NPCs vs PCs

[steenan]

I want my NPCs to be simple. They may be similar in mechanics to PCs if PCs are simple. They need to be much simpler, if PCs are complicated and mechanics-heavy.
After all, each player has one PC, while I have 5-10 NPCs in a single adventure, not counting the nameless ones I improvise on the fly.

The degree of NPC complexity should scale with their importance. For a nameless mook, I should be able to improvise the necessary numbers without breaking the flow of narration (see Fate Core: two skills, an aspect, a single stress box). For a secondary NPC, I may spend 3-5 minutes on mechanics. For the main adversary, maybe up to 15 minutes, but I prefer less.

I prefer games without strong correlation between power and complexity. I may need a simple, but powerful creature; less often, but still sometimes, I can use a complex, but only moderately powerful ones.




As for power, I have my NPCs all over the scale, but I like to have a clear indication of how powerful they are.

In perfect situation, I can create an NPC of appropriate power, based on the indicator (level, peak skill etc.) and then play the NPC smart without a risk of steamrolling the PCs or being steamrolled by them.

 

[Li Shenron]

My preference for NPCs is that they should be the (potential) equal of PCs in every way.

That's my preference as well.

Simple NPCs who are effectively "inferior by design" to the PCs tend to become "expendable by nature". This is OK in many games, especially if the vast majority of the times the interaction between PCs and NPCs is in terms of just "killing them and take their stuff". If you play like that, and want a game with lots of NPCs, then simple & quick NPCs work better.

But my preference is that the fantasy world exists indipendently of the PCs. I don't usually prefer the view that PCs are really the only things that matter, everything revolves around them and even conforms to them, e.g. everything just happens to match the current level of the PCs. Of course in practice this happens all the time, but something in me tells me that it's still important to have more suspension of disbelief. After all, I am a fan of "zero to hero" rather than "natural born heroes". NPCs equal to PCs gives me a stronger feeling than our PCs are in endless competition with thousands of others, and if they survive and reach 20th level, it's because their "users" make them do the right decisions.

The bright side of this, is that there is always a chance to do that, because even if the default of the system is to have NPCs designed differently, nobody's ever going to stop me from just designing PCs and use them as NPCs!

Generally speaking, it's never been a huge problem for me to design NPCs with PCs rules in 3e, but in order not to go crazy you definitely have to often just make a safe & simple choice (feats, skills, spells, equipment etc.) rather than following the same detailed approach you do when designing one PC you'll be playing for the next year or two.

 

[MerricB]

If I never have to build an NPC using the same rules as PCs again, it will be too soon.

Feats, spells, calculating bonuses, saves, HPs, etc... No. I'm done with it.

Doing it using AD&D is a lot easier.

 

[Obryn]

Doing it using AD&D is a lot easier.

Certainly, but it still runs afoul of spell lists.

 

[MerricB]

Certainly, but it still runs afoul of spell lists.

It does, but nowhere near as much, due to the much more limited nature of those lists. When there are only about 10 spells to choose from, it's a lot easier to pick spells quickly!

That said, the balance of spell-casting in AD&D makes spell-casting NPCs potentially quite deadly and thus they must be used with care!

There should be a middle ground between the simplicity of AD&D and the complexity of 3E which allows customisation without too much overhead for the DM.

Cheers!

 

[Li Shenron]

There should be a middle ground between the simplicity of AD&D and the complexity of 3E which allows customisation without too much overhead for the DM.

I think the NPC chapter of the 3.0 DMG actually presented a middle ground. Here there were tables for NPC of every class vs every level. However, IIRC (but I'm not sure) you still had to determine the ability scores and apply modifiers everywhere, and while stuff like feats & equipment was provided, known spells weren't.

IMHO that could be taken as a starting point. It wasn't laid out well enough in the book, because reading those table and separate descriptions was quite confusing... but the point was, that the DMG provided you with "average" or "iconic" NPC of every class, and every level you might need. Certainly one problem is the trade-off between clear presentation and space taken up in the book (think that with 10 classes and 20 levels, we're talking about 200 pregen NPCs!). Race was considered separately.

Beyond that, what would really make a difference, is a simple digital tool for building characters. Again, 3e PHB came with a character generation on a CD. I thought it was a great idea, much more useful for NPC than PC. Otherwise develop an app or online tool, free-to-use with the core content at least.

 

[MerricB]

I think the NPC chapter of the 3.0 DMG actually presented a middle ground. Here there were tables for NPC of every class vs every level. However, IIRC (but I'm not sure) you still had to determine the ability scores and apply modifiers everywhere, and while stuff like feats & equipment was provided, known spells weren't.

The biggest problem 3E faced was that the underlying mathematics was far too complicated. One of the really nice things that 4E had was a table that said: "AC = Level + 15" or somesuch, and you could quickly apply it. 3E... was not so simple.

For your entertainment, here are the key stats for the NPC fighter from the 3E DMG, compared to the PC fighter (Regdar) from Enemies and Allies, both at 15th level.

AC 28 :: 28
HP 117 :: 147
Atk: +23/+18/+13 (1d10+9/17-20) :: +28/+23+18 (2d6+17/17-20)
F/R/W: +13/+8/+8 :: +17/+11/+8

And the rangers:

AC 24 :: 27
HP 115 :: 102
Atk: +25/+20/+15 (1d8+6) :: +31/+26/+21 (1d8+11)
F/R/W: +10/+10/+7 :: +10/+12/+8

Incidentally, in Pathfinder, using the tables of appropriate stats for monsters of Challenge Ratings, we discover that...
HP 115 (CR 9), AC 28 (CR 13), Avg Atk +18 (CR 10), Dmg 45 (CR 10), Good Save 13 (CR 10) point the NPC fighter to actually being CR 10 or thereabouts.
HP 147 (CR 11), AC 28 (CR 13), Avg Atk +23 (CR 14), Dmg 72 (CR 15), Good Save 17 (CR 16) make the PC fighter a bit closer to its Level/CR.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

I'm thinking of 1e adventures. I've only played (and run) 2e, but in both cases NPCs might just have one high stat and maybe an Intelligence score. (Captain Campion might have Strength 17, Int 13, Charisma 14, for instance. No Dex, Con, or Wis stats at all. I guess you assume a 10 for whatever isn't listed.)

Of course, for AD&D, only a Str 16+, Dex 15+ or Con 15+ really had any effect on combat effectiveness - and many PCs might only have one or two of those at significant levels.

Cheers!

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

My preference for NPCs is that they should be the (potential) equal of PCs in every way.

Any thoughts?

Before 4e was even a twinkle in WotC's eye, I wrote up an 'innate bonus' house rule that I applied to both PCs and NPCs. Essentially, it gave everyone the Big 6 bonuses. This had several benefits, one of which was that my NPCs didn't need to be decked out in magical bling to challenge the PCs.

 

[Obryn]

There should be a middle ground between the simplicity of AD&D and the complexity of 3E which allows customisation without too much overhead for the DM.

Without sounding too harsh, I don't want that middle ground at all. That's the opposite of what I want.

I don't want to go through anywhere like the same process as a player makes their character to build any NPCs. Full stop. I have been totally converted to the (current*) 4e way of thinking about NPCs, and I don't want to go back at this point. It's a bit much to call it a complete dealbreaker for me, but it's somewhere pretty high up in my DO NOT WANT list.

-O


* For the record, the 4e DMG 1 way of doing NPCs is completely terrible, so I'm not a fan of that one, either. 4e's Monster templates - including class templates - simply don't work to create an interesting and mechanically sound NPC or monster.