D&D 5E Poll: What is a Level 1 PC?

[Imaro]

But, since you run a sandbox game, you cannot possibly know which shop keeper will have more than a cursory role in your game, since the players, according to your claims, have absolute freedom. Therefore, why don't you have to stat out every single shop keeper? After all, you cannot possibly know which ones you might need stats for.

I guess you've missed the numerous posts where I've repeatedly said I run DCC rpg... and that while this is not my prefered method NOW... I have used it in the past and feel it should be included for those who want it... So how does me running a sandbox now relate to anything about the NPC as PC discussion? Here's another shocker... I don't always run sandboxes...

 

[Imaro]

The point being what do you do when the players do something unexpected, like the mentioned arm wrestling challenge? Do you tell the players that they can't do it because that particular butcher isn't a major NPC, so he isn't statted out? Do you suspend play for 20 minutes while you carefully craft said NPC, using the character creation system? Or do you do the logical thing and create basic information, on the spot, that's reasonable for the NPC and doesn't require dealing in minutia.

Of course if I have him fully stated out... this isn't an issue is it?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Of course if I have him fully stated out... this isn't an issue is it?

It's not an issue if you're treating him like an NPC either - minion rules spring to mind. It's only an issue in a system where you are expected to have the character statted out like a PC and for whatever reason (like not wanting to waste a vast amount of time) don't.

 

[Imaro]

It's not an issue if you're treating him like an NPC either - minion rules spring to mind. It's only an issue in a system where you are expected to have the character statted out like a PC and for whatever reason (like not wanting to waste a vast amount of time) don't.

I'm not sure how to respond to this... even stating him up as a minion is a system, and not just fiat... so I guess we sort of agree. Again, my broader position is that the default should be an actual system and shouldn't be... hey just make it up. There should be rules in place which one can choose to completely or partially ignore to stat out NPC's. So I guess I'll change my position slightly, the rules don't have to be NPC as PC's... but they shouldn't be make it all up... or generate a single number for a skill check. There should be a system to stat out a complete NPC as a default in the rules.

 

[pemerton]

my broader position is that the default should be an actual system and shouldn't be... hey just make it up. There should be rules in place which one can choose to completely or partially ignore to stat out NPC's.

Again, I disagree. There need to be rules/guidelines to design challenges/encounters.

Whether or not this requires statting out an NPC will depend heavily on the action resolution system of the particular game. But there's no reason to think this will involve using the same rule subsystems as are used to build PCs.

 

[Ahnehnois]

There need to be rules/guidelines to design challenges/encounters.

There really don't need to be those kinds of things. That's DMing advice, which is not inherently a part of a rules system and is not universally applied by its users.

Moreover, when that kind of stuff gets into core D&D rulebooks, it's almost invariably some of the worst written and least thought out content in those books and either causes big time problems or gets ignored.

 

[Skanderbeg]

"Hero" isn't a measure of ability; it's a mindset. Where most people just keep on keepin' on, a player character meddles and tries to improve things. By this measure, they're already heroes.

In my campaigns I tend to think of the player heroes as rock stars. People generally look upon them with favour. They have people who follow their exploits, groupies, and of course their detractors. They might climb from garage band to filling amphitheatres but the change is in scale, not substance.

Sums it up nicely for me. One of my PCs one time wanted to look like mick jagger and the villagers thought he was a lich. It didn't end well...

 

[pemerton]

There really don't need to be those kinds of things. That's DMing advice, which is not inherently a part of a rules system and is not universally applied by its users.

Given that the basic activity of an RPG is the players, via their PCs, engaging situations/scenes/circumstances framed by the GM, I actually think that "those kinds of thing" - whether framed as rules, or as guidelines - are pretty central.

Moreover, when that kind of stuff gets into core D&D rulebooks, it's almost invariably some of the worst written and least thought out content in those books and either causes big time problems or gets ignored.

I don't agree with this. The scenario design advice, and the dungeon building advice, in the Moldvay Basic rulebook is pretty good. Gygax's advice in his DMG is not as strong, but I wouldn't say it's bad. 4e's DMGs also have good advice on combat encounter design, although approached more from the tactical than the story side.

It's true that D&D has never had advice as strong as that found in some indie games, like (say) the Burning Wheel Adventure Burner, but for a mainstream RPG it's not too bad. Classic Traveller, for example, is basically unplayable out of the box because it doesn't tell the GM what s/he is actually expected to do to make the game go. And games like Runequest or Rolemaster assume that the GM has already learned what to do by playing D&D.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Given that the basic activity of an RPG is the players, via their PCs, engaging situations/scenes/circumstances framed by the GM, I actually think that "those kinds of thing" - whether framed as rules, or as guidelines - are pretty central.

I don't. The rules for players don't tell you which class or race or party to play, they don't tell you whether to focus on being a combat tactician or a method actor or a clown, and they don't tell you how to treat the other players.

Likewise, the rules for DMs don't need to tell you what a challenging combat encounter is or what the balance between different types of combat and noncombat encounters should be or how to treat you players.

That kind of advice has a place, but there don't need to be explicit rules married to it.

Moreover, the rules/guidelines for designing challenges/encounters in 3e D&D (and 2e and 4e, AFAICT) are so ludicrous that they do more harm than good.

 

[Obryn]

Moreover, the rules/guidelines for designing challenges/encounters in ... 4e, AFAICT ... are so ludicrous that they do more harm than good.

I've been running it for 4 years, and have found it to be quite good? I had no luck with 3.x CR/EL, but 4e's tighter math and lower spell craziness keeps it on a pretty even keel.

Anyway, NPCs can have stats without classes and levels. I don't want to equate "NPCs should not have classes" with "NPCs should have no stats whatsoever."

-O