Yes, I'm advocating no rules at all for NPCs that aren't intended for combat. They don't need rules and rules only get in the way because they provide restrictions.
If they don't need rules, they also don't need stats. If you want no rules and you want to choose your outcome, don't put a gloss on it and just choose the outcome. There is no need to roll for anything regarding the NPC at all, so why have stats for them at all? And if you need no rules for NPC's, then you really have no business arguing about what the rules for NPCs should be as they aren't relevant to you and no rule requires any DM to build NPCs according to the rules. Rules for building NPCs aren't there to enforce some arbitrary design to NPCs, they are there to help DMs build good NPCs.
If on the other hand you are going to bother to stat a character up, it implies you need rules, largely intend to follow them, and aren't choosing the outcome because you are going to the effort and disruption of using a fortune mechanic (throwing the dice) because the outcome is doubtful and important. If none of that is true, then again, why bother with stats at all? What's the point of a 14 Dex you intend to ignore?
Apparently you are using low numbers. Every character in my games both 3.5e, 4e, and D&D Next have at least one 18 and one 16.
Enough said. Your NPC's have inflated stat arrays. This provokes jealousy from your players so to compensate you've inflated the PC stat arrays. You are in a power creep cycle with you needing to inflate stats to trump your PC's (to get 'the outcome that you want') and the players in turn becoming dissatisfied and seeking ever higher stats to trump the NPCs.
It's your game; do what you like. But there is no way I'd advise as a game designer designing that sort of crap into the system. NPC character building guidelines, whether as a system or as samples would strongly discourage new DMs from getting into that situation.
Ideally, I wouldn't write the stats down at all.
Interestingly, that's my ideal situation as well. I only interface with the mechanics when I need to do so.
My point is that by having rules on how to calculate how many skill points she has, what her combat abilities are and so on based on a class which gives a package of benefits means I HAVE to write down all that stuff.
Why?? Seriously, why??? I don't in general do that. I normally just do something like Sarah (Com2) and be done with it. In many cases, I don't even have to do that because from the demographics and Sarah's age and background I can stat her from my demographic assumptions about the setting. I need to know how well Sarah sews, or senses motive, or climbs, etc. I work from that. I never am going to be in a situation of choosing an outcome, least of all on a character I never expected to be in a fortune contest. Why the heck would I do that? Again, I'm not here to railroad the story toward my desired outcomes.
If I did expect Sarah to come into conflict predictably, then I'd stat her up before hand so as to minimize the chance that I'd be tempted or would unconsciously choose an outcome to the situation. (Does Sarah have skill ranks in bluff, for example).
There is no craft skill and skills in D&D Next...
Great. So in other words another system that makes the assumption that anything that doesn't happen in combat isn't important.
The elite array in 3.5e is:
15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8
My proposed stats were:
16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10
They are a couple of points above the elite array, which the rules suggest you use for any exceptional NPC. She's pretty exceptional being an adventurer in addition to a seamstress and I didn't have the elite array handy to look up and just use that so I made up numbers and ended up getting pretty close.
It's pretty darn rare that an NPC in my game gets an elite array. A typical 4th level character in my game world have an array like: 14 12 12 11 10 9. That's a well above average person. If I gave an elite array to the seamstress, I would essentially be saying that the seamstress is one of the handful of persons in the nation who was the peer of the PC's. She would be a Very Important Person. These are the rivals, mentors, allies, enemies, and foils of the PCs. An adventuring seamstress (which I find rather comical) might fall into that category simply because I'd never create such a weird concept without considering the special in some fashion.
When I used to run 3.5e, my general rule was if they had a name they got the elite array. Troll #2 used the standard array: 11,11,11,10,10,10 and the Troll leader had the elite array. Or anyone who has class levels gets the elite array automatically.
In practice then, almost everyone in your world has the elite array. In your world, the elite array is almost average, so the PCs in your world are almost average as well. This is one of the several problems I've seen in campaigns were everyone gets an 18. If the PC's all have 18's, pretty soon everyone has 18's and anyone who is anyone has a lot higher than an 18 and anything less than an 18 starts being considered 'bad'. It's a world were only the NPCs are special people.
Your proposed stats are so far below the average person that if you used even the standard array, in order to lower 3 stats to 3, you'd have to raise all 3 of her other stats to 18 to make up for it.
