Things in RPGs that you used to like but don’t anymore

[JNAProductions]

And the issue I have with this view is if you wanted the system to be simpler why not simplify both npcs and player characters by making all of them use the simplest system?

Because a DM has to handle many NPCs, while players only have to handle one PC.

The players can handle much more complexity without bogging anything down, and without any complexity, will likely be bored of their mechanics quickly.

[Vahnavoi]

Other than a lot of the distances being divisible by five, is that any difference from AD&D or basic/classic?

First edition AD&D was outright designed to be played with miniatures, to the point where a lot of spell ranges (etc.) were given in inches - you were supposed to physically measure distances between units. I imagine OD&D had a good bit of that as well, since it was originally meant as companion game to Chainmail, a miniature wargame.

It was less obvious in B/X, BECMI and 2nd AD&D, but giving distances in 5' increments or other increments easy to scale or measure on a grid was still the norm.

D&D can be played as "theater of mind", but it was definitely designed from the ground up to be used with miniatures or other visual aides. (Personally, I've favored drawing instead of miniatures.) If this somehow isn't explicit in 5th edition (I wouldn't know, I don't have the books to check), that's another case of the game developers sticking to old rules while failing to explain why those rules are as they are.

[RandomPeasant]

I think the PC/NPC symmetry thing is an outgrowth of my general growing lack of care for RPGs simulating anything consistently. They're not going to model reality and I'm fine if they're just abstracting things based on the kind of experience they want to produce.

I think there's two sides to it. I don't have a huge problem with lack of symmetry between PCs and monsters (though the asymmetry points chosen are often stupid, like decoupling HD from CR in 3e). I do have a problem with asymmetry between PCs and NPCs, because that almost always leads to absolute nonsense where the NPC Assassin has abilities that are not available to the PC Assassin, which is a huge verisimilitude break. I think what the game really wants is some kind of mid-point way of making NPCs that have a simplified subset of PC abilities (for example in 4e, NPCs like this might have only the at-will powers of their class or something).

[Morty]

And the issue I have with this view is if you wanted the system to be simpler why not simplify both npcs and player characters by making all of them use the simplest system?

Why would I want to do that? Simplifying NPCs has a greater value than simplifying PCs, because the GM is going to have to juggle many of them in any given game.

What if the "experience"* I want to produce is one where the mechanics of the game give results that are in line with the range and likelihood of results that could occur given the current circumstances withing the setting/character layer of the game? That is, I don't want the dice to produce results that throw me out of what's going on between the characters, etc.

This is part of why I've lost interest in some dice systems I used to like. WEG d6, oWoD, etc... variable dice pools in general.

I used to agree, but nowadays I see this goal as neither very realistic nor worth the effort of trying to achieve it.

[RandomPeasant]

Why would I want to do that? Simplifying NPCs has a greater value than simplifying PCs, because the GM is going to have to juggle many of them in any given game.

That's a reason why simplifying NPCs is more important than simplifying PCs, but it's not a reason you wouldn't want to simplify PCs. The real answer, of course, is that you want things at a range of complexities. Some players want a character that is easy to play because they're new or because they're not very interested in the mechanical aspect of the game. Some DMs are able to deal with a higher level of complexity and find it produces a more rewarding experience. Some PCs like complex decision trees and want a character with lots of moving parts. Some fights pit the party against a single powerful enemy (like a Dragon or a Demon Prince), which can afford to be more complicated because there aren't a bunch of mooks running around. The reason you don't want to make everything maximally simple is because simplicity isn't the only goal, not because simplicity is a goal for NPCs but not for PCs.

[Telok]

I think there's two sides to it. I don't have a huge problem with lack of symmetry between PCs and monsters (though the asymmetry points chosen are often stupid, like decoupling HD from CR in 3e). I do have a problem with asymmetry between PCs and NPCs, because that almost always leads to absolute nonsense where the NPC Assassin has abilities that are not available to the PC Assassin, which is a huge verisimilitude break. I think what the game really wants is some kind of mid-point way of making NPCs that have a simplified subset of PC abilities (for example in 4e, NPCs like this might have only the at-will powers of their class or something).

