Of course, if the GM finds the difficulty of the roll to be "absurd" Like, say, hiding in the middle of a dirt road in the middle of town at high noon then it's at -150, so you better be good. Dice roll are open ended. If you roll 96+ you keep rolling until you don't.
Combat is a stick wicket. There are 20 Armour Types. 1 being nekked, 20 being full plate. Each weapon has it's own chart, as each weapon is designed to be more effective vs one armour type or another. (This is where it gets it's "Chartmaster" moniker. Combat is especially lethal. Even though you may have 150 hits a crit can leave you with, oh, let me grab a random high end crit, Yeah, chest strike destroys heart. You die instantly.

It doesn't matter what level you are. It's a very brutal system.

Jack Zander
2008-02-01, 01:19 AM
Core mechanic? If Bonus+d100+-modifiers>100 then success! Of course, if the GM finds the difficulty of the roll to be "absurd" Like, say, hiding in the middle of a dirt road in the middle of town at high noon then it's at -150, so you better be good. Dice roll are open ended. If you roll 96+ you keep rolling until you don't.
Combat is a stick wicket. There are 20 Armour Types. 1 being nekked, 20 being full plate. Each weapon has it's own chart, as each weapon is designed to be more effective vs one armour type or another. (This is where it gets it's "Chartmaster" moniker. Combat is especially lethal. Even though you may have 150 hits a crit can leave you with, oh, let me grab a random high end crit, Yeah, chest strike destroys heart. You die instantly.

It doesn't matter what level you are. It's a very brutal system.

Blegh, I'll keep working on my current homebrew system. It's a classless point buy system. NPCs and PCs both are created the same way, but NPCs are expected to spend a lot more of their points in non-combat skills. There is no HP for characters, instead a toughness skill that is rolled against damage dealt (if you fail you fall unconscious or die, if you pass you gain a wound). Armor gives various damage reduction (so no charts but you still have weapons that are more effective against certain armors). No crits either, but the higher your attack against their evasion, the more damage you do. If anyone wants to check it out it's still in development, but PM me and I'll send you a link.

Ominous
2008-02-01, 01:31 AM
Core mechanic? If Bonus+d100+-modifiers>100 then success! Of course, if the GM finds the difficulty of the roll to be "absurd" Like, say, hiding in the middle of a dirt road in the middle of town at high noon then it's at -150, so you better be good. Dice roll are open ended. If you roll 96+ you keep rolling until you don't.
Combat is a stick wicket. There are 20 Armour Types. 1 being nekked, 20 being full plate. Each weapon has it's own chart, as each weapon is designed to be more effective vs one armour type or another. (This is where it gets it's "Chartmaster" moniker. Combat is especially lethal. Even though you may have 150 hits a crit can leave you with, oh, let me grab a random high end crit, Yeah, chest strike destroys heart. You die instantly.

It doesn't matter what level you are. It's a very brutal system.

Ahhhhh, now that sounds like something I want to play. I find it odd that with all the processing power computers and consoles have, video games have yet to use a system as grainy as this sounds. It also has crits that can instantly kill, which is an almost instant-win for me. All that plus the fact that classes don't limit what skills you can take, makes this a system I need to get a hold of. Add a few things from WFRG and I think I'll have found a new favorite system.

Artanis
2008-02-01, 01:40 AM
I understand that this is directed at the "Should NPCs and PCs use the same rules?" arguments, but here's a corollary:

Bob the commoner destroys utterly (as an orb of annihilation) 1d4 adventurers per round.

How the bloody hell do those mechanics make any sense.
What the hell are you talking about?:smallconfused:

Of course that doesn't make any sense. A commoner annihilating people sure as hell is not a commoner by any sane person's definition of the word.

horseboy
2008-02-01, 01:42 AM
Ahhhhh, now that sounds like something I want to play. I find it odd that with all the processing power computers and consoles have, video games have yet to use a system as grainy as this sounds. It also has crits that can instantly kill, which is an almost instant-win for me. All that plus the fact that classes don't limit what skills you can take, makes this a system I need to get a hold of. Add a few things from WFRG and I think I'll have found a new favorite system.
It can be daunting at first (the "Base Hits" rules make 3.5 grappling look like basic combat), iron out the small lumps, and you're flying.

