NPCs vs PCs

[Celebrim]

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

The 4e way of thinking about NPCs is just the 1e way revisited. 1e treated NPCs and PCs as largely obeying different rules. 'Bandit' was a type of monster. Orc leaders had more HD, but they weren't classed. And so forth. It had its good sides and its bad sides. On the good side, 4HD was a largely adequate description of a monster - a template of a monster if you would. On the bad side, it wasn't a particularly interesting description and on the whole, NPCs could never really be the equal of PCs at all in the long run sticking to the monsters are just HD template. Lacking dexterity and constitution (and in most cases, strength) meant that NPCs were hugely disadvantaged against the sorts of PCs that survived and readily built up levels.

4e spent more effort trying to get the math the work, but...

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.

Exactly.

Basically there is no middle way. You have only two choices when it comes to "monsters". Either you can build them yourself, which is always a somewhat complicated process if you want good results, or else you must rely on someone else to build them and look them up from a reference of some sort. If you are looking for simplicity, D&D has always advocated for the latter - that's what the 'Monster Manual' is for, even in 4e. Simplified customization options are always fraught with difficulties of some sort or the other.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Unfortunately, 4e rarely did "classed NPC monsters", so doing a city campaign might be a bit difficult. I've made my own set of them though.

 

[pemerton]

PCs are usually tougher/better/stronger than NPCs, not because of stats, but because of approach. PCs should have the combined arms things down, so working together, they usually punch above their weight. As well, PCs have exceptional character traits-- they are aggressive, creative, proactive, focussed and brave -- as much as they want to be.

<snip>

NPCs tactics and agendas are often different and from a PC standpoint, suboptimal. The above mentioned mage might not view the PCs a as a threat, may be a coward, may not have the "best" spells ready, might be distracted by other issues so won't deal with PCs properly, spares the PCs lives in order to deliver a monologue and so on.

I think this is a good post. It captures one major difference between PCs and NPCs, at least in the way that I approach the game.

Simple NPCs who are effectively "inferior by design" to the PCs tend to become "expendable by nature".

That's not my experience at all. The players in my game have their PCs respond to NPCs in terms of their fictional circumstances: at the simplest level, they are friendly to friendly NPCs and hostile to hostile ones.

If NPCs are tougher it might be more expedient for the PCs to capitulate to their wishes, but I don't think that makes the NPCs any less expendable - just harder for the PCs to expend!