Truth. Also, that whole discussion is something like a 99% post-3.x-D&D-only thing that only occurred when people started thinking they had to build every npc from scratch, perfectly following all the guidelines like they were rules, and using all published options. Which is something I think I did maybe of 3 times per levels 3-16 campaign in that system.

Seriously, no almost systems make you do that. Call of Cthulhu? You think a hound of tinaldos or a ghost is built with pc rules? Paranoia? The DM just chooses, the hardest part is coming up with a punny name for an npc. Pendragon, Traveller, WoD, Warhammer, AD&D, etc., etc. You always have the option to build npcs with pc building rules, but it's never a required thing.

The closest I can think of is Champions, but that's because in a supers game character building is about the powers and you're just picking from the same power/options lists as a pc. Even then the DM doesn't need to keep to a point buy limit, restrict the time & dimension travel powers, or follow other character building rules.

I actually wonder if people confuse character building rules with "running the game" rules on this subject. But yeah, stuff like "dragon kin soldier npcs are immune to fire & paralysis while dragon kin soldier pcs get fire resist 5 & +2 save vs paralysis because immunities on pcs are op" or "npc mages get special bonus actions in their homes because magic wards and pc mages can never get those because they're pcs", is just really annoying to players.

[Max_Killjoy]

I used to agree, but nowadays I see this goal as neither very realistic nor worth the effort of trying to achieve it.

The problem is that (at least the more severe) WTH moments that arise from the dissonance / incoherence are game-ruining for me.

[Morty]

That's a reason why simplifying NPCs is more important than simplifying PCs, but it's not a reason you wouldn't want to simplify PCs. The real answer, of course, is that you want things at a range of complexities. Some players want a character that is easy to play because they're new or because they're not very interested in the mechanical aspect of the game. Some DMs are able to deal with a higher level of complexity and find it produces a more rewarding experience. Some PCs like complex decision trees and want a character with lots of moving parts. Some fights pit the party against a single powerful enemy (like a Dragon or a Demon Prince), which can afford to be more complicated because there aren't a bunch of mooks running around. The reason you don't want to make everything maximally simple is because simplicity isn't the only goal, not because simplicity is a goal for NPCs but not for PCs.

Sure, and many systems simplify both PCs and NPCs to great effect. I was responding to a post that gave me the impression of a false dichotomy.

The problem is that (at least the more severe) WTH moments that arise from the dissonance / incoherence are game-ruining for me.

I'm sorry to hear that, but I'm talking about my perspective and how it has shifted.

[Psyren]

The massive dungeon crawl: No way. If I have to go through a dungeon nowadays it better be something like 10 rooms, tops.
...
The Endless Campaign: Yeah, no. Wrap it up at some point. I am fine with a series of short campaigns with the same characters, where you can technically play the same characters forever.

Non-unified mechanics, multiple subsystems, and tactical mini-games: Multiple subsystems and mini-games need a real good reason for me to consider them over a unified mechanic/task system. Look at 3.5 D&D’s undead turning chart; what a mess.
...
Highly detailed character generation + high lethality: I am fine with detailed chargen and I am fine with high lethality games, but these two things should never, ever go together. I stopped playing Rolemaster for a reason, and it wasn’t all the charts (the charts were actually kind of cool).

All these are on my list as well.

Playing in a canonical universe during the main story: What, you mean you don’t want to shuttle food supplies to the Rebel Base so Luke and Han have enough supplies for the attack on the Empire facility? What about being bodyguards to Midnight and Cyric so they can become gods? Not interesting either? I know, you can run errands for Legolas and Aragorn during the War of the Ring. That’s gotta sound fun, right?

Well yes and no - I agree that I wouldn't want to be following the main characters around and holding their bags, but a sidestory where I'm doing something important somewhere else contemporaneously with the main story would be fine. For example, a story set during Mass Effect 2 where I'm part of the Cerberus squad that discovers the Shadow Broker's location and delivers it to Liara and Shepard - that could involve a lot of intrigue and combat in its own right without putting me on the Normandy.

[kyoryu]

And the issue I have with this view is if you wanted the system to be simpler why not simplify both npcs and player characters by making all of them use the simplest system?

A lot of reason for getting rid of PC/NPC symmetry has to do with how they're used.... PCs go through many encounters, NPCs go through one in most cases. This can make for situations where abilities that make sense for one situation don't make sense for another.

