D&D 5E Proposed rule for number of character-class-equivalent NPCs in a D&D world

[CapnZapp]

For me it is useful to have a guideline for about how many such NPCs there could be in our world. That gives context to how significant the presence of a single one is, and how many might be engaged in a given affair. That yields better consistency, which per-Tolkien sustains the fiction. Can you explain better your objection to a guideline for a rough number of them?

Honestly?

I think the game breaks down. The fantasy worlds suggested by D&D doesn't really hold up to even a casual scrutiny.

I find it best to make the world completely opaque to the players and their characters. The less they know, the less they can (and will) meddle and abuse.

It simply draws away attention from whatever adventure at hand you have.

Zapp

PS. It's not that I don't see the appeal in the idea. It's that in my experience, it doesn't work, and moreover: it actively messes with the real purpose of playing D&D - telling stories with the PCs at the center.

While the notion that there should be X high level of this, Y of that, is entirely understandable, I truly believe D&D is better off with the 5E approach, where you simply never find any NPC more important or qualified than CR 2, 3:ish (CR 5 tops) unless the adventure or DM has specifically put it there.

 

[cmad1977]

My system works like this.
There are as many 'classy' NPCs as I need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm not certain. What do you think works best? Say for a town of 5000. How many Veterans do you expect? The connection with the MM stat blocks is an extension of the concept and one I am still settling in.

It depends on the setting. Was there a nearby war recently? If so, then I'd expect at least a third of the adults to be veterans of that war. If not, then the only veterans would be ones who came from somewhere else, in which case they would be less than one percent.

 

[CapnZapp]

My system works like this.
There are as many 'classy' NPCs as I need.

And the rest are uncouth. I get it.

 

[clearstream]

I think the game breaks down. The fantasy worlds suggested by D&D doesn't really hold up to even a casual scrutiny.

I've run campaign worlds for decades and they've never broken down. So maybe we mean different things by that. What is an example of breaking down that happened in play?

I find it best to make the world completely opaque to the players and their characters. The less they know, the less they can (and will) meddle and abuse.

I know at least one DM who likes that approach But isn't it ultimately what you disclose that shapes the world for players: not what you hide from them?

It simply draws away attention from whatever adventure at hand you have.

I've never had that happen. How does it occur? Why don't any of the other few hundred pages of rules and guidelines have that effect? I must admit that those chiming in with rules-fear, in a game with so very many rules, feel disingenuous to me. Is it that people dislike rules coming from the community? Something else? Do they fear the rule will jump into their game and bite them

PS. It's not that I don't see the appeal in the idea. It's that in my experience, it doesn't work, and moreover: it actively messes with the real purpose of playing D&D - telling stories with the PCs at the center.

If that is honestly your experience, then I can appreciate your fears. I've never had any of the problems you describe. It's worth considering the distinction between linear-narrative and non-linear-dynamic-narrative. The latter has rules to drive it. The hero may die in the first scene to a luck orcish arrow. Here I know some DMs will simply fiat away that arrow. That's not for me. It is the external facts about the world that bring D&D to life for me. I hope you can see what I mean?

 

[CapnZapp]

I've run campaign worlds for decades and they've never broken down. So maybe we mean different things by that. What is an example of breaking down that happened in play?


I know at least one DM who likes that approach But isn't it ultimately what you disclose that shapes the world for players: not what you hide from them?


I've never had that happen. How does it occur? Why don't any of the other few hundred pages of rules and guidelines have that effect? I must admit that those chiming in with rules-fear, in a game with so very many rules, feel disingenuous to me. Is it that people dislike rules coming from the community? Something else? Do they fear the rule will jump into their game and bite them [emoji14]


If that is honestly your experience, then I can appreciate your fears. I've never had any of the problems you describe. It's worth considering the distinction between linear-narrative and non-linear-dynamic-narrative. The latter has rules to drive it. The hero may die in the first scene to a luck orcish arrow. Here I know some DMs will simply fiat away that arrow. That's not for me. It is the external facts about the world that bring D&D to life for me. I hope you can see what I mean?

No, you misunderstand.

I'm not saying you're not capable of holding your world together even with scores of NPCs running G around. That'd be daft. And presumptuous.

I'm saying it's a bad idea in general.

I'm hoping you can see why. If you can't, I really can't help you and you'll have to take my word for it because I sure won't spend more time on it if you don't want to see my point.

Instead I'll simply say: good luck with your game!

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[clearstream]

I'm saying it's a bad idea in general.

You haven't yet provided any grounds at all for saying that. You've made assertions, without providing any evidence or analysis.

I'm hoping you can see why. If you can't, I really can't help you and you'll have to take my word for it because I sure won't spend more time on it if you don't want to see my point.

Capn, often you say things that are worth reading, but the above is very far from your finest hour. Let me reflect your words back to you: I hope you can see that your fears are groundless. And if you can't then I really can't help you. You'll have to take my word for it.

You have made ominous predictions of disaster without providing a jot of evidence. My campaigns work well using rules exactly as I have proposed. Apparently yours don't. The reasons remain mysterious as you don't see able to explain them. Do you have relevant examples that explain and substantiate your dire hand-waving? Have you actually tried such rules, and ran aground? What happened then?

 

[clearstream]

It depends on the setting. Was there a nearby war recently? If so, then I'd expect at least a third of the adults to be veterans of that war. If not, then the only veterans would be ones who came from somewhere else, in which case they would be less than one percent.

Can I check I have your proposal straight. When there is a war, you are saying that a whole lot of NPCs gain hit-dice (stat-blocks) or levels (cc-equivs), right? More than a killed in the war? And they are not drawn in from other towns, it's actually that the NPCs in *this* town become stronger. Is that what you mean? It will feel different from say a feudal levy, where we are pulling in vets from all over. Are they stronger all at once, or is it only some months or years into the war?

Either way, I'll give some thought to whether there is a simple, streamlined way to flip the method to a war setting. I ran a lengthy war campaign in Damara so I can see the usefulness of figuring it out: it would have been helpful to have had an easier way to estimate cc-equiv power on either side. I ended up doing it with a couple of spreadsheets and looking back I think the method I've proposed would have satisfied the needs of that campaign about as well.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Can I check I have your proposal straight. When there is a war, you are saying that a whole lot of NPCs gain hit-dice (stat-blocks) or levels (cc-equivs), right? More than a killed in the war? And they are not drawn in from other towns, it's actually that the NPCs in *this* town become stronger. Is that what you mean? It will feel different from say a feudal levy, where we are pulling in vets from all over. Are they stronger all at once, or is it only some months or years into the war?

Honestly, I would try to not think about it too much, because the concept of HP and rapid recovery just don't work on a large scale. If orcs are rampaging the countryside, and half of the adults are pressed into service to fight back, then a significant number of them will see combat and gain combat experience. The ones who don't die will eventually reach the point where they are better represented by the veteran stat block than by the commoner stat block. Some of them may get there more quickly than others, but it doesn't really matter, because it ultimately comes down to the DMs interpretation as to which stat block to use (or whether they want to implement one or more intermediate or advanced stat blocks).

 

[S'mon]

Can I check I have your proposal straight. When there is a war, you are saying that a whole lot of NPCs gain hit-dice (stat-blocks) or levels (cc-equivs), right? More than a killed in the war? And they are not drawn in from other towns, it's actually that the NPCs in *this* town become stronger.

Yeah, it's usually the weaker ones who die, the stronger level up, so war = more levelled NPCs and fewer 1-2 hd.