Oooohh! Using it to run Warhammer Fantasy? Now that could be freaky. I'm almost not sure if I want to see Slanessh's spell lists. :smallcool:

Ominous
2008-02-01, 01:46 AM
It can be daunting at first (the "Base Hits" rules make 3.5 grappling look like basic combat), iron out the small lumps, and you're flying.

Oooohh! Using it to run Warhammer Fantasy? Now that could be freaky. I'm almost not sure if I want to see Slanessh's spell lists. :smallcool:

I wasn't meaning the setting, but the "magic has nasty side-affects" rules. Though, the system sounds like it might work well with a Warhammer setting.


What the hell are you talking about?:smallconfused:

Of course that doesn't make any sense. A commoner annihilating people sure as hell is not a commoner by any sane person's definition of the word.

In my games commoners can destroy whole universes. The only thing keeping them in check are the guardians of the multiverse, house cats.

horseboy
2008-02-01, 01:54 AM
I wasn't meaning the setting, but the "magic has nasty side-affects" rules. Though, the system sounds like it might work well with a Warhammer setting.
It's got some nasty spell fumbles (Like giving you a stroke and being permanently paralyzed from the waist down). Also check, crap, it was either Companion II or their Oriental Companion. They had rules that would be very similar to a "slow chaos morphing". Not sure where I read them. It was a while ago.

Jack Zander
2008-02-01, 01:55 AM
And thus, all sides of the argument eventually agreed that DnD sucks and went on to find a better roleplaying system.

horseboy
2008-02-01, 01:59 AM
Well, it does. Friends don't let friends play WotC. :smallwink:

Rutee
2008-02-01, 02:59 AM
4e might not be, but 3.5e? Yeah, pretty much a waste.

Charity
2008-02-01, 03:17 AM
Incidentally, do you manage to go 2 threads without insulting an object or setting? Or 3 posts in a 4e thread without invoking this omega wolf syndrome-based obsession with comparing RPGs with Video Games in incorrect ways? Oh well, that crap is why I had you on ignore. This'll teach me to click "View Post" on people I simply don't consider worth the effort.

Rutee, you seem reasonable and pretty switched on, do yourself a favour go back to Ignore... this is not entirely altruistic, when you quote someone, I end up having to read that which I have endeavoured to avoid.

Ominous, Horseboy - Rolemaster is a very brutal system, and very mechanics intensive, making a character (especially a higher level one) can take hours, only to then get shot through both ears by some lucky berk with a bow.

I would put forward Runequest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuneQuest) or HârnMaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A2rnMaster)both are well worth a look... however I still think D&D is OK, just more folk have examined it under the microscope to find it's faults.

Rutee
2008-02-01, 03:35 AM
I would put forward Runequest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuneQuest) or HârnMaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A2rnMaster)both are well worth a look... however I still think D&D is OK, just more folk have examined it under the microscope to find it's faults.

That may be, honestly. For my part, I dislike it for the massive jobbing that must be done to do anything with it that I really want done. Especially mobility.

Matthew
2008-02-01, 12:35 PM
Ominous, Horseboy - Rolemaster is a very brutal system, and very mechanics intensive, making a character (especially a higher level one) can take hours, only to then get shot through both ears by some lucky berk with a bow.

I would put forward Runequest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuneQuest) or HârnMaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A2rnMaster)both are well worth a look... however I still think D&D is OK, just more folk have examined it under the microscope to find it's faults.

Damn, I was just about to suggest those as lighter alternatives to RoleMaster. To be fair, those games are heavily house ruled versions of AD&D, but as this discussion has rolled on it has become much clearer to me why one critic referred to D20 as 'dumbed down' version of RoleMaster.

I also think D20 is okay, like RoleMaster, RuneQuest and HarnMaster (amongst others) it's a game I like to play from time to time.

Charity
2008-02-01, 12:59 PM
Excellent the thought ray has been tuned correctly ...
Now
Click the link ... clicky clicky ----- V

horseboy
2008-02-01, 01:57 PM
Mmmm, Harn. I do like Harn World, but I find Harnmaster combat takes too long, all those WQ roles. You rip those out and it's pretty fun.


Damn, I was just about to suggest those as lighter alternatives to RoleMaster. To be fair, those games are heavily house ruled versions of AD&D, but as this discussion has rolled on it has become much clearer to me why one critic referred to D20 as 'dumbed down' version of RoleMaster.

It wasn't just one critic. About the same time 3.0 came out Rolemaster released a simplified edition. A friend of mine was like: "Crap! D&D is trying to be Rolemaster and Rolemaster is trying to be D&D. Why can't they just be what they are?

