D&D 5E Those poor farmers!

[Celebrim]

Again, why would you bother using these rules for NPC's? The DM simply rules by fiat whether a business or whatever is prospering or not. It's not a straw man to say that wanting PC and NPC rules to follow the same mechanics is a sim based idea. That's precisely what you are asking for [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]. NPC's don't need downtime rules because NPC's don't have downtime. It's as simple as that. Why would you add mechanics to something that will never, ever use it? Do farmers have down time? Does an inn keeper need downtime mechanics?

Not only is it a straw man, at this point it amounts to thread crapping. It's really not my place or yours to tell another DM what rules that they need, how they should use them, or what sort of campaign that they should have.

More to the point though, having the same rules for PC's and NPC's is not necessarily and certainly not exclusively or even primarily a 'sim based idea'. Even if it were the case that simply being a 'sim based idea' disqualified a rule as a good rule, which you seem to take for granted and I don't feel like quibbling with, we don't need to appeal sim ideas to justify having the same rules for PC's and NPC's. For one thing, as a point of simple fact, PC's and NPC's pretty much do have the same rules.

Can NPC's have classes? Yes, they can. Can NPC's have Strength or Intelligence? Yes, they can. Can NPC's have proficiencies or skills or use equipment or anything else? Yes, they can. Do NPC's make attack rolls or saving throws or skill checks? Yes, they can and do. In short, 5e is already a system where NPCs and PCs utilize the same rules. It's not necessarily the case that this is for some desire for process simulation. Quite simply, the main reason for this is probably that it's just a lot simpler to have one set of rules for both PC's and NPC's instead of two whole sets of rules plus some sort of mapping or translation between them. Imagine the annoyance of having different combat rules for PC's and NPC's and then trying to translate for problems like PC's attacking PC's or NPC's attacking NPC's. Imagine the additional page count this would necessitate.

You seem to be laboring under a common misperception - that having exceptions to the rules makes your rules set simpler rather than more complicated. I get to 'enjoy' the fruits of this misperception all the time in my daily work, as I have to explain to business analysts and project managers that when they write rules to treat two things differently, they aren't in fact making it easier for the developers to exclude something and treat it as a special case, but in fact making it more complicated. If you are doing something like video game development, it isn't in fact simpler to give the PC's and the NPC's different powers. It's in fact simpler and easier to give NPC's the ability to use the same spells available to the PC's, since if you have to create abilities for the PCs that effect the environment then its relatively little cost to allow the NPCs to access these routines compared to creating whole separate systems for the NPCs. This is why as often as not lately in cRPGs you see a trend to make NPC's and PC's belong to the same class of objects and leveraging the same special abilities. It's not out of the desire to make the inner lives of innkeepers make since, but out of a desire to get the most content for the labor put into the game.

As for the rest, it's not my place to decide whether NPC's have downtime or not or what makes for a fun scenario. If a group decides to run a contest between a PC innkeeper and a NPC innkeeper, to see which can turn a profit and become the greatest innkeep in the village, that's their decision. If you say, "Heh, that's not D&D!", what you are really saying is 'badwrongfun'. If a player decides that, having recreated the labors of Theseus, he now wishes to leave retainers in the inns to ensure travelers on the road will hitherto have a place of rest and succor, and further that he desires that the retainers each give him 1/3rd of the profits, then that's all well and good as well. All the sudden, NPC's have downtime! Of course NPC's have downtime. Arguably, all most NPCs have is downtime! The important point isn't whether NPCs have downtime, the important point is that most of us won't play the sort of game where the details of the NPCs downtime matters most of the time. But it doesn't make the rule better if it is of no use in the situations where the NPCs downtime matters. Whether its the sort of game I want to play or not has no bearing on the strength and quality of the rules or how we should evaluate them.

 

[Hussar]

As for the rest, it's not my place to decide whether NPC's have downtime or not or what makes for a fun scenario. If a group decides to run a contest between a PC innkeeper and a NPC innkeeper, to see which can turn a profit and become the greatest innkeep in the village, that's their decision. If you say, "Heh, that's not D&D!", what you are really saying is 'badwrongfun'. If a player decides that, having recreated the labors of Theseus, he now wishes to leave retainers in the inns to ensure travelers on the road will hitherto have a place of rest and succor, and further that he desires that the retainers each give him 1/3rd of the profits, then that's all well and good as well. All the sudden, NPC's have downtime! Of course NPC's have downtime. Arguably, all most NPCs have is downtime! The important point isn't whether NPCs have downtime, the important point is that most of us won't play the sort of game where the details of the NPCs downtime matters most of the time. But it doesn't make the rule better if it is of no use in the situations where the NPCs downtime matters. Whether its the sort of game I want to play or not has no bearing on the strength and quality of the rules or how we should evaluate them.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?399785-Those-poor-farmers!/page9#ixzz3NUqgL4nQ

Sigh, but at that point IT'S NOT A DOWNTIME ACTIVITY. Is it? Sure, it's D&D, no problem. But, it's not a downtime activity. It's a centre stage activity that should be played out at the table.

You are complaining that a hammer is no good for screwing in screws. You are trying to use a tool for something it's clearly labeled not to be used for.

Again, you are the only one saying, "it's not D&D." It would be very helpful if you would actually stick to the arguments being made, rather than ones you think are being made. NPC's don't have up or downtime. They don't exist. They don't have any time at all. Unless they are interacting with the PC's in some manner, they don't need mechanics whatsoever.

What would be the purpose of having these mechanics for NPC's? Why do I need to have mechanics that detail the amount of money an NPC makes on a semi-regular basis when these NPC's have no actual interaction with the PC's? IOW, who gives a rat's petoot how much money the weaver is making in Hommlet on a monthly basis?

