Discussing 4e Subsystems: The PC/NPC Divide

[Thasmodious]

This divide is one of the bigger things I don't like about 4E because it breaks versimilitude in a big way and is a major reasons for why I consider 4E to be more of a tabletop game than an RPG.

Along with all other versions of D&D except 3rd?

It was the divergent edition on this issue, not 4e. Building monsters on the same framework is something that sounds nice on paper, but turns out not to be practical...on paper. PC design is typically the most complex, involved piece of a game system, and forcing every monster and NPC in the gameworld into that framework results in a huge DM headache to maintain consistency and coming close to outright preventing DMing "winging". For me, players reasoning out a monsters level or stats because they know the framework inside out is the versimilitude killer, not returning to the monsters are different paradigm of all other editions.

1. What if an NPC suddenly becomes a PC, or at least a party member? This can easily happen - party meets a foe, but charms it instead of killing it; it sticks around after the charm wears off because it has managed to fit in, and runs with the party for several adventures. Does it have to be redesigned? And if so, where's the internal consistency in that?

I don't think it would be inconsistent. His stats may change, but those are external numbers, not something the characters see. HPs are an abstraction, their number going down in a transition from NPC to PC would not represent the character getting weaker in the game world. Powers are generally similar on a theme, so a monster specific power becomes a retooled class power. Race as PC and as monster are similar enough to be going on with. Everything else is just a shift in numbers, which are not directly representative in the game world. "Wow, I notice you are suddenly 5% better at resisting effects that target your will."

2. How do you handle situations where NPCs fight each other while the PCs watch? Do the rules change once PCs get involved? Again, if they do, where's the internal consistency?

Why in the world would a DM sit around rolling dice against himself in that situation? If the PCs are watching, you describe the action, not play a mini game.

 

[Obryn]

I think this is one of the best changes in 4e.

After statting out 10 different kinds of classed Chorrim for my Arcana Evolved game, I got altogether sick of the fiddly 3e math. In retrospect, I think that was where I started to become disenchanted with the 3e/d20 way of doing things. Other than an attempt at an oldschool-style Wilderlands game, I started running SWSE and WFRP2.

Anyway, my players are not stat junkies. While they figure out creatures' basic to-hit, damage, and AC pretty quickly, they don't try to figure out anything beyond that. Basically, from my players' perspective, I could have built everything out of matchsticks & chewing gum, and they'd never notice.

In my gaming, I'm hugely pragmatic. So long as something works in-game, I'm happy. I've gotten over my insistence that the game rules are representations of game-world physics, more or less.

The 4e NPC & monster rules let me figure out what I want a monster to do, and move backwards from there. It's a nice change of pace, for something that will likely be "on-screen" for all of a single combat.

-O

 

[Fifth Element]

I think this is one of the best changes in 4e.

Agreed. I've just finished DMing a 3.5 campaign and I'm currently prepping the first adventure for a 4E campaign. The monster design really does seem to be much easier. And balancing the encounters is as well.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think this is one of the best changes in 4e.

After statting out 10 different kinds of classed Chorrim for my Arcana Evolved game,

Hey, I did that a lot, too!

 

[avin]

how utterly easy the new system makes homebrewing your own monsters.

Not for me, it seems.

Creating some power that's not related to what already exists is painful...

 

[Derren]

Along with all other versions of D&D except 3rd?

Just because something was not perfect it doesn't mean that you can make it worse and no one is allowed to complain.

I simply prefer to play a normal human who becomes heroic through his deeds and maybe just slightly better stats than playing a mutant who is radically different from everyone else. For that I would play an X-Men RPG

 

[Dragonblade]

Along with all other versions of D&D except 3rd?

It was the divergent edition on this issue, not 4e. Building monsters on the same framework is something that sounds nice on paper, but turns out not to be practical...on paper. PC design is typically the most complex, involved piece of a game system, and forcing every monster and NPC in the gameworld into that framework results in a huge DM headache to maintain consistency and coming close to outright preventing DMing "winging". For me, players reasoning out a monsters level or stats because they know the framework inside out is the versimilitude killer, not returning to the monsters are different paradigm of all other editions.

Indeed. 3e was the only edition of D&D that said that monsters are built the same as PCs. It was a major headache, and is one of the reasons I will never DM 3e again.

Even DMing published adventures in 3e was a pain to me. A lot of times monster abilities are all simply listed out as spell like abilities requiring me to look up everything in my PHB and then possibly even calculate bonuses and mods based on whether there are any buffs active and so on. So much for the writer of the module doing the work for me. Ugh.

4e's self-contained monster stat blocks are just superior in every way.

 

[Kraydak]

Nice dissection of the system, per usual. I think you left out one thing, though: how utterly easy the new system makes homebrewing your own monsters. Pick appropriate powers/status effects for the level, and that's practically it. I made my own monster for an epic campaign (the Hand of Tharizdun, literally the Chained God's hand, poking at the PCs with fingers and thumb. It was a lot of fun to play) -- something I would never have dreamed of in 3.5.

Likewise, adjusting NPCs up and down levels is a snap, whereas a year ago I'd rather snap my wrist than have to choose a class/PrC to level in, figure out where saves should be at, pick spells, etc. etc.

The above simply makes no sense to me. At all. The only difficulty in making a monster is and has always been picking and balancing the special abilities. That hasn't changed a whit.

Note that 4e doesn't have a cool "special ability generation" mechanism. There is a very simple reason: coming up with such a mechanism is functionally impossible due to being too complicated.

 

[Allister]

Note that 4e doesn't have a cool "special ability generation" mechanism. There is a very simple reason: coming up with such a mechanism is functionally impossible due to being too complicated.

Actually, this is the easiest thing to do I found.

The hardest part in balancing special abilites was that it was hard to determine what the attack value should be in respect to the PCs. 4e gives a clear table as to what offences/defences a monster of level X needs to have to be effective.

From there, desiging special abilities is relativeyly easy I found...

 

[Mallus]

Nice analysis Stalker... thorough and insightful.

For the record, I like the new (old) PC/NPC divide. I firmly believe verisimilitude is best created/maintained through good characterization of the NPC's; believable motivations, reasonable responses to in-game events, etc. Not by building them off of the same mechanical framework as the PC's. I've never had a player compliment me on one of my NPC's because I allocated all their skill points correctly, but I have been told my NPC's are believable as playred.

Besides, it's a question of function. PC's are meant to serve as in-game avatars that remain viable over many levels of contiguous play. Most NPC's aren't meant to live through the entire encounter (and those that do probably should be more PC-like, though don't quote me on that).

Wanting PC's and NPC's to use the exact same build rules is a little like wanting all motor vehicles use the same chasis, regardless of their intended purpose.