Same rules or different Rules (PC vs NPC)

[Gryph]

Mark me down for different, with better rules for applying PC levels to monsters than we got in 4e. I don't go there very often in a campaign, but sometimes you just want a blue dragon with 8 levels of sorceror for the pucker factor.

 

[DonTadow]

I feel 4ee got this right. I want modular creatures. If i want to make them stronger, i want a list of proven abilities that can easily add a numerical value that is balanced.

What i dont want is to build 14 characters per session. I want a simple statblock that will allow me to use many pieces of software and transfer seemlessly.

 

[LostSoul]

Some thoughts:

1. I want to be able to say that Hrarg the Metal Lord has a cybernetic arm that shoots lasers, I don't know where it comes from or how he got it, and the PCs are (probably) not going to be able to build one of their own.

Replace "cybernetic arm" for any kind of weird thing you want to put in your game without worrying what will happen if the PCs have it.

(Random tables associated with some monsters could be interesting.)

2. I want to be able to build NPCs on the fly - in my head if I have to - with only a little bit of system familiarity. NPCs should be simple when it comes to their interactions with the rules.

3. I want to be able to justify the numbers the NPCs have. If a human has AC 22, appropriate to a PC wearing magical plate, the NPC should have a similar level of protection.

(I'd also like to put a cap on AC, and therefore attack bonuses, but that's another story.)

4. I want to be able to trust that the challenge provided by the NPC is what the book says it is, so that any reward system based on overcoming challenges will work.

5. I want NPCs to kill and be killed in other ways than HP loss. I'd like it if the monster entry included "tells" that alerted players to the danger.

6. I want a table that's awesome - better than what I can find for free on the internet with 5 minutes of work - to come up with NPC motivations on the fly.

7. I want a section devoted to strategic aspects of the NPCs. Not all NPCs, but I want to know how long it takes Englebert the Dread Necromancer to raise a dozen skeletons, and what he needs to do so.

(Maybe that would be better in the adventure section.)

8. I want monsters classified by environment so I can easily make wandering monster tables.

9. I want to know how many monsters are in a lair, if they are the kind to gather and organize.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Definitely a vote for keeping them separate and different, by default, with a set of guidelines in place to "graduate" from a stat block to a more fleshed out NPC if/when necessary.

For NPCs you know will be important, you can start there, but seriously, I don't think it's a longshot to say that in most games, you don't need to stat out every goblin, orc, or skeleton.

Monster/NPC prep in 3.x games, especially once you're into double-digit levels is a complete nightmare. In my 3.x games, I spent far more time planning them than I did running them, and most of it was boring stuff like stat blocks and magic items, rather than the "good stuff" like story, plot, characterization, etc.

This was never an issue in AD&D, and it is no longer an issue in 4e. Let's hope that D&Dnext gets it right.

Also, minions are a "keeper".

 

[JamesonCourage]

If they do use the same rules, make it clear that there are powers that the NPC/monster can have that the PCs cannot get.

This means "not the same rules" to me. I don't think that I can accept "if they do use the same rules, make it clear that they don't follow the same rules."

Personally, I think Umbran got it right. Give rules for both, so people can use whatever they want. In my RPG, there's three different ways to build NPCs:
1) Quick reference against a chart. You choose their hit die and their level of dedication to a field, and it gives their bonus / HP / save / whatever. You then give them abilities that feel right without writing the details down.
2) Guestimate. You spend all the character points (point-buy game) you'd normally get, but spend it in large chunks. You'll get an NPC that's about 90% right, but he'll be done in 20 minutes, even if he's hit die 20.
3) Accurate. You build the NPC from the ground up, just like you would a character. You normally don't need to do this, but if you feel like it (sometimes the mood hits), go for it.

I think that different ways of building NPCs should be presented so people can do so the way they're most comfortable with. Having abilities that only NPCs can use is something that appeals to many people, but some people don't want that. Let both people play what they'd prefer. As always, play what you like

 

[BryonD]

1. I want to be able to say that Hrarg the Metal Lord has a cybernetic arm that shoots lasers, I don't know where it comes from or how he got it, and the PCs are (probably) not going to be able to build one of their own.