 

[Celebrim]

Sigh, but at that point IT'S NOT A DOWNTIME ACTIVITY. Is it?

Is it? If it isn't a downtime activity, what the heck is it?

But, it's not a downtime activity. It's a centre stage activity that should be played out at the table.

First, how? You have argued that the rule for NPCs ought to be if they are prosperous or not the DM is to just by fiat say so. Secondly, why? Why should this not be handled as a downtime activity? Why should I be required to promote this to center stage and suddenly handle this by process simulation? Why can't DMs be left to choose?

Again, you are the only one saying, "it's not D&D." ...NPC's don't have up or downtime. They don't exist. They don't have any time at all. Unless they are interacting with the PC's in some manner, they don't need mechanics whatsoever.

Err... why? And more to the point does it some how become 'not D&D' if you disagree about whether NPCs exist, and whether they have time? Nothing to me seems more obvious than the fact that NPCs have the same degree of existence as PCs. They are both imagined beings. They might be of different importance to the story. They might mostly be minor characters to the PC's protagonists. They might be on stage and they may have other differences. Or on the other hand they might not, since it isn't necessarily wrong to have an NPC on stage all the time, or for an NPC to be a major character, and so forth. But as far as existence goes, they are of the same kind and as a practical matter at some point it often becomes of interest to a PC how an NPC spends their time off stage. Gygax for example probably spent more time describing how NPCs spent down time (on behalf of PC's) than he did spend describing PC down time (who presumably would prefer to spend most of their time adventuring). Is it wrong to have this perspective or just different than what you so evidently prefer?

What would be the purpose of having these mechanics for NPC's? Why do I need to have mechanics that detail the amount of money an NPC makes on a semi-regular basis when these NPC's have no actual interaction with the PC's? IOW, who gives a rat's petoot how much money the weaver is making in Hommlet on a monthly basis?

I just with the briefest of brain storming gave two examples of purpose for knowing how much an NPC makes on a semi-regular basis and how that would interact with the PCs.

I daresay I'm better aware of what arguments are being made here than you are. The OP asked, "Why can't the rules be used for process simulation?" And your answer is not, "Well they can if you want to" (which I think is probably true), but rather to launch off in a long tirade about how wrong it would be to want the rules to do that - and you are still doing so.

 

[weldon]

Is it? If it isn't a downtime activity, what the heck is it?

You described a skill contest. Of the three pillars, "innkeeper profit making" would probably fall under social interaction (not combat or exploration). This contest becomes part of the story and the PCs describe their actions and the DM describes the consequences and/or they make rolls to determine the outcome. They use both roleplaying and the rules to tell a story. If there aren't rules that apply to a "innkeeper profit making" contest, then the DM makes rulings.

Downtime rules don't apply because those rules don't anticipate either roleplaying or contested actions.

This is my pet peeve with downtime. It is meant to handle some quick stuff between adventures. If you want to make an adventure about innkeeping, then you need different rules than downtime.

 

[Hussar]

No, [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]. The argument is that 5e has somehow failed to be a complete game because it does not include process sim rules for determining how much money NPC's make doing business.

Go back and read Derren's numerous posts in this thread if you want to see what I'm arguing against. The OP's argument got answered on page 1. I assume you've read the intervening sixty or so posts.

 

[Derren]

No, [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]. The argument is that 5e has somehow failed to be a complete game because it does not include process sim rules for determining how much money NPC's make doing business.

Read again. The argument is that 5E failed to provide good rules for strongholds and businesses by just providing a list of names of possible strongholds without further advice and rules and a single "catch all" business rules which does not even take the kind of business (some of them including the mentioned strongholds) into account.

 

[weldon]

The argument is that 5E failed to provide good rules for strongholds and businesses by just providing a list of names of possible strongholds without further advice and rules and a single "catch all" business rules which does not even take the kind of business (some of them including the mentioned strongholds) into account.

I can find agreement with you by saying that rules for strongholds and businesses as you imagine do not exist in the current core books. Instead we have downtime rules that mention businesses and strongholds, but don't explain at all how to run them. My assumption with downtime rules is that you don't spend any time on them at the table.

I'm OK with that.

If you want rules for strongholds and businesses that you can use in game to adjudicate contested actions or to create role-playing storylines, then I think you're within your rights to ask for them (and complain that they aren't in the core books).

To complain that *downtime* doesn't cover those situations seems silly to me and I continue to object to your assertion that the downtime rules don't work.

 

[Hussar]

And we go right back around in a circle again. What's missing? You spend X downtime days and get X bonus to your roll. The table tells you how much money you make during your downtime. Easy peasy. Quick, easy, and functional. Exactly what it says on the tin.

 

[Hussar]

I can find agreement with you by saying that rules for strongholds and businesses as you imagine do not exist in the current core books. Instead we have downtime rules that mention businesses and strongholds, but don't explain at all how to run them. My assumption with downtime rules is that you don't spend any time on them at the table.

I'm OK with that.

If you want rules for strongholds and businesses that you can use in game to adjudicate contested actions or to create role-playing storylines, then I think you're within your rights to ask for them (and complain that they aren't in the core books).

To complain that *downtime* doesn't cover those situations seems silly to me and I continue to object to your assertion that the downtime rules don't work.

Weldon, I think I'll just let you talk for me from now on because you are saying what I want to say better than I can.

 

[TheCelric]

This thread went in a completely different direction than I thought it would when I started reading it. I couldn't for the life of me figure out how a thread about farmers was 9 pages long.

After reading it I remembered "gamers LOVE to argue rules", because we all have the commonalities of the game, social interaction, and bold action toward resolution. Happy New Year!