Sure. But, in a world were every second person has the elite array, doesn't it make sense that in order for the standard array to be average a lot of persons have to have rather below average ability scores?
Seriously, there is a 9th level Cleric in my game - the High Priestess of Showna - (one of the highest level characters the PCs have met) who does have a 3 Str, 3 Dex, and 3 Con in my game. Granted she is also among the most feeble characters the players have met, but this is why the 9th level 89 year old cleric is not saving the world instead of the PCs. It's really not unusual for characters in my game to not even have as much as the standard array, especially if they are young, aged, infirmed, handicapped, etc. A 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10 person really is average in my world.
Generally, I assume the minimum stat for the humanoid races allowed as PC races is 6. Those are the weakest and most frail example of their species. Basically, I assume that since point buy starts at 8 and you can apply a -2 penalty that 6 is the lowest stat anyone will have.
But that's not even realistic. There are probably plenty of persons you meet in your day to day life that don't have above a 6 STR. If you think every can lift 60 pounds over their head or walk comfortably carrying such a load, then you don't know many people over 30 or over 60. And there is no reason to think that the other abilities are equally privileged. There are plenty of overweight or out of shape people who are out of breath after a half mile of walking, plenty of people with odious personal habits or who just disappear in a room. I'd be terribly surprised if you don't know people whose abilities translate into the equivalent of 6 something in at least 1 area.
Now again, you are perfectly free to stat up characters how ever you like, but as general guidelines assuming that no NPCs have below the standard array isn't what I'd recommend to new DMs. In theory, half of the fantasy world's population comes shy of the standard array. This is one of the reasons why even at first level, your PC's are big darn heroes and needed by their community. There isn't necessarily a reason to have full blown stat blocks for the town drunk, invalid widows, retarded laborers, diseased beggars and so forth but presumably they are below even the standard array.
Even if we use the age modifiers and standard array, that means the old version would have started at 10 con and had -2 applied to it due to her age. She'd have 8, not 3. Same with her Strength and Con. Even if we somehow lowered all of them to 8 to start with, the lowest she'd have is 6.
3.X's aging rules aren't particularly granular and detailed. I suggest you read how GURPS or a more simulationist system approaches the problem. In fact, even 1e considered the issue more seriously.
Though, now we've already spent 2 days analyzing the proper use of the NPC rules about 2 sets of NPCs. Which is a far cry from "It's really simple".
What??? No. We've spent 2 days arguing about the reasons for having NPC rules. The justification for something can be more complex than the thing itself.
I guess at his skills and abilities just like I do each and every other person I meet and they vary wildly.
But in the real world you are not, for lack of a better term, 'God'. You didn't make this world and you aren't omniscient. So, I don't have a clue what you are trying to show with this example.
I didn't see any explanation. You just said "14 is too high!" and "I think it should be 3!" Your stats are just as arbitrary as mine.
Only in the sense that I can decide what sort of character I'm building. If I'm designing a frail lady in her 70's, common sense will suggest that she shouldn't have a DEX 14, and that her health and strength would be likewise well below average. In practice, you've already admitted that, since you assigned her a DEX 14 but then immediately noted that you would ignore the effects of doing that. So in other words, you aren't getting the results you want from the system because you aren't listening to what it is telling you.
I've never seen an NPC in any officially published adventure with less than a 5 in a stat, even the most frail person in the world. I take my cue from the "norm".
Of course not. In most officially published adventures, the only NPCs with stats are those meant to be a combat challenge to the players. For one thing, adventures focused around combat are traditional and probably also the best selling sorts. For another thing, most NPCs that are below average don't need stats. In 1e published modules, these were generally described as 'noncombatants', meaning that if you got into a fight or contest with them they'd pretty much always lose - no stats needed. And again, generally I agree but there are times when a character I didn't expect to need stats for suddenly needs them.
She's frail in that she can easily break her ankle if she fell...
And again, you aren't listening to the system. If she can easily break her ankle or hit if she falls, it implies her Con is well below average. I suppose we could argue that her strength or con is still as high as 8 - I've certainly met some strong and elderly people before - but I certainly wouldn't describe such a person as frail. More importantly, you still aren't listening to the system. You are complaining that the frail elderly seamstress has capabilities in combat you don't want. In fact, the system is telling you that highly experienced persons with 8 STR, 14 DEX, and 8 CON are still reasonably threatening - at least to average persons. They are reasonably threatening precisely because they aren't in fact frail. You are working really hard to avoid working with the system, and then complaining that the system isn't giving you what you want. It's not giving you want you want, because you aren't working with the system.
