Worst Tabletop RPG

[Telok]

I actually find Lancer to be pretty nice. It's honest about it's rules split and explains it well. It's also not really a pc/npc thing so much as a separate rules set for a different scale and type of action. I think it a works better than some interpretations of D&D editions people have where pcs either can or can't use their abilities based on being in or out of combat.

But for a good example of pc/npc differences that make people twitch you can check out pazio's StarFinder game. Npcs there use three templates; combatant, caster, and expert. The dm just adds racial, class, whatever abilites to those. Especially notable is that skill roll bonuses, attacks, damage, ac, spell dcs, and saves are all set by level and template. The exact equipment and ability scores of the npc don't matter beyond stuff like checking if the npc has a gun to use the ranged attack damage amount from the trmplate and what type of damage it does. A dm can hack and change stuff of course, but that's the basic format.

Then there's the pc stamina issue. They rought back Rift's sdc concept repackaged as 'stamina' at about 1/2 the pc's total hit points. Of course npcs don't have stamina, they just have hp roughly equal to pc's stamina + hp. This makes things really weird if you have any non-hostile npcs around. Your mystic(faux cleric) can heal npcs to full with hp healing, but not pcs. Your envoy(faux 4e warlord) can heal pc's stamina in combat, but can't affect npcs health at all. Healing potions restore hp and have the same thing going on as the mystic cures. Poisons and radiation do hp damage every time you roll a save, making pcs much weaker to poison effects even if it's one that doesn't do Con damage (recall npc saves are template set, not com based).

Pazio got their math right, the game runs correctly and without the dm having to make up lots of missing rules or content. But every time I play I keep thinking that I'd rather be playing an npc because it's much easier and about the same power level, not to mention the weird stamina/sdc/hp stuff.

[noob]

I actually find Lancer to be pretty nice. It's honest about it's rules split and explains it well. It's also not really a pc/npc thing so much as a separate rules set for a different scale and type of action. I think it a works better than some interpretations of D&D editions people have where pcs either can or can't use their abilities based on being in or out of combat.

But for a good example of pc/npc differences that make people twitch you can check out pazio's StarFinder game. Npcs there use three templates; combatant, caster, and expert. The dm just adds racial, class, whatever abilites to those. Especially notable is that skill roll bonuses, attacks, damage, ac, spell dcs, and saves are all set by level and template. The exact equipment and ability scores of the npc don't matter beyond stuff like checking if the npc has a gun to use the ranged attack damage amount from the trmplate and what type of damage it does. A dm can hack and change stuff of course, but that's the basic format.

Then there's the pc stamina issue. They rought back Rift's sdc concept repackaged as 'stamina' at about 1/2 the pc's total hit points. Of course npcs don't have stamina, they just have hp roughly equal to pc's stamina + hp. This makes things really weird if you have any non-hostile npcs around. Your mystic(faux cleric) can heal npcs to full with hp healing, but not pcs. Your envoy(faux 4e warlord) can heal pc's stamina in combat, but can't affect npcs health at all. Healing potions restore hp and have the same thing going on as the mystic cures. Poisons and radiation do hp damage every time you roll a save, making pcs much weaker to poison effects even if it's one that doesn't do Con damage (recall npc saves are template set, not com based).

Pazio got their math right, the game runs correctly and without the dm having to make up lots of missing rules or content. But every time I play I keep thinking that I'd rather be playing an npc because it's much easier and about the same power level, not to mention the weird stamina/sdc/hp stuff.

Also life is much easier as a npc because you are not forced to constantly get the latest gun or sword just to stay at the same power relatively to the opponents.

[Morty]

Agreed. If a system provides an NPC a distinct mechanic that's not normally available to PCs, and that mechanic is something that can be taught and learned, and the system allows a PC to join the group that teaches that mechanic and qualifies to learn it (i.e. is strong/fast/smart/whatever enough), but then doesn't provide the mechanic in a way that can be incorporated into the PC's build... yes. That system has a problem.

Has this ever actually happened in a game?

[Telok]

Also life is much easier as a npc because you are not forced to constantly get the latest gun or sword just to stay at the same power relatively to the opponents.