Ominous
2008-02-01, 02:48 PM
Ominous, Horseboy - Rolemaster is a very brutal system, and very mechanics intensive, making a character (especially a higher level one) can take hours, only to then get shot through both ears by some lucky berk with a bow.

It takes my group hours to create a character with D&D, as they debate who should play what, what personalities they should have, what feats to take, what starting gear to buy, etc. So I really don't see a problem.


I would put forward Runequest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuneQuest) or HârnMaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A2rnMaster)both are well worth a look... however I still think D&D is OK, just more folk have examined it under the microscope to find it's faults.

I like parts of Runequest, but it's not one of my favorites. I had not heard of Hârnmaster. I'll have to take a look.

Wow, we really derailed this thread. :p

Matthew
2008-02-01, 03:07 PM
It wasn't just one critic. About the same time 3.0 came out Rolemaster released a simplified edition. A friend of mine was like: "Crap! D&D is trying to be Rolemaster and Rolemaster is trying to be D&D. Why can't they just be what they are?

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:

EvilElitest
2008-02-01, 03:44 PM
Dude, if you want a completely setting neutral game system where everyone works under the exact same rule set I urge you to check out Rolemaster. Works far better than D&D ever could.
I've never heard of it, how does it function


I pick "Because expressing my opinion of you will break my own standards on how to treat people, and I'm tryign to get better at that."

How cute, but if you resort to the


COLBERT (putting his fingers over his ears and shouting in a high-pitched voice): Bllrrtt! No, no, no, no, no. I'm not listening to you
style
i'm asking for you to address this question

"If your style of play and my style of play can be supported in a system, isn't that better than a system where only one style can be supported"
Now i don't like playing games simple because i want to fee like i'm the star of a fantasy novel or video game , i like playing games because i like to feel like i'm in a logically functioning world. However both approaches can work in 3.5 without much trouble. My approach won't work in 4E unless i resort to homebrewing



Or maybe mix that with "Because you do not grasp the basics of game design or narrative-based roleplaying, then further choose to tell me why what I'm doing is bad based on your goals".
1. I'm not saying you play style is bad, i just don't like it. If you want to play that way, fine enjoy your self, but we can both do so under teh same system you realize. However if your play style was forced upon me, and i have to ether convert or play something else, we have a problem now don't we
2. Even if i don't graspe the basics of game design or narrative based role playing (how do i not) aren't you doing the exact same thing when it comes telling me what i'm doing is bad based on your goals. Self reflection maybe?
3. you do realize the irony here no? You accuse me of not being able to graspe the basics of narrative based roleplaying and accuse me of being a fool and yet you don't even say what i'm apparently not grasping and dont' even say what qualifies as understanding narrative based role playing. Double standard?


It's pointless to try to explain to you that my goals are different, that I don't necessarily expect you to like something that supports my goals, and that I don't really care how you have your fun.
except under the current system, both you and I can play different styles, and still fit within the terms of the game. You can buff up the PC by making them start at higher levels, and i can keep them at low levels. It is a matter of style. Except in the current system, i no longer have the option of making the PCs and NPCs function under the same system without resorting to rule 0 (unless something is dramatically changed)



Incidentally, it's the height of self absorption to truly believe people aren't responding to you because they're afraid. There can be laundry lists of reasons, which may include "They're busy RL", "They're too tired to formulate an intelligent response to an important thread" or "They just don't think you're worth dealing with anymore". Seriously, learn this.

And it is the height of hubris to truely believe that people who disagree with you are simple wrong because you don't like their style, not because they don't understand what is going on. Their can be a laundry list of reasons why they don't agree with you, ranging from "They don't play the game out of hopes of feeling like an epic hero but want to experience living in a different world" to "They feel upset that their style of gaming is being discarded for a very specific style of gaming" to "they don't think you've backed your points up properly or that your options doesn't equal correct, and wish to point out what they don't think is correct". Seriously learn this.