...and she dies pretty easy when stabbed with a sword.
Oh brother. Let's not get into a debate about what hit points are. A character with 80 hit points dies pretty easily when run through with a sword too you know.
Wait. Why do I have to memorize the rules for everything, even the AC given out by armor in order to run the game? When I run D&D Next or 4e, I just pull out a monster and run it exactly as written. It doesn't require me to know what the AC of Masterwork Padded is.
Well in theory, this wouldn't require that either. Nothing prevents us from having a 'monster manual' for NPCs where someone else has done the work of design for you and all you have to do is look it up. All you have to do is look up the 'Commoner' or 'Master Crafter' stat block in our hypothetical NPC manual, and run with it. That works fine if the designers can anticipate the needs for every NPC you might want to run, although in practice even if the system wasn't published I bet you'd find there was an underlying mathematics behind the designs. The point of a system though is to provide guidelines for creating good NPCs (or monsters, or whatever). Maybe it is the case that you are such an experienced DM that you can just wing it and throw the guidelines and rules out willy nilly and things will work out great, but I wouldn't design a system around that assumptions.
For example, I basically always wing/customize magic items. But I can do that because I've been playing this game for 30 years. A new DM given no guidelines for magic item/treasure placement is likely to go very very wrong in a hurry.
But I'm trying to play the role of someone new to the game and trying to figure out how these rules for making up NPCs are making the game better for me.
Someone new to the game is well advised not to throw out the rules and guidelines and start pulling numbers out of the air. Actually, I'd argue that someone experienced with the game gets away with that only to the extent that they can pull out of the air numbers quite close to what the system expects anyway.
Maybe not, but it's an extra step. Each extra step takes time. Time spent doing math and calculating these things takes time away from actually playing the game. Each step takes brain power better spent on something else. It's kind of my point that we've created two almost identical sets of stats for NPCs. One of them required knowledge of about 20-30 pages worth of NPC creation rules, class features, feats, hitpoint generation rules, skill rules and the expertise in order to use them all to generate precisely what you wanted the final numbers to come out as. The other one requires none of that knowledge and just allows you to set the final numbers to what you wanted them to come out as in advance.
You're getting this all exactly backward. If you came up with almost identical sets of stats it's not coincidental. It's because you've unconsciously absorbed the assumptions of the system through experience and know roughly what the numbers are supposed to be. That's come about only because there is a system. If there wasn't a system, I'd expect far greater variance in the assumptions. Without guidelines, how would new DMs figure out what the numbers 'should be'. And for that matter, you still aren't listening to me. I DON'T set the final numbers based on what I want them to come out in advance. I set the numbers based on what I know about the character and the setting assumptions. I never have final numbers in mind. The final numbers are generally what they are, not what I want them to be.
Let's assume that we're trying to find the best rules for the game in general. Which means I'm a new player. I thought "Hey, this DMing thing is awesome. I'll read the sections on how to DM, I've got a monster manual which has the rules for monsters in it. Awesome, now I'll just come up with an adventure for the players to run through. I need the stats for a seamstress that the players will meet."
They likely would have to look up the rules for Dodge, having never seen the feat before. In fact, they'd likely have to read the entire feat section to figure out what feats to take.
Sure. Which is why you provide things like Monster Manuals and so forth. But let's really look at your situation. You are advocating NO RULES. So now what does the new DM need to know to stat up the seamstress when there are no rules? The new DMs now needs to know the intricate interactions between the character's abilities and the likely outcomes in the proposition/resolution system, something that most people can only learn through experience. At the very least, your outcome here seems to be 'I want this character to never fail making masterwork goods', which requires you to know the DC of making a masterwork good. Your suggestion would be the equivalent of publishing a rules system for a D&D like game with no Monster Manual and no rules for creating monsters. You are doing the equivalent of expecting new DMs to make monsters without having seen play tested monsters built according to a system, without having played the game, and without having a system for making monsters to a given challenge level. You really think that is easier and likely to have better results?
Moreover, however well it works for you, your design - your methodology for playing the game - subtly pushes any new DMs in the direction of being very railroad and new players in the direction of being very passive.