Oh, yeah. The 1sr leve kid npc with a credit card can buy a quadcopter from a hobby store. A quadcopter is a 6th level item. Pcs can't buy one anywhere or for any amount of money untill they are 4tl level.

Has this ever actually happened in a game?

Yes. Mostly in d&d (because d&d is a bigger chunk of play time than other games), and all with less experienced dms who are afraid to homebrew or while the edition was in it's first 2 years of release and still quite noticably incomplete (before many options and expansions were published).

[EggKookoo]

Has this ever actually happened in a game?

Not in my experience, but YMMV.

[Silly Name]

You know, StarFinder's item rules are a probably far more videogamey/MMO-like rule than 4e.

The rule was also horrendously worded, implying that merchants should upgrade their stock only in relation to the PCs' level instead of, you know, actually having a real stock.

[Feldar]

Worst RPG for my experience: D&D 4. Why? Because it led to a mass exodus of players from RPGs and dumbed down the game to video-game levels in an effort to bring in new players.

Best RPG I ever played: Cheapass Games "Tribes". It came in a zip loc bag with some rules and some chits. Your character generation: Roll to determine your gender. Your objective: To make as many babies as possible. Played in a room full of people, and I gotta tell you nothing was as funny as watching two burly guys (one of whom rolled female for gender) negotiate making a baby together. The in game mechanics: Roll for hunting and gathering, roll for whether or not you make baby.

It's not really that they're hard to learn, that it's One More Thing, and we're all getting older and have more responsibilities. Really, there are two forms of resolution mechanic, roll-and-add (d20, GURPS) and roll-and-count (Storyteller, FFG Star Wars). It's just all the little details on top of that. One of our group really, truly, doesn't particularly like 5e, but they're relatively new to the hobby and have a kid to raise, so while they're game at trying another system, they run into not having the time to read and understand the system. Like, when we went to try FFG Star Wars, which they did enjoy, they couldn't remember the symbols to save their life. Meanwhile, I'm here (a) not having a kid and thus having a lot more free time, and (b) have a fairly visual memory so I don't have nearly that level of problem.

The other problem is knowledge. Like, I know Paleomythic exists, and actually have it, as someone on another forum mentioned it and it sounded interesting. But I would have to a) want to play a paleolithic-era game, and b) know that it or something like it was likely to exist, and c) convince the rest of the group to buy in on it. Whereas sticking with a system you know means you can eliminate searching, and you already likely have buy-in, so that emotional effort is not needed*, so all that's left is modifying your existing system to do that, and some people enjoy the hell out of that.

I'm having a devil of a time trying to get my D&D group to play E6. As you say, without everyone on board it's very difficult to get folks to buy into a new system. And, as everyone is growing older, it's very easy for a non-enthusiastic person to let meatspace obligations interfere with something they're not eager to do.

Recruiting new players is difficult in the best of times because, at the end of the day, personalities and playstyles need to mesh. You're more likely to pick up a new player if you're running a system they already know.

For all its warts, what D&D 3.x did well was implement a simple mechanic that made it easy to start and it drew you into the complexity gradually. It also stood on the shoulders of classic work by Gygax and others and got a strong nostalgia boost from that. Like it or not, 3.0 and 3.5 brought in a lot of new RPG players.

I've never heard of Paleomythic and it sounds great for my Ice Age campaign concept, but again if even one player doesn't like the concept it sinks the group's efforts to move on and try new things.

There are clearly bad systems, but there are just as clearly bad players and bad GMs. There will never be a system that turns a bad GM into that great GM. There will never be a system that turns a bad player into a great player.

Absolutely nothing beats a great GM who has the time and love for story crafting required to prepare a phenomenal adventure and who is willing to take bad material and turn it good. In our hearts we all want that GM as players and we all want to be that GM. Alas, we all have meatspace obligations too.

There will never be a system that captures the mechanics of when things just "come together" to make that magical gaming experience.

[Drascin]

Honestly, the idea that PCs and NPCs ABSOLUTELY MUST have the exact same abilities is... weird to me. PCs and random enemy NPCs are fundamentally playing different games and have fundamentally different design goals.

