For one, when an NPC is with the party, then they are also subject to any random encounters that the party is.
But I actually do roll random results, and occasionally "encounters" for NPCs. In my campaign there are a lot of NPCs going about their business. So if the NPC happens to be a villain, and they have an ongoing scheme that the PCs may or may not have engaged with, I will often have to determine what has happened to those schemes between sessions many months apart. And in that process I will often roll random results, and it has occasionally been a random encounter related to other known things going on in the area.
But really, my point was just that whether we actually roll for the NPCs or not, it doesn't mean that NPCs don't encounter the same sort of things that the PCs do, with the same probabilities designed within the encounter tables. The PCs aren't necessarily "special" in that regard within the game world. They just happen to be the ones we're focused on at the time.
Any specific examples to share? I get what you're saying in theory, but I'm having a hard time taking it and constructing an theoretical example. And I don't mean for NPCs accompanying PCs, I mean an NPC on his/her own. Just seems to me like something very odd to do....make rolls to determine something where no one will be impacted directly by the randomness of the roll.
When you have two NPCs that are perhaps at odds, do you have them make Persuasion checks to influence each other and the like?
Yes, but that's not the point. The point is that what they represent is consistent across the game world. And should we choose to focus on those particular people at a certain point in time, then they would be subject to the random encounter tables.
Sure...but it's a matter of preference, no? I'm not saying that your way is wrong, just that it need not be so. It's a choice.
Can encounter types and frequency and severity impact the world you have built? Sure, if you want them to....but if you do, then you've made a choice to have that impact. If you decide that several dangerous encounters in a previously safe area aren't just some kind of aberration or dumb luck, but instead they're an indication that the place is becoming more dangerous, then you've chosen to make that change.
But if you don't want them to impact the world....then you can simply decide that they don't...the area's still safe, those encounters were really out of the ordinary. Or you can attribute it to the actions of the PCs and the consequences there of (they've made enemies who no hunt them, etc.).
It's a matter of preference.
To our game, but that doesn't make them "special" just special to us. In most of our campaigns, it would be the equivalent of the cops on Law and Order. Which ones? There were a lot over the seasons. The point is, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter, they are just another pair of cops. In the context of the story of some particular characters, to the players who played those characters, their characters and their story is special. But the world doesn't inherently function differently for them.
You can (and seem to be saying) that it does, since we (the DM and players) are working out their story within the context of the game rules. But from my perspective as a DM, all of the NPCs should have a story that fits the same structure. They follow the same in-world rules, and they should also be able to be created and achieve their place in the story using the rules of the game.
Not everybody agrees with that, obviously, or probably even cares. But each NPC I create, with whatever spells or abilities, etc., is written to explain any new effects in game terms. Something that the PCs could conceivably do under the right circumstances. I prefer that sort of consistency within the game world.
I hear you, but I don't think that the non-players ever really matter to a story. This is regardless of the media of the story. That's why we have distinctions of major characters versus minor characters versus background characters. The main characters are simply more important to the story.
Sure, within the world of the fiction, people don't place any more importance on the main character than on others (or if they do, it's due to some element of the fiction rather than as their status as a main character) but that doesn't mean that we cannot acknowledge that difference. We do this all the time....we make assumptions about characters and what may happen to them based on what we know of storytelling. This is why people will talk about "plot armor" and things like that....they are aware of the character's importance to the story, and so they assume the character is safe from harm.
So in a game, to me, this is very clear. NPCs have slightly different rules that govern them compared to PCs. The PCs, as the stars of the show, deserve more consideration than non-stars. Also, because there is a game involved, the people playing the game deserve more attention than gme elements without player implication. And yes, I know that what happens to an NPC can sometimes impact the PCs....but where does the line get drawn? At some point, the DM is just making stuff up about the NPC....so where does that cross the line into rolls being needed?
Yep, and I don't entirely like the Adventures in Middle Earth approach, although I certainly think it would do the trick for a lot of folks here. And I might run an adventure using those RAW simply because the rules themselves actually work together really well to get the feel they are looking for. It's really well done, and I'm hoping if I run some games, others might pick it up.
That's fair. I offered it as an example. But based on each group's preferences, this may or may not be a viable solution. There have been several "solutions" presented over the course of the thread. Some were purely mechanical, others were more narrative in nature, and others were variable and applicable or not based on prevailing circumstances.
Yes. Adventurers would be more prone than farmers to encounters. Unless the farmers are adventurers, wandering in the sort of places adventurers wander. In other words, at least in my campaign, it probably doesn't matter who you are. It's more a question of when and where. But there will be some circumstances where the who matters too.
I don't know....I think the matter of Who is a big deal. Sure, when and where also matter...but to dismiss who and treat everyone the same is odd. It's also like treating every forest the same, and every mountain, without allowing for the idea of a haunted forest versus an elven tree kingdom, and so on.
Adventurers tend to be looking for trouble, or trouble is looking for them...ignoring that when taking all this into consideration seems very odd to me.
