Fallacy: NPC are more realistic with PC creation rules

[RukiTanuki]

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]

PCs being super? That's not fallacy, that's the way it should be

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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

...Explain the logic underlying that conclusion

[Ominous]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

Spoiler

Show

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]

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]

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

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]

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 ); 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.