Like. A PC's mechanics need to be made so that character is enjoyable to play long term. An enemy's mechanics need to be tuned so they're enjoyable to fight (and, preferably, also easy for a GM to run) in a lifespan of two to four rounds. These two things are not even a little related! In fact, a lot of PC types make for rather miserable encounters in a lot of games -there is very little in D&D that makes for a less enjoyable fight than fighting a PC-style built Cleric with a proper sheet and build.

[Saint-Just]

Honestly, the idea that PCs and NPCs ABSOLUTELY MUST have the exact same abilities is... weird to me. PCs and random enemy NPCs are fundamentally playing different games and have fundamentally different design goals.

Like. A PC's mechanics need to be made so that character is enjoyable to play long term. An enemy's mechanics need to be tuned so they're enjoyable to fight (and, preferably, also easy for a GM to run) in a lifespan of two to four rounds. These two things are not even a little related! In fact, a lot of PC types make for rather miserable encounters in a lot of games -there is very little in D&D that makes for a less enjoyable fight than fighting a PC-style built Cleric with a proper sheet and build.

It was said many times above: it's specifically about abilities that are unavailable for no good (in-story) reason. It usually manifests in two ways: extremely similar background ("oh, this friendly NPC cleric of St. Cuthbert can teleport us to our destination? Sweet! When I will be able to do that?") or a case where players use common sense to conclude that their character should be able to do something, or at least be able to train to do something that NPCs use but is not allowed by the rules (the above example of random bandits using their bows and arrows to do a trick that archery-focused ranger is unable to do). The second part concerns mostly mundane, or seemingly-mundane (Ex) options. The first part applies across the board. It is not about limiting players to certain roles (saying "no, you don't get to play outsider" despite outsiders in the campaign is no different from being unable to play a king despite kings in the campaign).

It also doesn't concerns ninjas of secret school about which nobody knows or polymorfed dragons or whatnot. Now, it often impossible for players to tell the difference, and trusting the GM is a good default option. But GM is supposed to know. No tacking random abilities on bandits if they are actually locals with a rudimentary training.

There are some situations in which it is very hard to have the same rules for PCs and NPCs (e.g. minionomany in general, and exponential minionomancy - minons who have their own minions - especially). But it is a very good idea to keep that number of specific interactions as low as possible.

[Morty]

It was said many times above: it's specifically about abilities that are unavailable for no good (in-story) reason. It usually manifests in two ways: extremely similar background ("oh, this friendly NPC cleric of St. Cuthbert can teleport us to our destination? Sweet! When I will be able to do that?") or a case where players use common sense to conclude that their character should be able to do something, or at least be able to train to do something that NPCs use but is not allowed by the rules (the above example of random bandits using their bows and arrows to do a trick that archery-focused ranger is unable to do). The second part concerns mostly mundane, or seemingly-mundane (Ex) options. The first part applies across the board. It is not about limiting players to certain roles (saying "no, you don't get to play outsider" despite outsiders in the campaign is no different from being unable to play a king despite kings in the campaign).

The "example" of bandits having abilities that a ranger PC doesn't has yet to be backed up by anything. A cleric being able to teleport isn't something I've seen outside a video game, either. Do we have actual examples of NPCs getting to do things PCs can't? The only ones I can think of is stuff like elder vampires in Masquerade having tricks the players can never hope for - but whatever we think about its effect on the game, it has an in-universe explanation of the vampires being just that much older and experienced.

[Telok]

The "example" of bandits having abilities that a ranger PC doesn't has yet to be backed up by anything. A cleric being able to teleport isn't something I've seen outside a video game, either. Do we have actual examples of NPCs getting to do things PCs can't? The only ones I can think of is stuff like elder vampires in Masquerade having tricks the players can never hope for - but whatever we think about its effect on the game, it has an in-universe explanation of the vampires being just that much older and experienced.

Sure. Check the https://www.aonsrd.com/ for Starfinder. Check the differences between pc and npc races, the differences between pc and npc healing & hp, the difference between what pcs and npcs can have as equipment. Several of us aren't talking theory but actual experience. Times when we've been told that our pcs can't do things because it's npc only. Not "monster to fight" only, but actual npcs or "monsters" that are pc race "just people with training and gear" in the fluff/game world.

