NPCs vs PCs

[saskganesh]

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.

If I ran NPCs just like PCs I'd have a lot of dead PCs. A single low level NPC MU could sleep a low level party, kill them, take their stuff. Just for example. But autokilling is not a lot of fun. So 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.

 

[Larrin]

My first experiences with (and thus my formation of views on) NPCs was slightly different than them being weak.

In my first few games of D&D, various DMs though it was cool for their characters from other games to be the quest givers, etc. They weren't joining the party or hogging the spotlight, they were just the guy with the "!" over their head or the "saved you from the no-win scenario" plot hook. Still, it was never actually well done, and someone always ended up lipping off to the DM's pet and getting rinsed, etc.

Even though I'm now older and wiser, playing in older and wiser groups, and have never seen this in a long time, I'm still fine with NPCs being cut from a different cloth than the PCs.

As for complexity of building them:
As player or DM, I only want as many numbers as the PCs will ever interact with. In general I'm a fan of NPCs not having any stats unless they need it, and thus they should be quick and easy to improvise.

This leads to another point : I think 90% of how the players will view NPCs is how the DM presents them. If he makes it obvious that they have a sheet full of numbers that defines them, I feel that colors the players opinion of them and that NPC will live and die by how well those numbers stack up against the players. If NPCs are presented as 'people' with their descriptions based not on numbers but on who they are and what they do (my favorite:what is something cool they are doing as the players approach), you can make them feel as weak or strong as you like, and if they need stats, hopefully you can make the stats fit the character, not the other way around, and the players will feel that they are up against the character you described.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

When I am creating NPCs, I generally put them into 4 categories, as follows...

Non-Heroic NPCs - These are your average peasants, soldiers, experts, and so on. They typically get a lesser attribute array (I generally give these guys a total +1 attribute bonus) and have sparse equipment (clothes and basic tools, at most). They typically do not get feats or talents except for those necessary for doing whatever tasks they were created for. They also typically have only one hit point per hit die. They are the innocent bystanders that are tragically killed during a streetfight.

Semi-Heroic NPCs - These are your sergeants, mayors, adepts and minor chieftains. They get a moderate attribute array (usually a +4 total attribute bonus) and some more substantial equipment (up to minor magic items). They usually have hit points comparable to a similarly leveled PC, and may have feats or talents.

Heroic NPCs - These are your rival adventurers, evil trusted lieutenants, noble knights and kings, and so on. They get all the benefits and privileges that the PCs get, Including feats, talents, action points (if in use), gear, and so on. They usually get a +8 total ability score bonus.

Unique NPCs - These are the master villains, elemental forces, and solo type enemies of the PCs. They get unique talents and abilities that only they can control, they have essentially unlimited resources at their disposal, and so on. I give these guys up to a +12 total ability score bonus.

I usually do not worry overly much about CRs or creating balanced encounters, but I will let the players know if I think their characters are getting in over their heads.

 

[howandwhy99]

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

Any thoughts?

I agree that they should get the same abilities by race and class and be open to the same economy of items, dungeon treasures, monsters to fight, and so on. But NPCs are only and ever going to behave as the rules have defined them to behave. PCs are the results of people playing the game. That doesn't mean this necessarily results in more or less powerful characters (by whatever metric is being used), but NPCs are always going to be a game resource whereas a PC has a Player there to brainstorm with the other players. More people is always better IMO.

Also, I've been in a campaign where all monsters received 50% the XP PCs receive, which made NPCs slower to advance. So typically they were older when they did so, but then the PCs tended to screw around a lot more. Maybe that was the reason for the rule? I don't know.

 

[Obryn]

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.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The PC v. NPC comparison is always problematic, because even if they are treated as textually equal, the amount of time and attention put into playing an NPC is almost inherently much less than a PC.

That being said, I think one of the basic tasks of DMing is to try to convince the players that all the NPCs are real people with the same level of agency that PCs have.

Frankly, one simple patch for this is to simply inflate the NPCs' levels and other power variables, but I think it's more important that the DM is simply a superior player, and makes good choices both mechanically and otherwise in how to play the character. Of course, the rules should always be the same for everyone (meaning that everything on a PC character sheet should be available and achievable by NPCs), that's a given.

 

[haakon1]

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

Any thoughts?

I agree. In my 3.5e campaign, both PC's and NPC's (of character classes) are built rolling 4d6/drop lowest (except if they come from a module), max HP at the first level, rolled HP at higher levels. I ALWAYS roll hit points for everything, never just use the average. I don't think the NPC's are drastically weaker.

In fact, of the 9 PC's in my online group, let's see, 6 started as PC's and 3 started as NPC's friends of the party that new players chose to take up and play. Pretty convincing evidence the NPC's aren't weaker.

 

[haakon1]

I often have no idea what people are talking about in half the threads these days.

NPCs are whatever you want them to be. Are you the DM or are you just the assistant DM and the real DM is a text block in some book somewhere?

...

I guess I'm saying I'm really really confused. I create NPCs according to what ought to be in my campaign world, according to the vision I originally set down when I conceived it and my continuing revelations as I explore it. How do you do it?

Yeah, I'm with you on the this. If there were rules saying "make NPC's weak", I missed them, and wouldn't have cared.

I will say, it's a lot of work to make "real PC" like NPC's in 3.5e. In general, 3.5e is a lot of work to DM.

 

[Celebrim]

I will say, it's a lot of work to make "real PC" like NPC's in 3.5e.

It depends on whether you are going for 'publication grade' NPCs or 'game grade' NPCs.

A lot of that IMO is burden DMs impose on themselves. You don't have to get it right. You just have to get it to where it works.