It's also not a big deal if an NPC dies in a hit, but tends to upset players if it happens to them, at least frequently. Killing one enemy on the battlefield just makes the battle easier... killing one PC has a much bigger impact. So you want to balance abilities around that. That and PCs do tend to focus fire a lot, while it's usually somewhat poor sport for GMs to do the same.

Sure, there are ways around that - luck points, Revolving Door of Death, etc., but at the end of the game, PCs and NPCs in games just do different things inherently, even if they're using the same rules. I have no problems having the rules be tailored to the things that they do.

Part of that is complexity, too, as the GM has more characters to learn in much less time, so if every encounter had five creatures that were as complex as a typical PC, that could quickly become overwhelming. So, yeah, that's part of it, but I don't think it's anywhere near the whole picture.

[Jay R]

Hrm. Would be curious about what system that's in.

I mean, definitely, if a system has lots of things that suggest a grid would be useful, I can see that. Like, trying to force No Grid on a system that has a lot of things that depend on precise positioning would increase the time to resolve like anything.

Pretty much anything. In D&D, looking at a grid lets me (for example) pick a spot to center a hypnotic pattern where it hit three foes and no allies. Or it's the fastest way to line up a lighting bolt. It's the fastest way to see where to stand so missing an enemy with an arrow doesn't risk hitting a friend. I can plan a bullrush much more quickly and intuitively.

The easier and quicker I can apply the mechanics, the less I have to focus on them, and the more immersed I can be.

[Tanarii]

Despite the 5e PHB presenting grid combat as an optional rule (to dodge "too much like a video game" criticisms, I'd bet), it's pretty obviously designed around it. Playing all TotM is doable, but it's definitely awkward and leads to either a lot of hand-waiving or a lot of clarifying questions about the layout of the battlefield thanks to everything having very specific ranges and sizes in 5' increments. How are you really supposed to properly adjudicate who gets hit by a cone attack without any visual reference?

The DMG tells the DM how to handle this.

[RandomPeasant]

Seriously, no almost systems make you do that. Call of Cthulhu? You think a hound of tinaldos or a ghost is built with pc rules? Paranoia? The DM just chooses, the hardest part is coming up with a punny name for an npc. Pendragon, Traveller, WoD, Warhammer, AD&D, etc., etc. You always have the option to build npcs with pc building rules, but it's never a required thing.

In fairness, a lot of the creatures you're alluding to wouldn't be built under the NPC rules in D&D either. A Hound of Tinaldos is a monster, and would be built under the monster creation rules, which have pretty much always said "eyeball it".

I actually wonder if people confuse character building rules with "running the game" rules on this subject. But yeah, stuff like "dragon kin soldier npcs are immune to fire & paralysis while dragon kin soldier pcs get fire resist 5 & +2 save vs paralysis because immunities on pcs are op" or "npc mages get special bonus actions in their homes because magic wards and pc mages can never get those because they're pcs", is just really annoying to players.

I think it's more that it's a complicated subject and people can mean related-but-distinct things by it.

Consider, for example, the distinction between "monsters" (things like magical beasts, spirits, dragons, or demons that are not intended to be PCs) and "NPCs" (conceptually similar to PCs, but controlled by the DM). If you have a monster like D&D's Vrock, or Shadowrun's various spirits, or whatever the hell is in an Exalted bestiary, most people are going to be okay with it being a largely-arbitrary pile of stats that happens to do whatever job the game needs it to do. It might be nice if those things come naturally out of some kind of progression, so that you can elegantly make Greater Vrocks, but it's not essential.

But you could also make a point about how these things interact with the system. What happens when an Ogre tries to climb a wall? What dice do you roll when a Dragon tries to lie to the PCs? What happens if an NPC Orc attacks and NPC Guard when the players are defending the castle? No one seriously defends "you must simulate the entire world in the same level of detail as the PCs at all times", but at the same time if you let an abstraction leak where the PCs can see it that can piss people off (especially if it's perceived as working against their interests).

You could also make it about what kinds of abilities are available to PCs and NPCs/monsters. The idea that every ability should be on offer to PCs is tempting, but it doesn't really work. Some abilities are simply not appropriate for adventures to have. A prime example of this is immobility. A Roper can't move at all. A Dryad can't stray far from her tree (at least, some incarnations of the concept can't). Those are not appropriate abilities for PCs to have, because they prevent you from doing the primary thing PCs do: adventure. But that doesn't make those monsters bad monsters.