Did my players complain when they fought insect-cheetah creatures that "saw" with natural radar during a dust storm? No. Would they complain that a lich could arm it's zombie minions with laser rifles and the party necromancer can't do that "because it's a npc only thing"? You bet they would*. That's what's being talked about.

* Zombies are really lousy shots. The only reason it was a thing in one place was because an entire city had been slaughtered and the lich came by later for lots and lots of free bodies. The player just didn't want to deal with those sorts of logistics, so there was never any issue.

[Saint-Just]

The "example" of bandits having abilities that a ranger PC doesn't has yet to be backed up by anything. A cleric being able to teleport isn't something I've seen outside a video game, either. Do we have actual examples of NPCs getting to do things PCs can't? The only ones I can think of is stuff like elder vampires in Masquerade having tricks the players can never hope for - but whatever we think about its effect on the game, it has an in-universe explanation of the vampires being just that much older and experienced.

I know I shouldn't have gone that deep (I initially said "I don't have a dog in this fight" and now I kinda do), but for something I have never played Starfinder examples (entirely different health mechanic for NPCs, entirely different character build mechanic for NPCs, and especially "you can have nukes on your ship but not a quadrocopter") sound quite egregious. I will accept correction from anyone who thinks this is a good idea instead of merely a not-too-harmful. And yes, I include the idea of level-gated gear for PCs but not NPCs as "tricks you can never have" (at the same level as any random NPC, not some powerful agent or beneficiary of a secret training).

Elder vampires definitely have a good reason to have their abilities. And the game did support playing lower generations (up to 8th? 7th?).

[awa]

like everything a thing can be done well or it can be done badly.

I have no interest in looking at star finder for details but since I have yet to hear a person defend it and every one seems to hate the item thing it certainly looks like it has been done badly.

[Jason]

The "example" of bandits having abilities that a ranger PC doesn't has yet to be backed up by anything. A cleric being able to teleport isn't something I've seen outside a video game, either. Do we have actual examples of NPCs getting to do things PCs can't?

I never got familiar enough with 4th edition to give examples.

FFG Star Wars has a number of rules that broke suspension of disbelief for me, like how being in a minion squad lets stormtroopers survive thermal detonators (it's almost impossible to kill a whole squad with one, even though they occupy the same area for all purposes). Or the Adversary rule, which upgrades all difficulties for the PCs without costing destiny points or strain or even an action, when all similar PC abilities require such a cost to activate.

[Anonymouswizard]

like everything a thing can be done well or it can be done badly.

Yeah, this. While Starfinder sounds bad I've seen simplified NPC mechanics work well (Victoriana 3e's Physical/Mental/Social dice pools, which serve as maximums and GMs are told to cut down if the NPC wouldn't be as skilled at this task) and really poorly (Romance of the Perilous Land, where some of the wonk of the system and it's progression could be solved by letting monsters have multiple stats instead of just one). But neither of those systems had the simplification come anywhere near HP (or MP I believe) beyond 'has a reasonable ammount which might honestly be based on their simplified stats, I'm afb'.

[Telok]

Ok, here. Explicit from Starfinder. Dragonkin, cr9 opponent, immune to fire paralysis and sleep effects, has a breath weapon 9d6 fire dmg reflex half dc16 and 1d4 cooldown. PC dragon kin, immune to sleep effects, +2 save vs paralysis, breath weapon 1d6+ 1.5x level fire dmg reflex half dc 10 + con bonus + 0.5x level, may use once between rests where you spend resolve (vague kind-of similarity to 5e hit dice) to regain stamina points (can only do so out of combat).

So, immune to fire vs nothing, immune to paralysis vs +2 save, (cr)d6 fire breath weapon with 1d4 round cooldown vs 1d6+(cr x 1.5) fire breath weapon usable max 1/fight. Why? Because NPC. PVs can't have NPC stuff because then they'd be to cool, or overpowered, or something.

Try this in your next d&d game with dragonborn in the party. Attack them with, or better yet give them some allies, regular dragonborn npcs with a better breath weapon doing twice the pc's damage that they can use a lot. Be sure to tell them afterwards that they can never get that because the cool stuff you give the npcs is too good for pcs. Oh, and remember to do this sort of thing with various npcs/pc race monsters for the entire campaign.

