Same rules or different Rules (PC vs NPC)

[Mark CMG]

Same rules or different Rules (PC vs NPC)

I think there's a hybrid approach whereby NPCs and lesser villains can be no more than their Ability Scores (if the system is simple enough that Ability Scores can easily inform gameplay for them) and PCs plus Major Villains can be more extensively detailed.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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

In which case, the DM must decide how to handle rules expansions. If he introduces new classes, spells, feats, etc., they are fair game for everyone, and since he is in control of 99% of everyone, he has to carry the burden of updating the stats as needed.

I'm not saying splatbooks are a problem in all situations. I'm saying that if you think monsters are too complicated because you need to reference new rules to create or use them adequately, that's the new rules' fault, not the existing monsters' fault. It doesn't imply that you should deny monsters access to customizable character options simply because that might make the DM's life more difficult; merely that it's the DM's job to decide what the playing field is-for everyone.

 

[herrozerro]

The goal of D&D is to be part of the story and to see your creations take on the illusion of life.

I understand this is your opinion but i have a hard time equating NPCs having stats with them becoming a part of a living breathing story.

I also love building worlds, and for me at least 4e is perfect, it has taught me that the world doent need ot be made of numbers, the only parts that need stats or numbers are the parts that the PCs interact with on that level.

I dont need to stat out every single NPC in the slightest, i dont need to stat out the blacksmith's strength, unless the party fights him or challenges him to a contest of strength. Unless the Party interacts with him on any kind of statistic level all i might need is a small roleplaying paragraph or two:

"Hugo the blacksmith is the best in in all the towns nearby, he can craft anything given the time and materials. He has a daughter that flirts with all of the warriors that come to her fathers shop and a son who is an apprentice who can craft most mundane equipment."

there with a single paragraph I have all i need to know about Hugo, with 4e I also have a really cool cheat sheet that if the party even wants to fight hugo and i am caught totally unaware, i can make up his stats on the fly, all i need to do is decide how much of a challenge he is to the party and make up a few cool powers that he might do.

Honestly I dont get the need to tag everything with numbers to "create a living world".

 

[Ahnehnois]

Honestly I dont get the need to tag everything with numbers to "create a living world".

You don't. You and your friends can create a living world without any rules whatsoever.

If you're playing D&D, you've adopted the conceit that a living creature is defined by certain attributes that can be represented in numerical form. Working within that conceit, every living creature should in theory have those stats.

If you as the DM want to cut corners or eliminate stats entirely, that's your prerogative. I do that often enough. However, it is very important that full statistics exist and are readily accessible for DMs who choose to use them.

It's also very important from a player's perspective to feel like their character is part of the world, and thus important for the mechanics to reflect that. The only thing that separates a PC from an NPC is who is playing the character. Again, if you want to decide that your PCs are special and have access to special things, that's perfectly fine, but it shouldn't be how the game is built.

 

[BryonD]

Honestly I dont get the need to tag everything with numbers to "create a living world".

Well, I think I described it in much better detail in the longer post this morning.

But I'd also say blowing it off as "tag everything with numbers" isn't a very useful assessment.

Suffice it to say that there are a lot of us out there that want a lot more of a richness built into the model itself rather than just painting different flavor on the same skeleton over and over. I respect that not everyone shares this goal. But I again claim that a tinkers modeling system with short cuts can appeal to people who don't want that detail in a way that a simple system can't hope to reach out to people who want the details.

I'm not saying your view is wrong and mine is right. I'm saying that current system omits my view and the future system should embrace mine AS WELL AS yours.

 

[herrozerro]

In which case, the DM must decide how to handle rules expansions. If he introduces new classes, spells, feats, etc., they are fair game for everyone, and since he is in control of 99% of everyone, he has to carry the burden of updating the stats as needed.

I'm not saying splatbooks are a problem in all situations. I'm saying that if you think monsters are too complicated because you need to reference new rules to create or use them adequately, that's the new rules' fault, not the existing monsters' fault. It doesn't imply that you should deny monsters access to customizable character options simply because that might make the DM's life more difficult; merely that it's the DM's job to decide what the playing field is-for everyone.

Different strokes I guess.

my style is that all player content is fair game, i dont care if a players wants to use every single book in existence to create a character. for players in my experiance building characters is the fun part.

