In RPGs, Should PCs Be Better Than NPCs By Default?

In RPGs, Should PCs Be Better Than NPCs By Default?



Don't forget to chime in on the entire RPG Survey Round-Up!

Mechancially no. At least not all NPCs. I have no problem with them being more powerful then mooks and the like.

Another binary question. What do you mean by this?

Should a 10th level PC fighter be better than a 10th level NPC fighter? Maybe. It depends on the campaign. I prefer when they have something special about them (Action Points being one).

In most games your average NPC isn't going to have an NPC class (unless you are in one of the games where the beggars are 8th level fighters, and bartenders are 15th level barbarians). PCs with NPC classes are non-existant to almost non-existant.

I can see where the poll is coming from but it needs more options.

Iron Heroes and to a lesser extent, Conan default to players are big old tough guys. Eberron has very few high level people, but it's still got potential for high level play.

For me, the players are competent individuals who as they rise in power, are more able to effect the 'political'/'social' environment around them through sheer power and for those who've started down those paths in skills, charisma/persuasion. Nothing like having +20 or so to diplomacy and bluff rolls.

I prefer that the PCs be among the tougher/faster/smarter people of the world, but not better than everyone by default just because theyre PCs.

There should always be someone tougher, and the PCs constantly being chosen of destiny every game and every set of characters gets really old, really fast.

A horribly binary question for one so open ended.

In a traditional heroes style of RPG play - yes, PCs should be better than NPCs by default, otherwise the whole heroic thing just doesn't work out. But that doesn't mean that there aren't loads of successful and enjoyable RP opportunities to be found among the halls of PCs who are equal to, or worse than, their typical NPC peers.

Hmm, they are certainly special and are among those people with the greatest potential.

Game mechanics also dictate they are better equiped then most of their opponents (not so much a thing of wealth guidelines then that I don't want their equipment to dopuble after every combat).

My personal style also demands that they are more heroic than most others.

But all that only raises them only over the glut of low to mid level NPC's and certainly doesn't make them better in the IH sense.

No, I've found the "same rules for PC's and NPC's" approach sufficient.

Neither, in general.

It is good for some games to have the PCs be special in some ways. In other games, it is good to have them be just your average joes. It's a flavor choice, and either one can produce a fun game.

roll 3d6 in order. S, I, W, C, D, Ch

Maybe? Can't answer the question, too vague.

In Feng Shui, you're one of the baddest people in the world - your kung fu is strong, or your guns seldom miss, or you know the magic of the world. In such a world, you're going to be better than most people on the street in fighting or somewhat... but if you're all fighting types, then you're not going to be better than a doctor is at medicine, or than your cabbie is at driving through Hong Kong. Of course, the bad guys are just about as good as you are.

In D&D, if you start out at 1st level, you're weaker than a lot of the world... but if you hold out to 20th, then yeah - you're 'better' than 95% of the world.

In any superhero game you're going to be better than a lot of folks - you either can pick up a bus, can fly, or whatever. Just as in Feng Shui, though, if you're superman and you need science help, you go to Star Labs, where they're better at it than you are.