[Morty]

Sure. Check the https://www.aonsrd.com/ for Starfinder. Check the differences between pc and npc races, the differences between pc and npc healing & hp, the difference between what pcs and npcs can have as equipment. Several of us aren't talking theory but actual experience. Times when we've been told that our pcs can't do things because it's npc only. Not "monster to fight" only, but actual npcs or "monsters" that are pc race "just people with training and gear" in the fluff/game world.

Did my players complain when they fought insect-cheetah creatures that "saw" with natural radar during a dust storm? No. Would they complain that a lich could arm it's zombie minions with laser rifles and the party necromancer can't do that "because it's a npc only thing"? You bet they would*. That's what's being talked about.

* Zombies are really lousy shots. The only reason it was a thing in one place was because an entire city had been slaughtered and the lich came by later for lots and lots of free bodies. The player just didn't want to deal with those sorts of logistics, so there was never any issue.

I know I shouldn't have gone that deep (I initially said "I don't have a dog in this fight" and now I kinda do), but for something I have never played Starfinder examples (entirely different health mechanic for NPCs, entirely different character build mechanic for NPCs, and especially "you can have nukes on your ship but not a quadrocopter") sound quite egregious. I will accept correction from anyone who thinks this is a good idea instead of merely a not-too-harmful. And yes, I include the idea of level-gated gear for PCs but not NPCs as "tricks you can never have" (at the same level as any random NPC, not some powerful agent or beneficiary of a secret training).

Elder vampires definitely have a good reason to have their abilities. And the game did support playing lower generations (up to 8th? 7th?).

Starfinder does seem rife with PC/NPC disparity. It might be a consequences of trying to do a space opera setting in the D&D framework. Though, again - NPCs and PCs being built differently is pretty normal. In a D&D-derivative game, in particular, I see no particular reason to do it any other way. The differences in PC and NPC equipment do seem like a convoluted mess every time someone brings it up, though.

I never got familiar enough with 4th edition to give examples.

That's a very common thread in those discussions.

FFG Star Wars has a number of rules that broke suspension of disbelief for me, like how being in a minion squad lets stormtroopers survive thermal detonators (it's almost impossible to kill a whole squad with one, even though they occupy the same area for all purposes). Or the Adversary rule, which upgrades all difficulties for the PCs without costing destiny points or strain or even an action, when all similar PC abilities require such a cost to activate.

I don't see anything wrong with any of this. It's pretty standard.

[EggKookoo]

Try this in your next d&d game with dragonborn in the party. Attack them with, or better yet give them some allies, regular dragonborn npcs with a better breath weapon doing twice the pc's damage that they can use a lot. Be sure to tell them afterwards that they can never get that because the cool stuff you give the npcs is too good for pcs. Oh, and remember to do this sort of thing with various npcs/pc race monsters for the entire campaign.

Ideally, a long-running NPC (meaning lasting more than a single encounter) should be built more along PC rules, although there's some wiggle room there depending on how long the NPC is expected to stick around.

The first time I ran a D&D 5e game with a legendary creature, and the first time I used its legendary action, I paused the game and explained what a legendary action is to the players. "So, yeah, in this edition, some very powerful creatures get extra actions they can take at the end of someone else's turn. There's a limited number of them per round. They did this so to make big solo fights more interesting, and the ability to do this is factored into how tough the creature is." Something like that. No one had a problem with it. We resumed play and moved on.

I think in most cases, players don't care that much about it. But it's also something that might be appropriate session zero material. "Just so you know, PCs and NPCs are built a little differently from each other. You may see NPCs with features that aren't exactly like what you have as a similar PC. This was done to keep the NPCs interesting for the short time they exist in the game and to make things easier on the GM. If you're not cool with this we may need to find a different system or something."

[Drascin]

It was said many times above: it's specifically about abilities that are unavailable for no good (in-story) reason. It usually manifests in two ways: extremely similar background ("oh, this friendly NPC cleric of St. Cuthbert can teleport us to our destination? Sweet! When I will be able to do that?") or a case where players use common sense to conclude that their character should be able to do something, or at least be able to train to do something that NPCs use but is not allowed by the rules (the above example of random bandits using their bows and arrows to do a trick that archery-focused ranger is unable to do). The second part concerns mostly mundane, or seemingly-mundane (Ex) options. The first part applies across the board. It is not about limiting players to certain roles (saying "no, you don't get to play outsider" despite outsiders in the campaign is no different from being unable to play a king despite kings in the campaign).

