Discussing 4e Subsystems: The PC/NPC Divide

[Thanael]

I'm going to be sorry I did this...

A 1st level fighter in 1e/2e with an 18/X strength, doesn't have "slightly better" stats than everyone else. He is actually physically stronger than any other member of his race can possibly be. No one else (other than subclasses of course) can be as strong as my 1st level fighter.

But this makes me "slightly better"? Being stronger and tougher than any normal member of my race can ever hope to be is just a smidgeon better?

This must be a new meaning of "slightly" that I was previously unaware of.

Never mind that my character is wealthier beyond belief by second, maybe 3rd level. That I can walk into a tavern and obliterate all the patrons without breaking a sweat by 4th level. But, y'know, D&D characters are just "slightly" better than the average joe.

Sorry, you want "average joe" play Warhammer. D&D characters have always been Heroes.

Or perhaps all the others should have some levels too? This is why i love 3E NPC classes and SKRs Theory about Peasants.

 

[Loonook]

Or perhaps all the others should have some levels too? This is why i love 3E NPC classes and SKRs Theory about Peasants.

No, because that is unfair to the PCs . . . somehow.

Yeah, there should be some heroic NPCs who aren't names; hell, there should be regular ol' folk who have abilities beyond mortal ken.

The thing which really irritates me is that apparently 4e magically created the ability for NPCs to be greater than PCs. . . perhaps I just didn't play D&D right before 4e, but oracles, warrior-kings, and that crazy sorcerer have never been 'normal' NPCs to me. I loved 3e because there were so many cool abilities which came pre-defined in monster descriptions . . . ahh, the wonders of not having to worry exactly how to outline X or Y ability for that one guy you were planning to use it with.

DMing has always been a job for letting your imagination run wild and make your image work somewhere where it could be interpreted by the rules, not defined in such. There seems to be a new breed (and I mean those who came up with 3e and then went into 4e) who believe fully that there is only that which the rules define, and the way that the rules apply them must be the way it goes.

Villain classes were a great way for some of these types of players to develop their ways a little better . . . and for that I love them. 3.X PHB2 with the special traits for NPCs were another great thing because they gave a definable way to do something which was somewhat balanced.

But it isn't about balance really... balance is our buzzword because it makes sense. It's about fairness more about balance. Fairness is a great thing, but there are just sometimes where the NPCs will be on a level you're not dealing with. You come to me with a great PC concept and we'll work with it. You want to be a Warforged in Modern? I can probably come up with some ideas for where you come from. You want to be a man who was raised from a painting by the deranged psychic the PCs are currently dealing with? Sounds awesome. Sometimes I just can't do it because it will be too setting-breaking (if we're all playing humans you're probably not coming in as a Thri-Kreen or a Moreau) . . . but we can work around it in a lot of cases to make something mechanically and thematically which can work.

I've denied maybe 10, 15 PCs in my time . . . and they all fell under one of three categories:

1.) Way off base - Sorry, a Tokugawan Shogunate samurai may not fit . . . but a highly honorable warrior who is not afraid of death and who wishes to fight for his lord can. Unwilling to bend? Well sorry, the game works on both of us bending.

2.) Just Too Difficult to Work With - A recent denial came from this. The player (my SO) wanted to play a spherical child's toy with no method of communication save for very limited language skills. The character may work... for a couple of sessions. Again, there may be ways to work with it (my avatar is of a teddy bear PC who I fell in love with and snagged as an NPC in one of my games . . . but he had arms, legs, and the ability to speak and interact) but if there's no bending...

3.) Creepiness. I don't want to deal with things that belong in a very very scary Black Dog game. Some taboos just don't work for the group, and if you broach those as the founding principle for the character . . . no dice. The worst example was a streetwalking mage . . . who was way below the age of consent. That was a player issue (an invited player who was... yeah), but there come up.