Finally, the reality is that the boundaries between "PC" and "NPC" are blurry at the best of times. "Giant" is an NPC concept, until you play a Norse campaign and Greg wants to be a Jotun priest of the Rimtursar. "Wizard" is a PC concept, until the party decides that picking a fight with the local Mages' Guild is the way to solve whatever problem they have. You can't play a Demon as your character, but demon-summoning is an iconic ability for Warlocks to have, and it's pretty unsatisfying if your pet demon is a pile of stats totally disconnected from the demons you fight as monsters.

There are a lot of different ways to interpret the topic, and the positions you can have on them run the gamut from "uncontroversially true" to "completely insane" on either side of the divide.

A lot of reason for getting rid of PC/NPC symmetry has to do with how they're used.... PCs go through many encounters, NPCs go through one in most cases. This can make for situations where abilities that make sense for one situation don't make sense for another.

This is a very dangerous line of thinking. It's true that most NPCs are only going to be in one combat encounter, but plots still need to be driven by NPCs, so they still need to have abilities that matter at a scope larger than a single fight.

It's also not a big deal if an NPC dies in a hit,

Depends on the NPC. It's true that "spells kill your character in one hit and that sucks" is the largest reason people hate Rocket Launcher Tag, but "spells kill the BBEG in one hit and that's unsatisfying" is a close second. The reality is that NPCs fill a lot of different niches. Some are expected to last multiple encounters (animal companions, recurring villains). Some are expected to go toe-to-toe with the whole party (dragons, BBEGs). Some are expected to have a lasting impact on the overall campaign (BBEGs, rivals). It's certainly true that you want some NPCs that are simple. You want mook demons and undead and elementals and humanoids and constructs and vermin that you can put in fights without having to track half a dozen abilities for each infernal footsoldier. But you also want more powerful NPCs whose impact on the game (and, therefore, complexity) is much closer to that of a PC.

[Telok]

A Roper can't move at all. A Dryad can't stray far from her tree (at least, some incarnations of the concept can't). Those are not appropriate abilities for PCs to have, because they prevent you from doing the primary thing PCs do: adventure.

Since when can ropers not move? Sure, they were never fast, but an immobile monster simply isn't a real threat. At best it's a roadblock or puzzle. And dryads? The tree isn't a problem, it just means you need a bigger luggage cart. Are they complications? Yeah, but not unsolvable. Do they limit what sort of adventures they go on? Probably, at least until D&D mid-level magic starts really kicking in.

I totally get what you're saying. Some creatures and creature abilities in some game systems don't fit the "4 to 7 foot tall humanoids travel around the world killing & looting" generic fantasy adventure game paradigm. In other systems "dryad/treant starship captain cyborg werewolf in power armor dual weilding lightsabers and casting fireball" is a thing (seriously, like 5 different systems, minimum).

But that's not what people care about. It's the times when we're told "pc fighter Bob can never learn the sword move that nameless npc bandit #3 just did because Bob is a pc" or "DM: the dragon bashes on a cave wall and rocks fall on you, take damage. PC: i'm polymorphed into a dragon, i bash the wall to make rocks fall on him. DM: nope, npc only ability" that people care about. Especially it's that sort of stuff being held up as some sort of exemplar of good game design, or as a requirement to make the game playable, that annoys me.

You want a shortcut to make quick npcs that are just detailed enough to work for as long as you need them? Great, that's the sort of content I'd like to pay money for. The game starts to fail (mechanically or in verisimilitude & fun) when pcs interact with npcs in ways that aren't "kill them and take their stuff"? Yeah, no. Not buying it. Not when there are other games without that problem. I lost interest in trying to fix or deal with that sort of systemic failure a while ago.

[RandomPeasant]

Since when can ropers not move? Sure, they were never fast, but an immobile monster simply isn't a real threat. At best it's a roadblock or puzzle.

Huh, apparently they can. Pretend I said Elemental Weird or something. There are immobile creatures out there. More generally, there's nothing really wrong with monsters being tied to specific locations. If you've ever fought a Wizard in his tower or a Dragon in its lair, I don't see how you can reasonably object to "some monsters are fought in specific set-pieces" as a game design choice.