I run a semi-sandbox sort of game with a broad-narrow-broad sort of structure (with a willingness to flex if my players are proactive). By the definition of a Sandbox game, a large portion of what I prep I'm never even going to use. I've prepped to one degree or the other 3 dungeons - one of them to a finished state - that the players ended up bypassing. I can't afford to be wasting time with detailed stat blocks for NPCs that may or may not be even encountered and even if they are, may or may not utilize anything I write down. If I get it an NPC's stat block slightly wrong, I don't freaking care. It's not going to actually matter in game if in fact I used 6 to few or 6 too many skill points in the stat block, if I miss added an attack bonus by a couple of points, or I'm not squeezing every last drop out of my system mastery. It's really rare that that one NPC is really that critical anyway.

It's not like 1e stat blocks were really complete. They typically said something like "Eric Redbeard (F5)". That's not a complete stat block. How many hit points does he have? What is his str, dex, con, wis, int, or chr? What are his weapon proficiencies? What are his non-weapon proficiencies? How much wealth does he have? You were lucky if somewhere in the text block beneath that line it said something like, "Eric has a suit of plate mail, a shield +1, and a longsword +2." with the magic items bolded. No one worried about whether or not Eric was as powerful as a PC.

You know what, if it comes up and you need it, then you wing it. Your telling me you've been running 3.X for 10 years and you can't wing a CR 8 encounter and get it close enough? Who cares what spells the wizard has memorized; if it matters flip open a Player's Handbook and start casting likely spells. Jot a few likely defensive spells down for his spell list and get on with it.

You've been running 3.x for 10 years and you haven't generated a similar PC stat block in the past that's good enough for the situation?

Sure, it's nice to be able to refine a few critical NPCs in great detail. Just recently I had a goblin cook become interesting because I jotted "professional 3" down, and then decided to actually fill out what that was in case he came into combat. He turned into one of my favorite NPCs in a long time because making his stat block was creative and thought provoking. But you know, most of the time knowing class and level and knowing its a goblin cook is enough to run with it.

In general, 3.5e is a lot of work to DM.

I don't know. Compared to GURPS? Not so much. I don't notice that it is significantly harder to run than 1e, though it may be because I run it like 1e.

I think again that at least some of this is burden that DMs are imposing on themselves.

My current campaign has been going like nearly 3 years now. The PC's are 6th level. Seriously. It's really highly unlikely that the PC's will ever be more than 13th-14th level even if we go 3-4 more year. By that time, I'll be ready to retire the story line and move on to something else. My impression is that when people talk about how hard 3e is to DM, they are usually running games where the PCs are like 12th level or higher - often starting out with high level PCs or if not rapidly advancing the character level. Are high level games tough to run? Heck yes, but they always have been. D&D traditionally has a sweet spot from about 3rd to 10th level. If you stick with it, it's not that hard to run.

The other thing DMs do to make the game insanely hard to run is bring like 30-40 splatbooks into the rules, bloat the character building rules to an enormous degree, and let their players run absolutely wild with system mastery and optimization so that you end up with a bunch of alternate raced, templated characters with 3-5 different classes casting a bunch of broken spells from 4 different class source books. Is challenging system optimized characters hard? Heck yes, but it always has been.

And yet another thing DMs do to ruin their own fun is go with fungible magic items, letting players get whatever the heck is on their wish list whether its the Christmas tree or whatever zany brokenness like 'Belts of Battle' some sloppy editor lets get past him, thereby bumping up their effective CR by 1-3 points and getting in an arms race. You don't want to be in an arms race with your players. You don't want to let the PC's treat magic items like they are part of their elective character build, because it's going to be a nightmare trying to challenge that with anything but Monte Haul decked out NPCs - and then the situations is quickly going to become asymptotic every time they kill an NPC and take their stuff. Wizards in particular get nightmarish if in edition to being able to select all their own spells (note, mine can't, they have to find them) they can load themselves up at will with the sort of protective gear that negates the problems of not being able to wear armor or use good weapons.

In short, yes, I see why you'd say that 3e can be tough to run, but I'd say 50% of the effort is elective to running high level games with lots of splatbooks and fungible magic items sold at magic-mart.

Again, I hear people screaming about "But those are the rules! You have to do that! 3e was built on those assumptions, otherwise it doesn't work!" And I'm like, "Wait a minute, aren't you the one claiming that the way you are doing it is broken?"

 

[Argyle King]

I don't know. Compared to GURPS? Not so much. I don't notice that it is significantly harder to run than 1e, though it may be because I run it like 1e.

I would very much argue that GURPS is easier to run than D&D 3.5. I currently play in a 3.5 game, and highly enjoy it, but never want to have the task of DMing one again.

I'd be inclined to agree that GURPS has more work up front (possibly quite a lot more) to build the game world (but even that isn't exactly true now that things like Dungeon Fantasy, Action!, Monster Hunters, Banestorm, and various other things exist,) but I personally find 3.5 to be far more cumbersome in actual play and while running the game. I find 3.5 to be more cumbersome because I have to keep track of things like CR, appropriate levels, how things change as levels increase, and many other things; on top of that, there is (in my opinion) less consistency when it comes to the rules. I can know how one 3.5 class works, but have nearly no idea how a different class works; likewise, I might completely understand the grappling rules, but not at all understand the rules for undead, and there's not an easily visible pattern in one to cue you in on how the other should work in the event that you forget the rules or need to make a judgement call about something. For comparison, I started with 3rd Edition, it was my first time ever playing D&D; at this point I have 10+ years experience with the game. I have scarcely over 4 years of experience with GURPS 4th Edition. I feel much more confident DMing GURPS than I ever did D&D 3.5. I'd go so far as to say I'd feel confident in picking up a D&D adventure and running it in GURPS with minimal prep time.



edit: Though I do generally agree with the idea of coming up with a quicker (and usually much shorter) method of writing up non-PC elements.