Should NPCs Have to Follow the Same Rules as PCs?

[Toras]

While I do agree that a certain amount of preparation short hand is certainly called for when it comes to someone the PC's are unlikely to spend longer that the time it takes to walk by or ram a sword into their gut observing them. But really, I prefer that the NPC's follow roughly the same rules as the PCs.

A certain amount of internal consistency is good for predictability. And it makes the deviations from it meaningful rather than normal. It also keeps you from seeing the strings on the cheap puppet show, if you'll pardon the phrase. If the differences are either transparent or explainable with in game logic, I'm fine with it. It is when they aren't that it is irritating.

 

[DwarvenDog]

Do you lead your players to believe they know everything about how magic works in the setting? That the PHB is the entirety of how magic works in the world?

The PHB magic system is the foundation. This means the PC's understand that it takes a high priest to raise the dead, or an archmage to throw a meteor swarm. If a PC warmage observes an NPC warmage casting Fireball, and the PC is only of high enough level to cast magic missile, then the PC can conclude that NPC has more training (higher level.) These observations help fit the PC's into the world around them.

Do I invent new spells for my campaign? Yes. Traditions of magic or alternate spell lists? Yes. New and unknown effects? Sure.

There's a difference though between knowing EVERYTHING about magic and knowing how magic generally works within the game setting. If Raise Dead exists as a high-level effect, (or substitute whatever you like for Raise Dead) it's a known element of the game world and seeing it come into play at a much lower level is jarring.

For me, it's not that my group will suddenly want to know how they can get their hands on Raise Dead. I've never seen the "monster does it, why can't I?" syndrome. But it introduces an inconsistency in our shared perceptions of how the world works, and I'm not thrilled with that.

Having said that... can I choose to build NPC's in 4E according to PC rules? Of course. No real issue there. But the thread is all about "SHOULD" and so I'll stick to my guns on this and say, "Mostly, yes. Classed NPC's and PC's should follow the same rules."

 

[Barastrondo]

I'm firmly in the "no, they don't" camp. I see a rules system as an interface, essentially something to mechanically use as a guideline to representing how the characters interact with the world in dramatic situations where there are multiple potential outcomes. I've never been of the school that believes a rules system should be used to extrapolate the physical/scientific laws of the universe.

 

[fba827]

Nope, NPCs do not _have to_ follow the same creation rules as PCs, in my opinion. They are story elements and therefore should be as customized as needed for the sake of the story (whether their part in the story means "needs extra skills X, Y, and Z" or it means "needs to be a major threat to the PCs")

just my thoughts, which mimic many of the other thoughts already presented here...

 

[Obryn]

Having said that... can I choose to build NPC's in 4E according to PC rules? Of course. No real issue there. But the thread is all about "SHOULD" and so I'll stick to my guns on this and say, "Mostly, yes. Classed NPC's and PC's should follow the same rules."

Well, the DMG pretty clearly lays out a standardized way of creating NPCs which implies NPCs and PCs get the same Powers at the same levels. Unless there's a narrative reason otherwise, naturally.

Still, a level 10 NPC fighter built by the DMG rules won't be breaking out 20th-level Dailies.

The main differences are that NPCs get different HPs, get flat +'s instead of feats, and get fewer powers by default. They generally don't have powers unavailable to a PC of similar level.

One hidden feature of 4e, imho, is that non-combat stuff is pretty well divorced from the combat stuff. So, your Blacksmith doesn't have to be a 15th-level Expert or whatnot in order to be an awesome smith.

-O

 

[Mouseferatu]

f the kobold in Mouseferatu's post (able to cast raise dead) were merely able to use "raise dead" on an off-scene event (to trigger a plot, for example, where a PC's nemesis is brought back to life) I'd have no problem with it. There's no consequense other than plot. If the kobold couldn't raise the nemesis, I'd have somebody else do it.

However, if the kobold with raise dead were using it throughout an adventure, bringing back its tribe as the PC's advanced to wipe them out, this causes some issues for me. The PC's will rightly wonder "how is he doing this?" and let's say they figure out he is casting raise dead over and over. There are obvious questions that follow... like, how do we prepare against this high-level spellcaster? How is he obtaining the riches needed for this casting? If we defeat him quickly, perhaps these riches can be ours? (I'm talking in 3E-speak because I don't know how the rules for raise dead work in 4E)

But from the DM's side of the screen, this kobold is just a low level dude who can cast a high-level spell. So the PC's over-prepare, find no riches related to raise dead, and are unsure why thiings went so differently than expected.

What the players take away from this sort of thing is a sense that they can't trust in their knowledge of "how the world works" enough to guide their tactics. I have found that when the players can't rely on a consistent setting, they are less invested in that setting. As a DM, I really don't want that.

See, what most players I know would take away from this is "Hmm, there's obviously something weird about this kobold. We should either investigate what it is, or at least keep it in mind for if/when he pops up again."

IOW, it's a plot point, and they pick up on the fact that it's a plot point. Which is exactly what I want them to do. Heck, sometimes I'll do that even if I don't know where the plot point leads, to see where they decide to take it.

 

[Mouseferatu]

And when dealing with powers that aren't plot points--that is, things that the NPCs can do that maybe the PCs can't, but that aren't necessarily more powerful than the PCs' abilities, or aren't especially significant--well, I just find, as a DM and a designer, that I can create more interesting options when the game is written to allow me to go outside the PC-focused rules for the NPCs. Doesn't mean I always do, but I'm glad to have the option built right into the rules.

 

[Snoweel]

So, your Blacksmith doesn't have to be a 15th-level Expert or whatnot in order to be an awesome smith.

I love this.

 

[DwarvenDog]

See, what most players I know would take away from this is "Hmm, there's obviously something weird about this kobold. We should either investigate what it is, or at least keep it in mind for if/when he pops up again."

Right, this is what I'm getting at, though. The players encounter the same kobolds they already killed, figure out something's up, and uncover that this one kobold can raise his tribe back from the dead.

Do they proceed from a position of knowing "Raise Dead" is a 5th level spell? Meaning this kobold might also be able to throw flamestrikes, walls of fire, etc?

Do they proceed with no in-character knowledge of a "level" of Raise Dead and need to go on other clues (to be determined, I guess) on how to assess the threat level of this kobold?

Do they proceed because the storyline nudges them in that direction, and whatever conflict they enter with the kobold will be level-and-plot-appropriate?

I understand that we've moved to a more cinematic game. I'm somewhat interested in figuring out where the line is between "being in the movie" as a character who has no idea about plot points, pacing, and themes, and "watching the movie" as a player who's entertained by those elements.

I suppose I'm thinking too hard about fantasy.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Do they proceed from a position of knowing "Raise Dead" is a 5th level spell? Meaning this kobold might also be able to throw flamestrikes, walls of fire, etc?

Do they proceed with no in-character knowledge of a "level" of Raise Dead and need to go on other clues (to be determined, I guess) on how to assess the threat level of this kobold?

Do they proceed because the storyline nudges them in that direction, and whatever conflict they enter with the kobold will be level-and-plot-appropriate?

Hopefully, they proceed thinking "This is odd. We'd better be careful, and investigate it further. This guy could be too strong for us, or he could have some funky ability, or there could be something entirely separate and hidden going on."