In other systems "dryad/treant starship captain cyborg werewolf in power armor dual weilding lightsabers and casting fireball" is a thing (seriously, like 5 different systems, minimum).

That seems like you're missing the point. There are certainly interpretations of "dryad" your system could use where they can adventure. Some settings have dryads that are merely "tree spirits" rather than tied to a particular tree. But the point is that there are monsters that do things that simply don't work for PCs (for a more extreme example, consider the Iron Golem's lack of free will or the Warg's lack of thumbs).

But that's not what people care about.

My broader point is that there's not one thing that people mean when they say "lack of transparency between PCs and NPCs". You may mean that there should not be abilities that don't work for PCs simply because they're PCs. Someone else may be talking about how monsters or PCs are created, or about the possibility of playing various sorts of monsters as a PC. The topic is sufficiently vague that someone taking a stance on it needs to be clear about what they mean (and to be fair, you have done this).

[False God]

This is a very dangerous line of thinking. It's true that most NPCs are only going to be in one combat encounter, but plots still need to be driven by NPCs, so they still need to have abilities that matter at a scope larger than a single fight.

Then the 5 baddies who go beyond one encounter can be built as PCs.

The other 700 nameless kobolds, orcs and bandits can all be built like the redshirts they are.

[Tanarii]

The other 700 nameless kobolds, orcs and bandits can all be built like the redshirts they are.

Speaking of which, I used to like having/making enemies quirky, interesting, etc. Names called out to their allies in danger in combat (or when they died), interesting things in their pockets, etc. "Grounds the campaign" I'd think, "makes the world seem more real!"

Then I realized what I needed most of the time, both as a player and a DM, was storm-orcs. Faceless, nameless, bad guys.

I still always seem to inadvertently throw in a "the bandit you just killed was just a kid" type situation from time to time. And player reactions reinforce I need usually storm-Orcs. Unsurprisingly. Because when I flip the script and think about it as if I were a player and that happened, I get it.

Humanizing the enemy is usually a terrible idea. Especially when it always seems to be about guilt tripping the players.

[MoiMagnus]

Humanizing the enemy is usually a terrible idea. Especially when it always seems to be about guilt tripping the players.

More precisely, you want the level of humanization of the enemy to be in line with the expected gameplay.

If you expect most combat encounters to be avoided (diplomacy, infiltration, etc), then it make sense to humanize the enemy (and you might want to search for RPGs that are less combat-focussed than D&D), as it reinforces the feeling of failure when weapons have to be drawn.

But if most of the peoples around the table are here for some tactical combat on a grid, humanizing the minor enemies is counterproductive. (You might still want to humanize main antagonists to make them memorable).

[noob]

A lot of reason for getting rid of PC/NPC symmetry has to do with how they're used.... PCs go through many encounters, NPCs go through one in most cases. This can make for situations where abilities that make sense for one situation don't make sense for another.

It's also not a big deal if an NPC dies in a hit, but tends to upset players if it happens to them, at least frequently. Killing one enemy on the battlefield just makes the battle easier... killing one PC has a much bigger impact. So you want to balance abilities around that. That and PCs do tend to focus fire a lot, while it's usually somewhat poor sport for GMs to do the same.

Sure, there are ways around that - luck points, Revolving Door of Death, etc., but at the end of the game, PCs and NPCs in games just do different things inherently, even if they're using the same rules. I have no problems having the rules be tailored to the things that they do.

Part of that is complexity, too, as the GM has more characters to learn in much less time, so if every encounter had five creatures that were as complex as a typical PC, that could quickly become overwhelming. So, yeah, that's part of it, but I don't think it's anywhere near the whole picture.

This still does not forces player characters to be more complicated than the bbeg the gm will manage.
BBEGS already have protection against "single hit ko"(going from "the first encounter with the bbeg, it flees" to "the bbeg needs two fighting checks to defeat") as well as descriptions defining what they do outside of the combat(ex: this bbeg recruited 10 people and makes them work on digging up the world exploding artifact)
So I still do not see how your arguments indicates player characters needs to be more complicated than the high end npcs or to use another system.