You can create reasons why the "PCs are better" (Which I don't think is a position you can support without having the 4e MM in front of you, FYI)
I can surprising as it may seem, p. 14 races and classes


within the setting, if you wish. Unless you'd like to tell Homer that the Odyssey was unbelievable and illogical just because the main characters were all better then the grunts, perhaps? And spoiling the Players? You're playing a game.
yawn and here we are again back to the ancient classics, thank you for demonstrating your wondrous ability to miss the point of what i've been saying this whole time you do realize something, the epics of homer weren't a roleplaying game, and were never suppose to be so. They were stories, which are different from roleplaying games. Now Odyssey is a good story, the main character is better than the grunts. Why? Well because he was a main warrior in the Trojan war and had been fighting for ten years, achieving glory and power
However when i read Eragon, i'm going "WFT?" because the world is inconsistent, sappy and the main character is super powered because he is the chosen one, no other reason.


From a D&D standpoint, if we have to resort to this, the hero is a very high level adventure who has become that powerful because of ten years of hard work. However the PCs at level 1 should be grunts, or slightly above average grunts, not chosen ones or the special heroes. They become heroes by going on adventures, slaying evil, leveling up, gaining great powers, and gaining a reputation. eventually, they will be the epics that are

yes i can create reasons why PCs are better, but i don't want them to be better from the get go. I want them to be slightly above average dudes who become great heroes. Sure i could play in a game where i start out high level with lots of cool magical items and people fawning over me if i wished, but i don't normally enjoy that play style. Other people might, but we can both play the same game without bumping heads can't we? Not any more. Now my players will all be the super special simple because they happen to be played by real people. That doesn't make sense from a world perspective, why would their be half a dozen chosen people? Why would they all suddenly group up? Why when one of them dies, another one takes their place? you could work with that, you could make them all of some sort of special blood line or something, but in doing so I would have to change the way my game works. I would have make the world no longer feel like a real world with magic and monsters thrown in, but instead simple a novel taht hasn't been written yet with the PCs as the semi Mary Sue main characters.




Games are not supposed to be work. They're supposed to be fun.
1. And i personally fine being in a fantastical but still logical world to be very fun. If i stab a random guy, his brother comes after me, if a kill the wrong figure, a civil war breaks out, if i slay a dragon people hear about me and dragons send assassins after me. I am just another player in a very big very powerful world. If i use my intelligence and my powers well, i can become a real hero and a powerful figure in the world and my deeds are sung in taverns by bards. I like the fact that other people like me are running around, other fighters, other wizards, other clerics, some of whom are in fact great heroes or powerful figures. If i play my cards right, i can become like them or better. I can become a living legend. And if i do stupid things, i suffer for it. I like this, it makes me feel like the world is consistent and almost real. So no its not work, its my character over a course of time becoming more and more powerful
2. Now if i was just handed special powers that nobody else in the world had, i'd feel cheated, like the game and the world were made to be a wish fulfillment land or a video game based place instead of a real world. But under 3.5 both of these system can work


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/.
And you say i'm saying calling what you enjoy bad because i personally don't like them? If you want to play a D&D game and you want to start out more powerful, then start out playing at high levels. Or have all NPCs be NPC classes. How do you level up in D&D? You earn exp from fighting, roleplaying, fulfilling quests ect. If i started a game already the biggest hero the world had to offer, i'd feel cheated.


I'm sorry, but we're in a hobby. If I have any intention of doing something that feels like work, I'll go make money for doing it, instead of paying gaming companies to facilitate it.
But you can play your own way and i can play mine without tampering with the system. But no longer


Of course, the young and unemployed will always have more tolerance for games that feel like work, so that's sensical.
ah the "your too young to understand" approach. Sorry, but no



Anyway, if they're going to have class-based advancement as an option for NPCs, why do you believe that only a Warrior-like option will exist for them?



yeah, i wonder, how could have i ever thought of that?

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.


Do you truly believe they'll discourage you from picking Fighter, or Cleric, or what have you?
because the PC and the NPCs are just using different classes, but different rules, see above quote



According to the developers, both systems (Their new one, and Class advancement) are both options. Options supported by the system. There is no reason to believe that your only option is the new one at this time.

um, yes their is abov quote


You think DnD focused on logic before?
Oh-HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO

D&D tries. It fails, but it tries. However in 3.5 relatively consistent and logical worlds can be made without to much trouble,


Oh I can't help those too blind to help themselves.
You pretend all other options don't exist and you call me blind?


Yes, because it was. An overdone plot of the difficulties of growing up, certainly, and hardly a work on par with Don Quixote de la Mancha, say, but it was a good plot. That you dislike it doesn't detract from that.

