Am I the only one who doesn't like the arbitrary "boss monster" tag?

[Chris_Nightwing]

No.

My apologies of course, British exaggeration gone awry, I fear.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think the most-accepted definition if we're not diving into the deep weeds of GNS wackiness has two main characteristics

(1) A view of the rules as representing the "physics" of the game world as opposed to merely a resolution mechanic.

(2) And, likewise, a view that the rules, insofar as possible while still keeping a playable system, should have a relation with real-world physics.

So, encompassed with the above are a host of other considerations - including that NPCs (including monsters) and PCs should follow similar rules, as we're discussing here.

-O

It's not just about the "physics". It's about stepping back and saying "I know that's not real but if it was I could totally see that happening".

 

[Ahnehnois]

I had this argument with a person once.

I look to a quote from the Matrix movie: "They live in a system which is based on rules. That means they will never be as strong or as fast as you can be."

In Dnd terms, this quote actually applies to npcs. As the DM, my npcs can have whatever abilities I want them to have. Simply put, if I wanted to kill the pcs at any time, I could.

But part of the Player/DM covenant, is that in return for PCs having to follow the rules they get the power of plot. They are always a part of the story, they get the benefits of coincidence, and at some level generally they are supposed to win.

I guess that's okay if your game is The Matrix (which is a good movie, but not what I personally expect when I sit down for an rpg session). Nothing wrong with that.

Personally, I would quote the Dark Knight in telling my players "know your limits".
(Which, in context, are defined by the world and are the same for everyone, even "heroes")

 

[slobster]

I guess that's okay if your game is The Matrix (which is a good movie, but not what I personally expect when I sit down for an rpg session). Nothing wrong with that.

Personally, I would quote the Dark Knight in telling my players "know your limits".
(Which, in context, are defined by the world and are the same for everyone, even "heroes")

Ironically, if I were running a Matrix game I would do the opposite. It's one of the few cases I can think of where I would use a strict system for NPC building (at least those NPCs connected to the Matrix). The players, on the other hand, would get to break a lot of those rules because they are special. It just fits, thematically.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Ironically, if I were running a Matrix game I would do the opposite. NPCs (at least in the Matrix) would be based on strict building rules from which I wouldn't deviate. The players, on the other hand, would get to break a lot of those rules because they are special. It just fits, thematically.

That does make more sense. I think the original example was looking at the rules for PCs from a decidedly non-simulation perspective, suggesting that their purpose was to balance the PCs with each other and give them a list of crazy powerul things to do, rather than to have any validity outside of that context.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What's relevant here is a pretty core question though - (1) is the (or a) class/level system necessary or sufficient for every NPC in the world; (2) must NPCs and monsters follow identical rules to PCs; and (3) what are the merits and flaws to each approach?

Hm... OK.

1) I'd have to say no to both, at least, for an RPG emulating the heroic fantasy genre. You could have completely class-less NPCs who don't need class/level to be fully realized. You could have NPCs that don't /fit/ in any class/level progression (for instance, because their wildly good at one thing, like a skill or casting certain spells or whatever, but also terribly fragile - D&D class/level always increases hps, saves, and the like).

2) Again, for an FRPG, I'd have to say no. PCs are the 'heroes' of a story (their own story), they need to fit that protagonist role. Some NPCs may need to be similar to them in abilities, but others will have to be wildly different to fill roles as 'background characters,' supporting characters, 'extras,' sources of exposition, plot devices, very-high-power-but-for-some-reason-unwilling/able-to-intervene mentors/masters, and even the occasional outright deus-ex-machina.

3) The advantage of having different rules for PCs & NPCs is that it allows the game to model the way protagonists are treated in genre vs the way support characters and adversaries are handled. Thus, it delivers a good genre-simulation. The advantage of using the same rules for PCs & NPCs is that it creates an impartial imagined world in which the PCs are very much /not/ the heroes, but just like everyone else - they may become heroes, if lucky and determined enough, but more likely if they go out and 'try to be a hero,' they will, like most people who jump on grenades or try to wrestle the bomb away from a terrorist, simply die. Thus, it delivers a more realistic simulation.

 

[slobster]

That does make more sense. I think the original example was looking at the rules for PCs from a decidedly non-simulation perspective, suggesting that their purpose was to balance the PCs with each other and give them a list of crazy powerul things to do, rather than to have any validity outside of that context.