Outside of that there's usually some way to deal with it. Maybe it's just the start I got in gaming with DMs who were willing to help you make stuff, or the materials I work with, but I think that the ability to be creative is highly important . . . and setting-generic.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[pemerton]

These are two examples to help illustrate the challenge I've encountered. As PC's I think it's difficult to DEAL with a world in which anyone you encounter could have 20hp or 2000hp. How do these changes to the infrastructure of the game, change the voice of the story? I think that most rpg's can deal with these differences within the context of the story, but at this point in development, we don't have the language, experience, and tools we need to answer these questions and explain these differences.

Good post!

 

[justanobody]

The inevitable question…is it better?

Not for me thanks. It makes the world more out to be DM vs player than any edition before ever could be, for the simple fact that the players are downright forbidden to do thing the DM has the ability to do during combat.

Why call it a non-player character rather than just a character if it does not follow the rules of a player character?

The terms even lose their meaning with this approach.

I feel the systems to be balanced should be equal for both sides rather than using two different systems. Its like trying to fix a metric device with only standard components. You can get close to make it work, but it will not function as intended or have the quality had it been done using the proper or at least same parts.

 

[Lanefan]

Not for me thanks. It makes the world more out to be DM vs player than any edition before ever could be, for the simple fact that the players are downright forbidden to do thing the DM has the ability to do during combat.

When talking about members of the same race, I agree.

Keep in mind, though, that there are (and should be) intrinsic monster abilities that PCs just don't or can't have, by virtue of what they are(n't). For example, a Medusa's gaze can turn you to stone. No player character race can do that, nor should they be able to; and Medusae should not be player characters. I've done the same thing with psyonics in my current game: PC races can't, as a general rule, be psyonic...but some monsters (e.g. Mind Flayers, some Demons, etc.) can.

Where you lose internal consistency is when members of the same race are arbitrarily banned from having abilities that other members of the same race can have, with the only difference being that some are PCs and some are not.

Lanefan

 

[justanobody]

Well I don't ever expect a human to breathe fire like a dragon without some magical means, and then and only then will they spare their lips.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Where you lose internal consistency is when members of the same race are arbitrarily banned from having abilities that other members of the same race can have, with the only difference being that some are PCs and some are not.

I think even that isn't required all the time, especially once we are talking about magic.

Why can't a PC human not get the hit points of an Elite? Well, possibly because the Elite entered a special pact with his god that can't be easily recreated. It would require several years of training and devotion. Or it is just merely a question of a focused training.

So, while very theoretically it might be a possibility for a human to become something like an Elite Soldier of Kord, it would require a way of life, training and devotion a PC will never show during play.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Yeah I don't think really when your talking about feeling involved in the world, having someone of the same race be able to take identical abilities is really necessary. Just because say a Human Guard has a special attack unique to him with a sword, just means mechanically it is special. It doesn't mean that in-game he isn't doing anything different from what your PC Fighter does.

 

[Hussar]

The PC/NPC divide is mostly a game artifact. 3e showed us rather clearly that classed NPC's do not perform anywhere near the same as equivalent CR monsters. Yes, if it has an NPC class, it's supposed to be one CR down, but, a 3rd level human fighter is supposed to be the same challenge as any other CR 3 creature.

And it just wasn't. Using PC rules for opponents resulted in very weak opponents. And it got much worse at higher levels.

Couple that to the fact that statting up higher level NPC opponents was very difficult. So difficult in fact that even the professionals couldn't get it right. It speaks volumes to a game system when someone who writes for the system for a living cannot even balance skills and attack bonuses correctly.

So something had to give. Again, it comes back to what are you willing to give up in order to make the game run at the table? Yes, absolutely, there is a disconnect between PC and NPC members of the same race. I agree completely. But, does that disconnect bother you to the point that the advantages of the system are not enough? The fact that you can stat up a 15th level 4e NPC in a fraction of the time it would take to do it in 3e, and far more accurately is balanced by the fact that the NPC is not as "believable" in 4e.