It also doesn't concerns ninjas of secret school about which nobody knows or polymorfed dragons or whatnot. Now, it often impossible for players to tell the difference, and trusting the GM is a good default option. But GM is supposed to know. No tacking random abilities on bandits if they are actually locals with a rudimentary training.

There are some situations in which it is very hard to have the same rules for PCs and NPCs (e.g. minionomany in general, and exponential minionomancy - minons who have their own minions - especially). But it is a very good idea to keep that number of specific interactions as low as possible.

See, that's the thing. I find that mindset that "oh, there's someone in my church that can do this, therefore I must also be able to do this exact thing" kinda weird? Like. Of course different characters can do different things? "Cleric" is not an in-world thing. "Cleric" is an out-of-fiction package of abilities to roughly represent a holy warrior archetype that it is fun to play in a long term campaign with a whole kit of abilities designed to cover every eventuality a player party might run into. This does not mean that the Cleric in the PHB is what every fighting priest you meet is. In fact, as I said, it probably SHOULDN'T be, because fighting PC clerics is incredibly miserable. You should absolutely just make a rough monster-style statline that has a few abilities that roughly get across the cleric feel without being an actual PHB Cleric. Which means that they won't quite be exactly what the PC has. And not unlikely, they'll be a bit more potent in at least one axis, because instead of having a kit of possible abilities longer than many entire RPGs like a D&D PC Cleric does, they will have something like three signature abilities that need to be impactful in the three turns tops that an NPC has in the space between "roll initiative" and "dead".

And of course, PCs also get to do a lot of things basically no NPC ever will get to do. Because what makes a good PC and what makes a good NPC in terms of abilities are very different thing.

[Saint-Just]

"Cleric" is not an in-world thing. "Cleric" is an out-of-fiction package of abilities to roughly represent a holy warrior archetype that it is fun to play in a long term campaign with a whole kit of abilities designed to cover every eventuality a player party might run into. This does not mean that the Cleric in the PHB is what every fighting priest you meet is. In fact, as I said, it probably SHOULDN'T be, because fighting PC clerics is incredibly miserable. You should absolutely just make a rough monster-style statline that has a few abilities that roughly get across the cleric feel without being an actual PHB Cleric. Which means that they won't quite be exactly what the PC has. And not unlikely, they'll be a bit more potent in at least one axis, because instead of having a kit of possible abilities longer than many entire RPGs like a D&D PC Cleric does, they will have something like three signature abilities that need to be impactful in the three turns tops that an NPC has in the space between "roll initiative" and "dead".

Priest is not necessary a "cleric", that is obvious. But divine magic is not miracles performed by the holy men, it never was that. Most of the time it's something well-known. A cleric should be about as surprised about abilities of another cleric of the same church as experienced commander about effective range of a unit of Zian mercenaries when he have commanded Zian mercenaries in the past and can shoot a longbow himself. It doesn't mean having 100% perfect information, but neither does it means saying "whatever gods will will happen".

And yes I can imagine some justification (maybe that cleric is in the church of St Cuthbert but actually is devoted to the idea of justice, and justice must be timely, so he gets a Travel domain; maybe in Z composite longbows are a new sensation sweeping the nation so they all have composites while they were content to use ordinary longbows five years ago), but again people (I do not mean players) want to know what they can expect, so it is unreasonable assumption that a cleric doesn't know what people from his church can and cannot do.

[Jason]

I don't see anything wrong with any of this. It's pretty standard.

Well I do see something wrong with it. Just because "it's pretty standard" doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Here I'm trying to pretend I'm in a logically consistent world and there are people who don't play by the same rules of reality that I do. And it's very noticeable that they don't and there's no reason in the world why they get different rules than i do to play with. It's just because i have PC glow and they don't.

Admittedly I might not have cared if it were in a system I enjoyed playing, but in a system I already had many problems with it was an added annoyance, like kicking me when I was already down.