Agree. But this should have EVERYTHING to do with story reasons and nothing to do with mechanical preconceptions.

2. I want to be able to build NPCs on the fly - in my head if I have to - with only a little bit of system familiarity. NPCs should be simple when it comes to their interactions with the rules.

I don't believe a system can be designed to be good enough for my personal standards and still meet this goal. And since I already have strong system familiarity and can do this on the fly for a solid system now, stepping down from that standard would be a major negative.

3. I want to be able to justify the numbers the NPCs have. If a human has AC 22, appropriate to a PC wearing magical plate, the NPC should have a similar level of protection.

The NPC's AC should be a function of the NPC as a narrative character.

4. I want to be able to trust that the challenge provided by the NPC is what the book says it is, so that any reward system based on overcoming challenges will work.

I'm fine with having averages and ballpark default by-level guidelines. But I am completely opposed to the idea that the reward of any specific encounter be in any way tied to the challenge presented by that encounter.

5. I want NPCs to kill and be killed in other ways than HP loss.

Agreed.

6. I want a table that's awesome - better than what I can find for free on the internet with 5 minutes of work - to come up with NPC motivations on the fly.


7. I want a section devoted to strategic aspects of the NPCs. Not all NPCs, but I want to know how long it takes Englebert the Dread Necromancer to raise a dozen skeletons, and what he needs to do so.

8. I want monsters classified by environment so I can easily make wandering monster tables.

9. I want to know how many monsters are in a lair, if they are the kind to gather and organize.

OK by me

 

[LostSoul]

1. Agree. But this should have EVERYTHING to do with story reasons and nothing to do with mechanical preconceptions.

2. I don't believe a system can be designed to be good enough for my personal standards and still meet this goal. And since I already have strong system familiarity and can do this on the fly for a solid system now, stepping down from that standard would be a major negative.

3. The NPC's AC should be a function of the NPC as a narrative character.

4. I'm fine with having averages and ballpark default by-level guidelines. But I am completely opposed to the idea that the reward of any specific encounter be in any way tied to the challenge presented by that encounter.

1. I think I agree, but I'm not sure. Do you mind going into more detail about the differences?

2. What would you lose by having something simple enough to build on the fly or in your head?

3. I agree. I think a table of ACs based on narrative considerations - "AC 18: Steel covering the entire body, with few weak points" - would be my preference. Not only because it's simple but also because it's easy to give players information about what AC they are facing.

4. I think this is a big disagreement, unless I misunderstand you. I think it's a question of what the goals of the game are. I'd prefer it if the game gave the players a choice of how much risk they were willing to face, knowing that the greater the risk, the greater the reward.

I don't know how easy it would be to incorporate different reward systems into the game. I guess it would be possible - XP for GPs, XP for portraying your character, XP for completing Quests, XP based on your level, XP based on moral or ethical choices your PC makes, or XP in an ad-hoc fashion from the DM - but how would you make sure that level gain would reflect and enhance the way that you play, that is, how you get XP?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Same base rules:

about the same number of Hp, Same distribution of stats. Defenses and attack bonuses calculated the same.
But as with 3.x, I don´t usually want them to be PC classes. They need to be simple to run.
Also the biggest failure of 3.x is the npc dependancy on magic items and emergency spells to have even a chance to survive until they act first. And then spilling all their treasure on the floor...
3.x magic items and interaction are an abomination i don´t want to see return...

it is just that the 4e way also seems wrong (armor and weapon havng no real influence on the NPC stats)
Can´t there be a middle gound?

I guess so... and it starts with magic items not beeing assumed in the core game experience!!! (Included by a formula to increase encounter difficulty)

Also I want to use monsters of way higher or way lower without worrying. Maybe rules that auto minonize and solify monsters...

(Trade accuracy for number of attacks or only beeing able to do minimum damage...)
When you go into minimum damage mode, a monster gets +4 to all attacks and that deal damage Your defense also increases by 4, but you are bloodied by the first blow and killed by the next. Take -4 to all attacks and defenses and you may attack twice)

 

[Viking Bastard]

The simplest option is just to provide a table for monster attack/defense/damage/hp values, with some guidelines for nudging it.