4e has let me do that and given me the complete freedom to build NPCs, Creatures, Monsters or whatever you want to call them in a very dramatic way. If I want to build a creature that will challenge the party in some way that on the PC end would require some kind of level prerequisite i dont have to stress about building a monster that remains "fair" without breaking rules.

If I want to create a level 1 challenge that is a shadow dancer/wizard/assassin, I dont have to "cheat" because a level 1 creature can never have 3 elements from such a varied amount of sources.

 

[Aldarc]

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?

You probably should not presume that I don't. "Characters" can be expanded from props if you so desire, but NPCs as props should remain as the base.

 

[LostSoul]

Thanks for the reply, Bryon.

Let me stat up the demon lord as I would do now in my 4E hack. The point of this exercise is to see if the demon lord is good enough on the level of art, creation, and story-telling. (Is model a better word for creation?) I believe that it will fail on at least one of these criteria! Perhaps by going through this you can see a way to hit a good compromise position.

1. Let me set his level; as a demon lord, 27. As a Solo, too.
2. Defences are going to be normal for that level, since he's a demon lord and has no obvious flaws. Maybe a bit lower Ref, higher will. AC 41, Fort 39, Ref 37, Will 41.
3. For HP I'll need to look on my Combat Cheat Sheet. (It actually doesn't go up to level 27 since I don't deal with that.) So Hits are 107. Solo = 535.
4. For damage I need to do the same; it'll be 28(36) / 18(27) Hits. (Crits)

Let’s say he has two different weapons he wields and also has “ray of killing”. But what if one weapon is an axe with a threat range of 20 for X3 and the other is a sword with a threat range of 19 for X2? That is a small tweak. But even purely from a game point of view the threat presented by those weapons are now distinct.

minor Axe: melee or rng 5/10, atk +32 vs AC, hit: 28 hits dmg (crit 42).
minor Sword: atk +32 vs AC, hit: 28 hits dmg (crit 27).
standard Ray of Killing: rng 20, atk +30 vs Ref, hit: the target is killed.

Now say that the axe also throws lightning bolts and the sword is toxic to gnomes.

standard Lightning Bolt: a line from the axe 50' long, targets everyone in the line, must have axe in hand, atk +30 vs Ref, hit: 18 hits lightning dmg (crit 27).
Let's update that sword:
hit: 28 hits dmg (crit 27), and if the target is a gnome it is killed.

And maybe this guy knows more about the history of the gods than any mortal. And maybe this guy can grant a wish to anyone who brings him a purple diamond and gets him to listen long enough to know they have a gift. And maybe this guy can polymorph people into turtles. And maybe this guy can always tell the exact location of the person whom whoever he touches cares most about.

The demon lord has the following skills:
Lore of Gods: He knows more about the history of the gods than any mortal.
Wish: The demon lord can grant a wish, but requires a purple diamond.

And more attacks:
standard Turtle Form: rng 20, atk +30 vs Fort, hit: target is turned into a turtle (no save).
minor Love's Betrayal: atk +30 vs Ref, hit: the demon lord knows the exact location of the target's most beloved.

I'd probably give him some other abilities to make him a true solo monster; wreathed in flames, perhaps (8 hits fire if you approach him) and some kind way to get rid of conditions.

Here's an NPC I made last night:

[sblock]Deja is a tiefling warlock who has forged a Pact with Mammon. (Level 5 controller) She has the skills Infernal Heritage, which allows her to draw on Mammon's ability to tempt others with greed, lust, and avarice, but reveals itself in a tell - her hands are covered in red scales; Unnatural Means, where she gorges herself, then vomits in order to maintain utter physical perfection; Tongue of the Devil; and Civilized, as she came from the last remaining city of men.
Her Pact Obligation is ritual sex.
Her powers are as follows:
hellish rebuke, +8 vs Ref, rng 5, 6(7) hits fire dmg and 6 more if she's hurt before the end of her next turn;
devilish slap, +10 vs AC, must take off her gloves, 1(2) hits plus 5 fire dmg and the target is compelled to grab Deja
encounter hot-blooded, anyone who comes within 5' of Deja takes 6 hits fire dmg
daily lust-filled glare, +8 vs Will, close burst 5, 5(7) hits psychic dmg and the target is convinced he must possess Deja for his own (save ends); on the first failed save Deja can bring back the effect at any time with a glance (minor)

edit: It should be noted that, in order to get her lust-filled glare back, she has to fulfil her Pact Obligation - engage in ritual sex.