[Tanarii]

More precisely, you want the level of humanization of the enemy to be in line with the expected gameplay.

How dare you make sense with reasonable statements!

It can depend on the game you're playing (given this is the general forum), and the goals of the campaign, adventure, and encounters. But IMO it's best to avoid humanizing the enemy until the PCs make an alliance, or intentionally signaling to the PCs that a group might be considered not enemies.

[Zombimode]

[COLOR="#0000FF"]But IMO it's best to avoid humanizing the enemy until the PCs make an alliance, or intentionally signaling to the PCs that a group might be considered not enemies.

Why? Isn't the tone and mood of the campaign the important factor here? Combat focus or not I don't see mattering at all in this question.

[Pex]

I too used be a strong supporter of the bad guys must use the same rules as players. The attitude came from my, non-realization to me at the time, growing dislike of 2E. Monsters and NPCs in 2E were notorious for breaking the rules, letting the DM "cheat". Multiple attacks, free spellcasting - no spell slot and no material components, godly ability scores, immunities. When 3E made monsters and NPCs follow the same rules I was thrilled. They were bound by rules in their creation. However, as I DMed more in 3E I would soon learn how tedious it got to create NPCs.

Now in 5E i can appreciate as DM plug and play. I can change things around and use what I need the bad guys to have. Of course it still must be relatively or appropriately balanced to the PCs as the encounter requires, but when I have a bad guy at AC X but realize too late that included a shield while he's been firing a bow all this time it really doesn't matter. The challenge was not more difficult than it was intended. Now I'm ok with the bad guys not following the same rules as PCs, but I still don't want the 2E level of cheating.

[Max_Killjoy]

As others have pointed out, there's often a difference between NPCs having to be created exactly as PCs are, and NPCs having to follow the same rules that PC's follow.

Two different kinds of symmetry.

I care less about the build phase, than I do about the gameplay, when it comes to this question. Building NPCs shouldn't be a chore, especially if they're going to be nameless foes in an encounter, and the NPC who surprises can get a character-sheet upgrade later if needed. But I want all characters to have hypothetical access to the same abilities, and to interact with the rules and each other in exactly the same way. If an NPC is rolling to hit, that should work exactly the same as when a PC is rolling to hit.

[False God]

Speaking of which, I used to like having/making enemies quirky, interesting, etc. Names called out to their allies in danger in combat (or when they died), interesting things in their pockets, etc. "Grounds the campaign" I'd think, "makes the world seem more real!"

Then I realized what I needed most of the time, both as a player and a DM, was storm-orcs. Faceless, nameless, bad guys.

I still always seem to inadvertently throw in a "the bandit you just killed was just a kid" type situation from time to time. And player reactions reinforce I need usually storm-Orcs. Unsurprisingly. Because when I flip the script and think about it as if I were a player and that happened, I get it.

Humanizing the enemy is usually a terrible idea. Especially when it always seems to be about guilt tripping the players.

As others have said, it depends on the sort of game people want to play and the sort of outcomes you expect. If every encounter "could be a fight, but doesn't have to be", it's good to have humanized enemies. In the context of this discussion it may be better to have enemies who are built like PCs, because you are likely to encounter them multiple times and they are likely to play a larger role in the campaign. If every encounter is just a time/resource gate between the party and more loot, then yeah, faceless, nameless baddies it is.

My experience has been that guilt tripping humanization is done on the fly, and humanization that's planned in advance is typically not so guilt-trippy.

[Morty]

If the purpose of a thread is to say "I used to care about this thing but I no longer do", replying to people with "okay, but I still care about this thing a lot" strikes me as counter-productive, I must say.

[Lord Torath]

If the purpose of a thread is to say "I used to care about this thing but I no longer do", replying to people with "okay, but I still care about this thing a lot" strikes me as counter-productive, I must say.

No, the way I play is better!

On-topic, I don't care as much as I used to about realism, caring more about verisimilitude. Is it realistic that you can only shoot two arrows a minute? No. Can I work with that anyway? Sure.

