Should NPCs Have to Follow the Same Rules as PCs?

[Shemeska]

Difficult question to answer.

I don't like there to be an artificial distinction between "monsters" and the holy chosen PCs. Both of them exist within a world that goes on regardless of their success or not in my view. Neither is automatically better or worse than the other, and I don't really care for treating non-PCs as "monsters" like in 2e or now a wierd shade of that in 4e that seems to relegate anything not a PC to an automatic lesser status as I read it. Not my cup of tea.

That said, as a DM I'll break or ignore the rules for particular NPCs if it makes for a more enjoyable game and a better advancement of campaign plot. Regardless of the rules I'll give abilities to NPCs as it applies to the character, regardless of what the rules care to say that I can or can't do. Rules lawyers would despise me I think.

 

[resistor]

Difficult question to answer.

I don't like there to be an artificial distinction between "monsters" and the holy chosen PCs. Both of them exist within a world that goes on regardless of their success or not in my view. Neither is automatically better or worse than the other, and I don't really care for treating non-PCs as "monsters" like in 2e or now a wierd shade of that in 4e that seems to relegate anything not a PC to an automatic lesser status as I read it. Not my cup of tea.

That said, as a DM I'll break or ignore the rules for particular NPCs if it makes for a more enjoyable game and a better advancement of campaign plot. Regardless of the rules I'll give abilities to NPCs as it applies to the character, regardless of what the rules care to say that I can or can't do. Rules lawyers would despise me I think.

Couldn't have said it better. Having separate base rules for PCs and NPCs is pretty much a showstopper for me in terms of buying an RPG.

 

[Alt F4]

NPCs shouldn't necessarily follow the rules, but they should maintain the illusion that they do. They certainly shouldn't violate them so flagrantly that the players can't help but notice. (Unless of course investigating why the NPC has that power is meant to be part of the scenario.)

In particular I'd say the situation should be avoided where the NPCs have all sorts of cool and unique abilities that the PCs can never gain access to.

 

[jdrakeh]

Speak for yourself. . .

And other parties are not satisfied, hence the assertion appears to be correct.

 

[Agamon]

One of the necessities of GMing on the fly is to say, "Okay, I need someone that can do X, Y, Z" and away you go. The tougher that is, the tougher it is to GM (either on the fly or prep). My players take an hour or so making PCs, I sure as heck don't want to be doing that for NPCs. If they last a while, their personality and motivations are much more important than combat stats. And if they last a battle or two, I don't want to waste time on them.

That said, I don't think the OP means that PCs and NPCs should follow the same fundamental rules of gameplay, of course they should.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't think they should.

I read somewhere (a designer's blog maybe?) that forcing NPCs to follow the same rules as PCs was an element of 3e that's been scrapped for the new edition.

I think it's a great idea.

PCs need to be balanced against each other for the entirety of the campaign (in terms of potential spotlight time) while NPC's only need to be balanced against the PCs per encounter. So why should they have to follow all the myriad of rules that apply to PCs?

Your thoughts?

The important part to me is that the rules still "interface" on the aspects that matter.

NPCs still have ability scores, skill modifiers, attack rolls and even powers.
They just weren't arrived using different rules, and took into account the different goals.
I am not sure I could enjoy a system where this wasn't true, but on the other hand, but I didn't drink such a systems kool-aid yet


There are some fundamental aspects that will always lead to contradictions and inconsistencies.

In 4E the inconsistency is that a NPC Fighter uses different rules to achieve his ability scores, attack rolls and powers then a PC Fighter of the same level.

In 3E, you get into problems creating consistency between PC level and monster CR. Theoretically, CR maps 1:1 with PC levels, but if you look closer, this isn't true anymore - nonassociated class levels for NPCs, but level adjustment for PCs. They exist because what works as a level 10 ability for a monster doesn't necessarily work as a level 10 ability for a PC (Fireball at/will - no problem for a monster, but breaks for a PC).

The final question is what part of inconsistency works better for the game as a whole? There seems to be no universal answer, as some people think the goal to use rules to "simulate" all aspects of the game world, and others prefer a system that works easy and fast and give up parts of the game mechanics = physics of the game world scheme.

These days, I am in the latter camp. I probably wasn't always. But my 3E experience and my 4E experience tells me that the gameplay value is just better having NPCs use different rules for PCs.