Oh, you're fighting a level 12 dire donkeyhorse? That's +12 attack bonus, 15 hp, deals 1d8+12 damage per hit, and has an AC of 12. Want it to be especially quick? OK, maybe it's AC is 14.

[...]

So the Monster Manual would have that handy-dandy chart, and might list several creatures, not by stat blocks, but by fluff/story/flavor info. The difference between a goblin and a bugbear isn't the stats, it's the story.

This is pretty much what I do now. I mine the MMs mostly for powers.

 

[BryonD]

1. I think I agree, but I'm not sure. Do you mind going into more detail about the differences?

The rules should permit PCs to do anything NPCs can do and the reverse as well. This thread is about rules. In 4E there are differences on the mechanical side that treat PCs and NPCs differently. I am opposed to that.

If you want to have an npc with a cyber arm and have it be impossible for PCs to have one, then fine. But if the system rules make it possible for the NPC to have the arm there should be nothing in the rules preventing a PC from having the arm. But there may be plenty of story / setting reasons. Maybe this guy fell through a time door and there is no means for anyone else to copy him. Maybe the evil cybercorp just unleashed the technology and repeating it will take 20 years of research, if you want to wait.

As another example I could easily take all arcane spellcasting away from 3E PCs without changing anything at all mechanically. Off the top of my head I could create a world in which there is a mystic barrier that prevents magic from working. However there are heinous acts which lift that barrier. As long as those acts have been completed within the last 24 hours magic works in a 500 mile radius. There are vile cabals constantly performing these acts so that their lords can practice magic. But everyone knows that all magic is founded on pure and constant evil. The campaign is centered on fighting these evil cabals one cell at a time.

Now mechanically arcane spell casting works EXACTLY the same. But functionally it is limited to npcs by the story.

In 4E there are differences that the very mechanics bring to the table before setting is even mentioned. I would be inclined against any system that did that.

2. What would you lose by having something simple enough to build on the fly or in your head?

Be fair now. That is different than what you said before.

I already have a system that I can build off on the fly and in my head. Just that and nothing more would lose me nothing. But there is some system mastery included in this. I'm ok with that.
But if someone else considers 3E to not meet the standard of "simple enough" then I don't want MY system "simpled down" to meet their standards.

I would LOVE to see a better mousetrap. If you can build an even easier system than what I have now and still have every bit of the MECHANICAL richness built in then I'll happily embrace it. I consider that wishful thinking. Until demonstrated to the contrary my answer here presumes more simple comes with a cost in value in exchange for zero added value *to me*.

3. I agree. I think a table of ACs based on narrative considerations - "AC 18: Steel covering the entire body, with few weak points" - would be my preference. Not only because it's simple but also because it's easy to give players information about what AC they are facing.

Why do the players need to know? Isn't "Steel covering the entire body, with few weak points" everything they need?

I like lots of different ways of getting there as well. If your Dex 10 Full plate guy is 18 the exact same guy except DEX 12 is 19. And the mage armor 18 dex guy is also 18. Not clear from what you said if you were leaving that out by design or not.

But what I REALLY don't want is to have the AC the NPC influenced by the PCs in any way. I've complained about that in 4E before. People have praised the idea that the bare chested pirate and the steel covered black knight have the same (or close to it) AC and that AC is based on the level challenge they are expected to be.

4. I think this is a big disagreement, unless I misunderstand you. I think it's a question of what the goals of the game are. I'd prefer it if the game gave the players a choice of how much risk they were willing to face, knowing that the greater the risk, the greater the reward.

Sounds like there is a huge difference here. Characters in stories don't choose between the troll with a bag of 750 gp or the 7 orcs with a bag of 500 gp or a the necromancer with a magic sword.

If the troll is eating kids from the village the party goes out to kill the troll.


Even if the campaign is a pure "bounty hunter" thing, it seems irrational to me that there would not be uncertainty on rewards for known foes and then unexpected challenges that along the way. And this gets back to #1 anyway. Even if there were clearly defined "bounties" those should be 100% narrative based and not be even a consideration in mechanical design.