[Willie the Duck]

Spoiler: spoilered for size

Show

I too used be a strong supporter of the bad guys must you the same rules as players. The attitude came from my, non-realization to me at the time, growing dislike of 2E. Monsters and NPCs in 2E were notorious for breaking the rules, letting the DM "cheat". Multiple attacks, free spellcasting - no spell slot and no material components, godly ability scores, immunities. When 3E made monsters and NPCs follow the same rules I was thrilled. They were bound by rules in their creation. However, as I DMed more in 3E I would soon learn how tedious it got to create NPCs.

Now in 5E i can appreciate as DM plug and play. I can change things around and use what I need the bad guys to have. Of course it still must be relatively or appropriately balanced to the PCs as the encounter requires, but when I have a bad guy at AC X but realize too late that included a shield while he's been firing a bow all this time it really doesn't matter. The challenge was not more difficult than it was intended. Now I'm ok with the bad guys not following the same rules as PCs, but I still don't want the 2E level of cheating.

For me, what I want is for -- if the PCs have access to the same avenues, they should be able to do the same stuff (NPCs can make pacts with demons for power, then PCs can as well; if NPC halflings can be competent slingers, than PC halflings can as well). If the creation method to get them there or the exact numbers don't match because of constraints of convenience, that's fine. Particularly for monster rules if the monsters are built using points or to a specific challenge rating or similar, since something can be significantly more or less useful to a PC than to a monster you are likely to meet once.

[kyoryu]

Then the 5 baddies who go beyond one encounter can be built as PCs.

The other 700 nameless kobolds, orcs and bandits can all be built like the redshirts they are.

Yes, exactly this.

Even the recurring antagonists don't have to be built as PCs, though they should be similar in many ways. And usually in a session, they have the "1 encounter" issue as well, so long term resource management still isn't an issue.

But even then, I think you can look at builds as two intertwined subsystems - "how stuff works" and "what it costs". For building significant NPCs, I'm more concerned about the first, and not at all about the second.

For me, what I want is for -- if the PCs have access to the same avenues, they should be able to do the same stuff (NPCs can make pacts with demons for power, then PCs can as well; if NPC halflings can be competent slingers, than PC halflings can as well). If the creation method to get them there or the exact numbers don't match because of constraints of convenience, that's fine. Particularly for monster rules if the monsters are built using points or to a specific challenge rating or similar, since something can be significantly more or less useful to a PC than to a monster you are likely to meet once.

Yeah, I think that's fair. I want fictional symmetry, not mechanical symmetry. Like, PC and NPC wizards should both have access to roughly the same spells if they represent similar kinds of things - but I don't really care if how they manage their spells is the same or not - and, to some extent, I don't necessarily care that they're mechanically the same spell (though fireball seems fairly reasonable). And mostly I don't want NPCs to have access to things the PCs don't, especially if there's no fictional reason for that (halfling slingers)

[Quertus]

I used to agree, but nowadays I see this goal as neither very realistic nor worth the effort of trying to achieve it.

How is arranging for the results of the dice to map roughly to real-world probability distribution not very realistic?

I too used be a strong supporter of the bad guys must you the same rules as players. The attitude came from my, non-realization to me at the time, growing dislike of 2E. Monsters and NPCs in 2E were notorious for breaking the rules, letting the DM "cheat". Multiple attacks, free spellcasting - no spell slot and no material components, godly ability scores, immunities.

Now I'm ok with the bad guys not following the same rules as PCs, but I still don't want the 2E level of cheating.

Are you poking fun at Halls of the High King?

Wait a minute…

If other 2E modules were like this and DMs accepted them without question, even if innocently not knowing any better, combined with particular advice in the 2E DMG it could explain the origin of my distaste of tyrannical DMing.

NPC immunity to whatever the players do. NPCs can do things and have game mechanics PCs could never have. NPCs essentially break the rules players must game by. Oh look, another bad guy spellcaster without a spellbook.

I certainly don't think that this level of "cheating" was ubiquitous to or intent in 2e D&D. Sorry that that's been your experience.

If the purpose of a thread is to say "I used to care about this thing but I no longer do", replying to people with "okay, but I still care about this thing a lot" strikes me as counter-productive, I must say.

Lol. I can't speak for others, but, for myself, I did say such things to detail exactly how big my "nothing" response was.

[Xervous]

The d20. It was exotic and alluring after seeing only d6s everywhere.

Now it’s a miserable, rigid, flat probability spread that lacks granularity at the trailing ends.