 

[mmu1]

I believe that NPCs should only follow different rules than the PCs if they're more plot device than character.

Need the prophet of some long-forgotten god to be able to throw a few divination and healing spells around, to advance the storyline? No problem.

Want some mad alchemist to blow himself and half the town up? Great.

On the other hand, if you suddenly decide you want to give some bandit NPCs that you'll be using in a combat encounter Power Attack and Cleave for free... that I'll have a problem with.

Actually, the more mundane the "freebie" the less likely I am to hand it out to an NPC - no one really feels shortchanged if they find out that the BBEG sold his soul to a demon and got some non-standard powers in return.

On the other hand, people (at least most of the ones I play with) sure get pissed when they fight through the BBEGs footsoldiers and they're all dressed in some exotic armor that's better than full plate but can't be worn by PCs because of some hand-wave, and can't be sold because it's eeeevil.

In other words, if you're breaking the laws that make the fantasy world go round, it'd better be for something important, and interesting, and not just because you're feeling lazy when doing encounter design.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You just can't satisfy both parties with the one set of creation rules

Speak for yourself. . .

And other parties are not satisfied, hence the assertion appears to be correct.

No, the first statement is an absolute--> Conditions A & B cannot coexist.

By saying the fact that Conditions A & B exist in me, I may be a member of a small minority, or even the sole exception, but that invalidates the absoluteness of the original assertion, rendering it incorrect.

 

[Derro]

Case for case

It really depends what the NPC is being used for.

Mooks/minions/grunts whatever. They serve one purpose, disposable speedbumps. Why give them any depth when their life-span is so short. Make sure they are balanced, yes, but not with the meticulousness that is required of NPCs that have more screen time and serve more of a function than simply a one-time adversary. I've been using a version of minion rules for a long time and it has never given me any problems.

Mid-grade villains or henches get a bit more detailed treatment but never to the degree of PCs or major antagonists. Make sure they have some schtick and can fulfill their role as tougher challenges.

Arch-villains, long-term allies, and major foils are created pretty much as PCs but with the caveat that they don't need to follow the rules slavishly. They need to serve their purpose and fulfill the role that I require, not adhere to a vague and largely incorrect assumption of mechanical balance.

I found a very useful tool for creating quick and dirty NPCs that don't require a goat-load of books to cross reference.

Over at the D&D Wiki there are 3 alternate NPC classes to create fast and effective villains with. I like these guys a lot. Check out the Villainous Fighter, Sneak, and Spellcaster on this page. They have all sorts of attendant abilities and powers that can be applied and are useful in the situations that you would most likely place them. The special abilities are very simple and easy to expand upon.

I think that the simplest rule of thumb for NPC creation is get the job done. Don't worry as much about balance vs. PCs as is implied in the RAW. NPCs generally have very little screen time and limited opportunities to showcase a multitude of powers or schticks. Get in, get it on, and get on with it. Don't rely on things like CR to tell you what is balanced. Look at their abilities. Figure out what the effect is likely to be. Remember what weaknesses of the party you can exploit and what weaknesses just lead to a massive slaughter. The mechanical balance between PCs and NPCs created by the same systems is largely, in my experience, a fallacy. There are two different types of effectiveness being measured with the same scale and it just doesn't work.

I run a pretty fast and loose game so this may not be applicable to everyone. All I can really say is that there is no hard rule to making a balanced encounter and unified PC/NPC creation implies that there is. It really comes down to the perception of the GM and the players. Rules are guidelines not laws of gaming.

 

[Henry]

On the other hand, people (at least most of the ones I play with) sure get pissed when they fight through the BBEGs footsoldiers and they're all dressed in some exotic armor that's better than full plate but can't be worn by PCs because of some hand-wave, and can't be sold because it's eeeevil.

Along those lines, my gaming groups of the past and I never minded the whole "Drow magical rotting equipment" thing -- we minded more when the NPCs were so far above our abilities that it was suicide to fight them, with no other alternative available. From my standoint, as long as the opposition is a challenge but beatable, it's all good, whether they have power attack or gamma-ray guns with fingerprint-keys.

For anyone who played AD&D in the past or even now, is the exception-based monster design in it a problem, or is its monster design perceived as different in some way? If anything, the scaling system in 4e would make it superior, because you can easily come up with a properly scaled challenge with a dirt-simple addition formula and damage chart.