Oh yeah, it just struck me as funny. I wasn't contradicting either of you, just pointing out an ironic happenstance.

I also wanted to make the point that using the tenets of simulationism to build the world is a stylistic choice that I find valid, it's just not one that I choose to make most of the time. But I can see situations where I would choose to use it. I think it's constraining on the GM and more work, but sometimes the constraints are useful and help build the world and the extra work is just plain worth it.

 

[triqui]

Maybe this is a bunch of players complaining about why they don't get the same privilege. This whole line of argument seems to be about how a class system is BAD THING, that adventuring abilities shouldn't be tied to nonadventuring abilities, etc.

The underlying problem is that the character creation rules are how people see the world. The class system is indeed limiting and illogical, but it's the paradigm D&D works within. If one character (or a party of characters) are created with (or without) classes, then all characters should be.

Not necesarelly. AD&D was a level system, but non-weapon proficiencies didn't upgrade with level. So a blacksmith could be good, or bad, without needing to kill a bunch of goblins to get XP and a few extra levels to raise his ranks in weaponcraft.

It's not that "level" is inherently bad. I think it's awesome to model combat in a universe where people has very different "power ranks". Galadriel isn't in the same "scale" than Bob the Militia Guard, or even in the same scale than Boromir. Level is *great* for this.
It's wrong to model other things, specially out-of-combat skills. A character shouldn't need to be 10th level to be the best diplomat, or blacksmither, or even the best expert in Arcane Lore in the world.

 

[triqui]

No, it's like this.. in 3E you have to guess how tough the blacksmith is based on his blacksmithing skill, telling you that he probably has at least that BAB and at least that many HD (which might be too high, and if I were using a homemade NPC class it would be known by the players). In 4E you've no idea - you have to sense the DM's motive, guess how he will handle your attack on the blacksmith, discern what combat abilities he might have given this blacksmith (or indeed, whether he will give you a tough encounter or not on the fly).

In 3e, the character has no idea about what is the blacksmith skill rank. At best, he knows he has made a beautiful weapon, but he doesn't know "he has 15 ranks in blacksmithing". The *Character* will have to imagine how good or bad he is in combat by his appereance. If he looks strong, you might think he is at least decent in a brawl. If he looks like the old guy who has been forging katanas for 40 years, he might not be.

In 4e, I have to trust my DM common sense. But so do I in 3e. Even if you *could* take a look at the blacksmith work, and say "ok, he has 10 ranks in blacksmithing", that wouldn't say you his level. He might be a lvl 20 expert, which happen to have a secret desire for RPG design, so he spent half his skill ranks in statistics, fantasy literature, and nerd lore, and he only put 10 ranks in blacksmithing. Then he has BAB +15/10/5, and a few combat skills because he practice MMA. Your DM must be a dick to act like this, sure. But the same happens with a 4e DM, he might be a dick and give the Blacksmith a ton of multiattacks, a free healing surge when bloodied, and inmunity to fire. But why would he, unless he is a dick? A DM with common sense would make a reasonable blacksmith. Just like in 3e, a reasonable DM wouldn't make the blacksmith with 10 ranks a 20th level expert that spent half his skills in Tumble to beat the PC's asses.

 

[pemerton]

I do like shifting monsters along the solo-minion scale to represent PC advancement.

<snip>

At 1st level, a single warrior of a tribe of uruk-hai-like uber-orcs might by a solo challenge for the party, a 'boss' at the end of an adventure where they finally track down the agent provacatuer that's been causing trouble in their corner of the world. Five levels on, the same sort of orc (maybe that first one's twin brother, looking for revenge, maybe the exact same uber-orc if he escaped that boss fight) might be statted out as a same-level elite. Another 4 or 5 levels, and they're 'just' standard monsters. Another 18, and the paragon level PCs are facing hordes of the same sort of orc warriors, but now they're only minions. When those get too easy, the DM can pull them together into even-higher-level mobs. You keep fighting the same sort of monster, in the fiction, the modeling is just changed to fit their changing role in the PCs story.

I've used Hobgoblin Phalanxes (huge and gargantuan swarms of hobgoblins). One ability they have is to remove hobgoblin minions from the game in order to regain hit points (battlefield pressganging!).