Same rules or different Rules (PC vs NPC)

[BryonD]

If I face those obstacles in real life, I have my own conception of how difficult it might be to overcome them. That view - part of my world model - might be accurate or inaccurate, but I also have some view on how accurate or inaccurate they might be.

I don't accept your premise here and I assure you that this is not an issue I experience.

There is a huge gulf between having a sense of approximate capability and knowing the exact DC of a task. Players, and their characters, know every bit as well what there general capabilities are as I do in real life.

"Covered in steel" could mean anything, depending on the genre we are playing, the detailed knowledge the DM has of the effectiveness of medieval armour, the form of the armour (are we talking Gothic plate or Roman maille? Or Chinese scale?) and what "magical strengthening" is assumed to have taken place (if PCs "covered in steel" can range from AC14 to AC25, wouldn't NPCs armour, logically, do the same or more?) If this is your idea of an "informed decision", I guess we just have different definitions of that phrase.

Again, in a given campaign the players and characters will know a lot more context. This is not a problem I have *EVER* seen.

Yes - every single one. The twist is, though, that "reward" is not defined in exclusively material terms. Expand the rules to encompass non-material goals/rewards and I think you're golden.

You've changed the context and I'm mostly ok with your position here. Keeping the kids from being eaten by the troll *IS* absolutely a reward. But Lost Soul clearly rejected that as fitting his definition. So your complaint here relies on taking my words out of the context in which they were stated.

Simulationist goals (which is what are described here by ByronD, almost to a 'T') are perfectly fine RPG goals - but not the only ones. And, in my view, D&D does not suit (and never really has suited) those goals well.

Shrug. It works awesome for me. And honestly in the context of the issues you claim to be thwarted by, I simply think you may not be qualified to make that judgment on other's behalf.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Though, I think it can be related. if NPCs use the same character generation as PCs, as soon as the first PC splatbook comes out NPC generation just got more complicated.

In which case, the splatbook is the problem.

 

[herrozerro]

In which case, the splatbook is the problem.

So the perfect game is perfect from the get go and should never expand?

 

[Aldarc]

That may be true in some games, but I don't think it's a valid generalization. In some games, everyone you meet is a character.

You can romanticize them as such, but NPCs are fundamentally story props with whom characters can interact.

As to Orcs: Just because humans are playable as a race, does not mean generating their various NPCs would necessarily be done as PCs either, so I'm not sure why that would extend to orcs.

 

[BryonD]

Well you can create NPCs right now in 4e using the PC rules, nothing stopping you.

I'm not certain you are referencing my point. But I think you are and I'm presuming that here. My apologies if I am mistaken.

You can add flavor text to any NPC in 4E you want to describe exactly the same thing I can do in 3E. There is NOTHING I can described that a 4E DM can not.

But the on the "art", "creation", "model", front 4E makes a point of not even trying. Mearls himself said that if World Building was a key interest to you then 4E would probably not be the game for you.

I respect the desire for quick and simple. But again I'm personally convinced that a system that aims for a very high ideal of creation but also allows for short cuts is much better positioned to appeal to a large market than one that fixates on simplicity.

 

[JamesonCourage]

So the perfect game is perfect from the get go and should never expand?

That's kind of the framework for my RPG. It's point-buy, and you can do many, many things with it. However, everything is supposed to be in one book.

Does this mean there can't be more books? No, not at all. Sure, the first book would allow you to make anything the later books can (including all monsters, magic items, etc.), but a splat book dedicated to magic items is exceptionally useful. As is a book dedicated to monsters. I mean, sure, the first book has ways of making a ghost. Off the top of my head, I can name two ways. However, one is very subtle, and you could easily tweak it for varying degrees of "ghostness".

I think splatbooks have their place, but I'd prefer to see them as "here's this really cool thing that we built that you don't have to now." Pre-made monsters, magic items, campaign settings, etc. You don't need more options if the first book contains all the tools you'll need. But books being dedicated to convenience will still sell.

Just my thoughts on it. I don't think it's an unrealistic goal, by any means. Fill up books with pre-made mechanical things, campaign settings, terrain you can drop in, adventures, advice, and the like. Plenty of areas to expand without making the game more complicated. In fact, each book could make the game that much simpler ("I'm going to steal the goblin race, as well as this cool dungeon idea"). As always, play what you like

 

[BryonD]

4e handled it nearly perfectly---let's not take a step back.

Clearly 4E didn't. I understand that you mean "for you". But if that was even "good enough" by the standards that count then this conversation would not be happening.

And along those lines......

You used that "a step back" line at me MANY times over the past 3.5 years. But you need to hit the refresh button on your jargon meter. We are talking about the future of D&D. As of Monday 4E became "a step back" by any definition that applies to 3E. Welcome to the club.

 

[Jack99]

The loss of 3.5 production, articles, adventures, etc. I understand that they moved their efforts to their new product line. What I'm getting at is I expect the same for 4E when 5E comes out.

I would really like 5E to have sections [or its own books] for converting 5E material into earlier material.

Now THAT would get me to buy 5E material.

Why would 4e players not have experienced this? Most 4e players on this board have played at least 2-3 editions of DND before 4e. We have all tried to "lose" support for the edition we are playing. And probably more than once or twice.

 

[BryonD]

You can romanticize them as such, but NPCs are fundamentally story props with whom characters can interact.

90% of the time this is true. But if it is "fundamental" to you, then you don't know what you are missing out on.

And maybe you don't care.

But keep in mind we are advocating a system that can create characters or be simplified for props. You are asking us to settle for props. Shouldn't the game offer more range and options, not less?

 

[herrozerro]

I dont doubt that PCs and NPCs being created in the same way can be done. But by doing so NPCs become linked to any kind of complexity change in the PC side, even unintentionally.

Having to create a PC out of 8 books? A little extreme, but its an investment, for a character that probably has the reasonable expectation to last the entire game.

Creating an NPC out of 8 books? Always extreme, almost never worth it, and a waste of time.