Ah yes, of course kindom hearts was a good plot. I mean we have an unspeakable goofy, stupid, practically brain dead, insecure travel from one magical absurd fairytale land to anther with fighting the forces of vaugly incompetent evil.



Incidentally, do you manage to go 2 threads without insulting an object or setting?
Um, yes yes i can? thats a silly question


Or 3 posts in a 4e thread without invoking this omega wolf syndrome-based obsession with comparing RPGs with Video Games in incorrect ways?
Of course i must be incorrect, i'm disagreeing with Rutee, rutee can't be wrong. Well, as your are so wise and all knowing, can you, pray tell, explain to me why i'm wrong? LIke some reasons maybe? You know, without resorting to comparisons to myths and general screaming of "Your wrong" and pull some damn points out? Or will we go through the same sequence of me making points, you calling me immature and wrong without getting round countering the points.
I think 4E is like a video game in both intention and in game play. I think this is deliberate by WOTC as they want to attract a gamers into their ranks.


Oh well, that crap is why I had you on ignore. This'll teach me to click "View Post" on people I simply don't consider worth the effort.
[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, my option must be scary, it doesn't agree with yours. Ah well, this demonstrates the difference between you and me, i'm able to bear a few snide insults to defend my point, apperetnly you aren't


do yourself a favour go back to Ignore... this is not entirely altruistic, when you quote someone, I end up having to read that which I have endeavoured to avoid.
Ah the ignore function, teh best way to make all the bad things go away, like other people's options, or things that disagree with you. Remember kids, Buckly ignores any post that disagrees with him, you should to. nothing says your a good debater like shutting your eyes and pretending the opposition don't exist.
Have fun doing that, all the bad things are blissfully ignored

Yes i am aware of the irony of bothering to respond to a person who just won't even pretend to listen, but i'm hoping some readers would be more reasonable

Tren i'll get to later
from
EE

VanBuren
2008-02-01, 03:51 PM
You know, EE. I love how you keep making the claim that your way of playing will have to be done through homebrew, even though the Devs have said pretty much the opposite.

But then again, I guess you know better.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-01, 03:54 PM
You know, EE. I love how you keep making the claim that your way of playing will have to be done through homebrew, even though the Devs have said pretty much the opposite.

But then again, I guess you know better.Nope.
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.filler

VanBuren
2008-02-01, 03:55 PM
Actually, read some of the links that have been posted before. Both systems will be easy and supported.

Rutee
2008-02-01, 03:56 PM
You know, EE. I love how you keep making the claim that your way of playing will have to be done through homebrew, even though the Devs have said pretty much the opposite.

But then again, I guess you know better.

He did pick up the 4th ed core books from the future. After all, I can see nothing besides the finished product that'd trump dev notes.

&^ To the best of our knowledge, this is correct. Actually, does anyone have the podcast link handy? I didn't quite listen through to the end.

EvilElitest
2008-02-01, 04:00 PM
He did pick up the 4th ed core books from the future. After all, I can see nothing besides the finished product that'd trump dev notes.

HE was just countered Rutee, no dice

Or those ignored as well?

And vanburn, those links (unless i missed something) only state that NPCs will have classes, but say nothing about them following the same rules as PCs
from
EE

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-01, 04:00 PM
Actually, read some of the links that have been posted before. Both systems will be easy and supported.Can you re-post the links? The thread is 7 pages and I'm currently avoiding homework.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-01, 04:03 PM
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.

Where is this quote from?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-01, 04:17 PM
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.

EvilElitest
2008-02-01, 04:19 PM
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.


thank you

Now i'm going to play Jade empire so i'll come back later
from
EE

Aerogoat
2008-02-01, 04:28 PM
Wait, Wait...

If 4E is providing DMs the information they need to run simplified NPCs and a certain DM doesn't like that idea, what's stopping that DM from just using the player ruleset with his NPCs? :smallconfused:


I don't see why there's all this fuss about an alternate method of NPC generation.

EvilElitest
2008-02-01, 04:31 PM
Wait, Wait...

If 4E is providing DMs the information they need to run simplified NPCs and a certain DM doesn't like that idea, what's stopping that DM from just using the player ruleset with his NPCs? :smallconfused:


that is like not using 3.5 wizards, it can be done but the system should make me have to resort to homebrewing to do something very simple.
from
EE

SMDVogrin
2008-02-01, 04:37 PM
that is like not using 3.5 wizards, it can be done but the system should make me have to resort to homebrewing to do something very simple.


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