I don't need to worry about Hits, since they're on my "Cheat Sheet"; Defences are easy to calculate, I don't need to write them down anywhere. Though in her case, since she's naked, I'd give her a low AC - maybe 16.[/sblock]

Now I know that you're losing the ability to tinker around with various feats, skill ranks, and things like that (which is what I think you mean by "creation"), but do those NPCs meet your standards for art and story-telling?

If that's the case, I see what you're missing, and I don't know if you (Bryon) could get a better system than what you have now.

I have a feeling that you might be able to do both if you keep the numbers and modifiers small. If you're looking at an AC range of 8-22 for 90% of monsters, and PC math that works for that (say, Fighters are the only ones who gain bonuses to hit), then it might be easy to do both. Not sure about that, though. Any thoughts?

 

[Balesir]

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

If you say so. To be explicit, though, let me outline a subject I have come accross this issue.

I used to shoot longbow (English, not American - the American 'flatbow' is quite a different beast). I have a pretty good idea of what a longbow can do IRL. Playing in a game run by a DM who has no such experience, though, I end up in a weird bind if we don't stick to game rules that say exactly what a longbow can do. Because either I come accross as a jerk when I tell the DM that what he is narrating is complete rubbish, or I have no clue about what a longbow is supposed to be capable of in this world, when both I and my character (a longbow expert, let's say) should absolutely have a good idea of how a longbow will perform.

I would much rather have an open rule set that defines what the longbow can do in this game world - even if it is completely different from what I know one can do in real life - than have to purposefully ignore everything I know about bows and bowyery in order to try to second-guess what the DM of this specific game thinks (has read/once heard or whatever) a longbow is capable of.

Much the same applies with the way longswords, shields and such are used in combat since I spent time watching the guys at the Royal Armouries spar using the techniques reconstructed from original manuscripts such as I33 and so on. It made me realise that the model fantasy movies and such like have given many/most fantasy fans of the way "medieval" sword-and-board combat works is, to say the least, wildly inaccurate. The result now is that, absent detailed discussions, I have no clue whether a DM I am playing with views sword and shield combat in a "fantasy" mode or a "best reconstruction to date" mode. Without knowing which of these is their model (for this specific game), I am just guessing about what their supposedly "informative" descriptions really mean.

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.

Sure - which is why, arguably, the character's skill level should factor into an "error margin" for the DC given, which could be above or below the "real" DC. This is fine, in theory. In practice, though, I have found it to be hardly ever worthwhile; the die roll already does a pretty good job of providing the "error margin" variability, without overcomplicating the process of informing the player what the situation is.

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

The only "context" that is going to be useful is what ideas about the "reality" of how things as diverse as archery, swordfighting and rock climbing work are governing in the mental world-model of the DM. Unless you either (a) have a rule system that defines these things in game terms for this game world, or (b) have systems that distribute the decisions about these things and define how the decisions are made and how character skills "protect" from that rather than how the world works, this issue will always crop up, whether recognised or not, and whether valued, or not.

To be honest, I can see a valid issue to be solved, here. If a group wants immersive play, communicating DCs is going to be intrusive to such immersion. My solution, though, is not to give players purely world-based information and then rule on in-game facts as DM. That way the issues with areas the players are genuinely knowledgeable about but the DM is not (or vice versa) will inevitably arise. It is simply, as originally suggested in Theatrix, I believe, to allow the player to have a "locus of control" determined by their character's skill in the game situation.

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.

Yes, mea culpa on the context, but it seemed like the discussion was (once again) slipping into generalising point that only apply in a specific context.

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.

To be clearer, I'm not saying those things make "dreaming play" or "immersion" impossible - just that, if I wanted to run a game centred on world exploration and immersion, I would choose other methods in those areas. If you are happy with the system you have for the sort of game you seem uniquely to prefer, go for it! I'm just saying that you could make your own task easier, in my experience, by switching how you handle those specific rules elements (as well as a few others, to a smaller degree).

Personally, I have decided that D&D is the wrong base system for such games - so I simply use a different one (well, several, actually).

 

[BryonD]

but do those NPCs meet your standards for art and story-telling?

No.

25 years ago they would have blown my standards away. But now I can do much better.