[Tanarii]

RPGs with NPCs built on PC lines are just a royal pain in the ass to DM. I've done it in Rifts and old school Warhammer Fantasy and D&D 3e. Even D&D 1e /2e fiends heavily loaded up with tons of spells are a pain.

Exalted 2e and FFG Warhammer 40k Only War were a blast to read, but they're some of the worst for this. I'd never run either. There's absolutely no way as a GM I could keep track of all the Charms / Talents even a basic enemy has.

(Edit: to be clear, I feel that RPGs moving to the simplest possible stat blocks that meet the intended purpose of an interesting encounter is/would be one of the best things, a vast improvement in modern gaming.)

---------------------

On 4e skill challenges: The math didn't work. That was the case for many things in the system. They patched that. (Incidentally, it's also the case for 5e recommended skill DCs)

But the concept not working is only because folks don't easily grok it. Setting up a good invisible skill challenge where the mechanics aren't the primary or only focus for the players is hard, and most DMs don't even try. And predictably players will try to game the mechanics, not play their character.

There are several other RPGs that suffer from the same issue, where if you don't make the mechanics invisible, players will game the crap out of it. Hilariously, they're often games that are claiming or trying to be narratively focused. The designers of such systems either assume GMs will make GM mechanic as invisible as possible, they don't explain it properly. Or they don't assume GM mechanics need to be invisible, and get upset when players game the system and rant about players not "roleplaying". Kevin Siembieda & Ron Edwards were famous Ranters. Eric Wujcik, Luke Crane, and 4e/13th age's Heinsoo didn't really rant (that I'm aware of), but they either didn't explain it well or didn't understand these mechanics needed to be player-invisible..

So yes, technically 4e skill challenges don't work as a system ... because the designers didn't properly explain how they need to be used to work as a system, or assumed open & player-facing GM mechanics wouldn't be a problem.

[EggKookoo]

Here I'm trying to pretend I'm in a logically consistent world and there are people who don't play by the same rules of reality that I do. And it's very noticeable that they don't and there's no reason in the world why they get different rules than i do to play with. It's just because i have PC glow and they don't.

Honestly this is an issue with any class-based game. In D&D, the fighter sees the cleric cast cure wounds day in and day out. They're the same race and level. But no matter how much the fighter copies the words and gestures and has faith that he can do it, he can't cast the spell himself because he has the "fighter" tag. Yeah, multiclassing is a solution to this, but it's optional, and not all editions/tables support it. And frankly it's bandaid.

Not that I oppose class-based systems. It's just what it is.

RPGs with NPCs built on PC lines are just a royal pain in the ass to DM. I've done it in Rifts and old school Warhammer Fantasy and D&D 3e. Even D&D 1e /2e fiends heavily loaded up with tons of spells are a pain.

As it is, in 5e I don't like spellcaster NPCs with slots. They should just have spell-like abilities they can do X times (even if just once) or use a recharge mechanic.

[Batcathat]

Honestly this is an issue with any class-based game. In D&D, the fighter sees the cleric cast cure wounds day in and day out. They're the same race and level. But no matter how much the fighter copies the words and gestures and has faith that he can do it, he can't cast the spell himself because he has the "fighter" tag. Yeah, multiclassing is a solution to this, but it's optional, and not all editions/tables support it. And frankly it's bandaid.

But that's an actual in-universe reason and, as you say, the fighter can start healing by taking a level in cleric (which could be fluffed as the fighter having studied the cleric enough and having enough faith to do it). I don't think anyone is arguing against in-universe division of abilities. "PC" and "NPC" are strictly an out of universe lables though, so any in-universe difference based on that seems odd.

[The Glyphstone]

Personally, I don't have any problems with NPC-only unique abilities as long as they're exclusive to that specific NPC, making it a quality of the individual rather than the grouping. For example, upthread someone talked about an NPC Cleric of St. Cuthbert being able to teleport - if that cleric can teleport, but neither PC clerics of St. Cuthbert nor any other NPC clerics of St. Cuthbert, then it becomes an identifying feature of Father Wrothym instead of an invisible line in the sand that PCs aren't permitted to cross. And the explanation can be as simple as a unique blessing given to him by his god, or it can be an entire questline to unravel why he is special. It adds to the story, rather than disrupts it.

