Scripting NPC actions, is this gone? Do you do it? Share how

[sinecure]

As I understood D&D back in the 90's, NPCs were not allowed to act just any way the DM wanted. They had to follow certain rules. Mainly acting according to their alignment and based off the attitude adjustment tables similar to the ones in 3.X. But unless I'm missing something 4E has dropped everything but alignment. Can anyone tell me why?

For example, as far as I can tell 4E has no Enchantment School spells. Those spells scripted a character actions, which makes makes me think the 4E design philosophy believes something is wrong with having characters forced to perform actions their owner's did not agree to. Or a belief that leads to a similar effect in design and play.

For my own games we still play that a dominated character is taken control over by the Enchanter's player. And charmed characters suffer the same fate whenever the PC's player doesn't like a declared action by the enchanted character. Or when the enchanter is an NPC, the DM chooses based as they wish, but as long as it is in line with the NPC's scripting. Of course charmed characters get a saving throw every time an Enchanter attempts to take control of them. Failure means the Enchanter's player gains control for that round or turn or whatever. Sort of like a weak, situation specific version of Dominate, which is how I view Charm spells.

My scripted NPCs are mostly lightly scripted, basically whatever the module says and the two character motivations I give in the first paragraph. But I've known several DMs over the years who like to make all kinds of extra personality rules for their NPCs to follow. I've seen players do things like this too like rolling to see if they had to have another drink because they wanted to play an alcoholic. But these few times I believe were self enforced by the player, not something the DM was using as part of the system. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen personality rules forced on player characters. Maybe someone here has? Or knows why? Mainly, "What kind of scripting do you guys use for NPCs?"

 

[Wepwawet]

For example, as far as I can tell 4E has no Enchantment School spells. Those spells scripted a character actions, which makes makes me think the 4E design philosophy believes something is wrong with having characters forced to perform actions their owner's did not agree to. Or a belief that leads to a similar effect in design and play.

There's no Enchantment school or any other kind of magic school.
Each class has all his "schools" already built-in. Also, the Wizard is not an enchanter now, he may have some Charm spells but it's not his focus.
The Psion I believe is the main enchanter now.

And yes, it's true that 4E philosophy that it's unfun and boring to have your PC forced to take actions you don't want, while you're sitting there doing nothing. And I agree completely.
But NPCs is a different thing. I don't have the books with me now, so I can't tell you which powers there are in 4E that allow players to dominate NPCs, but I'm sure there are some

 

[sinecure]

But NPCs is a different thing. I don't have the books with me now, so I can't tell you which powers there are in 4E that allow players to dominate NPCs, but I'm sure there are some

Thanks for your answer. I understand they made a game very much unlike games that came before. But how do the rules keep PCs from dominating other PCs? Can't you use your spells on other player characters any more?

 

[Morrus]

Thanks for your answer. I understand they made a game very much unlike games that came before. But how do the rules keep PCs from dominating other PCs? Can't you use your spells on other player characters any more?

Well, in the same way as they prevent you attacking other PCs - the game doesn't stop you doing it at all, but it isn't usually a recipe for a fun game. At some point common sense has to prevail and the group of friends playing this game together need to understand that the game they're playing is more fun if they work together.

So, sure your players can have their characters use their powers on each other, but expect them to get pretty annoyed at each other, too!

I guess you could all agree to have a "PvP" type setup, but is it really worth it? Players dominating other players is generally a fairly douchey thing for [the player, not the character] to do. You're all there to have fun together, right?

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

I did like 1st and 2nd ed's "Morale" system, but only as a guideline.
Same with having 9 alignments as losing Law/Chaos as "forces" has been bad for 4th ed, like maruts now collect favours, meh?!?!

charms are now much more specific and short lived.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I use the same method to determine NPC actions regardless of system. Start with the mental and physical capabilities of the NPC, determine motivations and basic mental stability level, add NPC knowledge (or factor in the lack thereof) and likely courses of action will present themselves.

Notes on favored tactics and personality quirks sometimes add additional flavor to various actions.

Longer term charms and mind control are great campaign drama tools and it is a shame that the rules no longer support them. These types of magic are a great source of plot elements for both PC's and NPC's.

 

[OchreJelly]

The OP has a lot of similar topics going on here, which I'll attempt to address:

Mainly acting according to their alignment and based off the attitude adjustment tables similar to the ones in 3.X. But unless I'm missing something 4E has dropped everything but alignment. Can anyone tell me why?

Alignment is still around and serves as a guideline. In published adventures most of the NPCs pcs would encounter have a paragraph or two of background and motivations provided that also serve to be a guideline. I don't know if this is what the OP is referring to as 'script', but like any edition of DND an npc's actions is largely determined by the DM with the information given (background, motives, alignment etc.)

Tables for attitude adjustment, I suspect, were dropped and the mechanics of such are now the province of skill challenge. I think the designers wanted to get away from a single PC with a godly diplomacy skill dominating an RP encounter. Likewise, they wanted to avoid weirdness by mechanically turning a hostile npc to friendly and helpful with a single die roll.

For example, as far as I can tell 4E has no Enchantment School spells.

Now we're talking about magic. While it's true that 4E has done away with the classic schools, many of the popular spells survive in a different form. In the main, the durations have been seriously cut. I think only mind-flayers have the ability to long-term dominate (I could be wrong). The 'scripting' is all done with very specific mechanics. i.e. charmed effect that causes target to slide and attack creature chosen by caster. This takes a lot of the guesswork out of what an npc would and would not do, because mechanically they have to.

For my own games we still play that a dominated character is taken control over by the Enchanter's player. And charmed characters suffer the same fate whenever the PC's player doesn't like a declared action by the enchanted character.

If you are a DM I would caution against this approach. You're basically nerfing the powerset by allowing charm keyword powers to have some ambiguity to them based on DM fiat. IME when DMs do this kind of thing, players simply get discouraged and ignore those type of powers.

 

[OchreJelly]

Just to add quickly: I think many of us get stuck in an earlier edition mindset that charms and compulsions should allow the target to resist doing things they wouldn't normally do. In part, I think this was a balance considerations from earlier editions due to the very long durations some of these spells had.

Because npcs get a save (well Will defense, usually) and because the durations are so short, we no longer really need to use NPC motivation as a balance factor.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Just to add quickly: I think many of us get stuck in an earlier edition mindset that charms and compulsions should allow the target to resist doing things they wouldn't normally do. In part, I think this was a balance considerations from earlier editions due to the very long durations some of these spells had.

Because npcs get a save (well Will defense, usually) and because the durations are so short, we no longer really need to use NPC motivation as a balance factor.

This also has the effect of such magic being limited to combat use which can get boring quick. Charming someone for 6 seconds to preform very limited or prescribed functions turns what was once flavorful magic into just another form of attack.

 

[catsclaw227]

One thing that the 4e system has done to simulate dominated creatures are by creating "thralls" for various monster types.

These essentially are charmed or controlled creatures, though there's no mechanical flag stating that these are under charm or control.

If you need an evil wizard to have some charmed guards, you can create human thralls or goblin thralls.