[Tanarii]

But that's an actual in-universe reason and, as you say, the fighter can start healing by taking a level in cleric (which could be fluffed as the fighter having studied the cleric enough and having enough faith to do it). I don't think anyone is arguing against in-universe division of abilities. "PC" and "NPC" are strictly an out of universe lables though, so any in-universe difference based on that seems odd.

It's not in-universe at all. It's a player saying at the beginning of the game: 'my character is going to play X class, which means s/he will only study to gain X's class abilities. No matter how hard s/he studies in-universe, s/he will never learn to cast Magic-user or Cleric spells or gain Thief skills. Nor any special monster one-offs'. The conceit is that by choosing a class, you've already chosen what kind of things your character chooses to focus on and study.

I must say though, if D&D or another RPG were designed for it, Final Fantasy monster-ability stealing / mimicking would be a cool character class concept. For a dedicated class.

[Jay R]

Darth Vader has a death star. Luke, Han, and Leia can’t have one.
Voldemort has Death Eaters. Harry, Ron, and Hermione can’t have them.
Cardinal Richelieu has hundreds of minions and a spy network. D’Artagnan can’t have them.
Smaug has flight and fire breath. Bilbo and the dwarves and can’t have them.
The Witch of the West has winged monkeys. Dorothy can’t have them.
Loki has illusions. Thor can’t have them.
Maleficent can turn into a dragon. Aurora and Philip can’t do it.

That makes the story work.

Alternatively,
The Bank has essentially unlimited money. Monopoly players can’t have it.
The referee can say the last play didn’t count. The football players can’t.
The blackjack dealer wins immediately if the player goes over 21, whether he eventually does or not.

Those make the game work.

There is no principle or precedent, in story-telling or gaming, that says that players need the same options as non-players. None. Not any.

For a fun game, there are only two requirements:

1. An interesting and fun set of meaningful options, and
2. The ability to enjoy the options you have.

If you insist that your PC have any option that the NPCs have, you aren’t asking for requirement 1; you are preventing requirement 2.

[EggKookoo]

But that's an actual in-universe reason and, as you say, the fighter can start healing by taking a level in cleric (which could be fluffed as the fighter having studied the cleric enough and having enough faith to do it). I don't think anyone is arguing against in-universe division of abilities. "PC" and "NPC" are strictly an out of universe lables though, so any in-universe difference based on that seems odd.

"Fighter" and "cleric" are not in-universe labels in D&D that I'm aware of. And even if they were, that doesn't mean the human fighter shouldn't be able to learn to do whatever the human cleric can do just by practicing. Multiclassing is not part of the default rules, despite being popular at this forum. But my point is the entire concept of a class is an artificial gamey division of features. Real life doesn't work like that. A brain surgeon doesn't have to "take levels" in sculptor to pick up some clay and start modeling. And the surgeon might turn out to be pretty good at it.

Compare to some other games where PCs are made up of a collection of skills, and the player just assigns points to them however desired. Call of Cthulhu works like that. No classes (literally or functionally). You just get points and assign them. At least previous editions did that -- my understanding is the current edition has a "profession" mechanic which prioritizes skill clusters. But even then, I don't think it prohibits putting points where the player chooses.

Interestingly. NPCs in (old) CoC were built exactly like PCs.

[Cluedrew]

A brain surgeon doesn't have to "take levels" in sculptor to pick up some clay and start modeling. And the surgeon might turn out to be pretty good at it.

Just for fun swap brain surgeon and sculptor (update clay as appropriate).

I'm not turning that into an argument. I've already spoken what I have to say on one part and as I don't have much to say I'm going to try and not say much.

[EggKookoo]

Just for fun swap brain surgeon and sculptor (update clay as appropriate).

I'm not turning that into an argument. I've already spoken what I have to say on one part and as I don't have much to say I'm going to try and not say much.

To the contrary, I agree with the point you're making. I should have said real life doesn't always work that way...

Also, I'm not trying to argue against the original point that there should be some path for a PC to learn anything an NPC knows as long as it's sensible that the PC would be able to learn it. My experience with PC/NPC disconnect is mostly via D&D 5e, which isn't subject to this problem for the most part. I do hold that there's nothing wrong with NPCs being mechanically simplified in relation to PCs.