How Do You Feel About NPC Party Members (A Poll)

[Thomas Shey]

This depends largely on your goals -- and how complex a system you are running to begin with. Yeah you don't need to know exactly how Kratos the indomitable got a +10 to attack, but if you say he is a level 5 fighter, you should have an idea of how he could get there.

But why should you even know he's supposedly a level five fighter? What in a non-metagame sense would tell you that?

@Lanefan has made the point repeatedly that if for some reason you need to hand control of an NPC to a character, that character should look like a PC in terms of how they were built. I agree that this is the ideal situation, and this should be something you can do without a lot of hassle.

But of course in games that do that, you almost never expect that to be necessary.

 

[Lanefan]

"Level" and "class" are purely metagame devices. They are components of a set of rules for building player characters.

In a system that uses a different metagame device to build NPCs, it doesn't make sense to ask what their class or level are, any more than it makes sense to ask what the "class" of an AD&D wyvern is. (The only version of D&D to use "classes" for all GM-controlled personae is 3E.)

Yes, 3e did go a bit overboard with that.

In AD&D it can easily happen that a being under the GM's control - eg a horse or mule or ogre or gelatinous cube - can move to player control (via capture or taming or a Charm spell or sundry other means).

None of those are commonly playable as PCs, though. It goes both ways: if a player wants to roll up and write down the details of a PC's warhorse I'll step that player through the MM process (which pretty much just means making notes and rolling the hit dice).

But in AD&D very few beings under the GM's control are created using mechanical build rules that emulate the player character build rules. Even when it comes to a being of a PC-eligible race, they do not need to have a class and level (see eg the Dwarf, Elf, Men etc entries in the Monster Manual) and even if the GM does choose to build them in that fashion s/he is allowed to stipulate ability scores without having regard to the rules that govern PC build (see eg Gygax's DMG p 11: "You should, of course, set the ability scores of those NPCs you will use as parts of the milieu, particularly those of high level and power. Scores for high level NPC's must be high - how else could these figures have risen so high?").

Yes. What he fails to mention, though, and what is IMO absolutely paramount when generating NPCs of PC-playable races, is something like this: "whatever you-as-GM assign or stipulate should be within the parameters achievable by generating the character using the Player's Handbook". I've always seen this omission as a rather glaring error.

Here are the rules from Classic Traveller (from Book 1, p 8 and Book 3, p 22, 1977 edition) for when the players have their PCs hire a NPC:

Sometimes (often) players will encounter people not manipulated by an actual player. They may be thugs or assailants. They may be potential hirelings or employers. In any case, their skills and abilities should be determined using the character generation procedure, and noted for the effects they may have on play.​

​

For example, a starship captain may be looking for a crew for his ship, in which case, the referee would generate characters until one occurs with the required skill (such as navigation, medical, etc.). Generally, the first appropriate character to be generated would present himself for employment, and if not accepted or considered suitable, an appropriate delay would occur before another presents himself. As an alternative, the referee might simply generate a character and assign him the required skill, plus perhaps 1 or 2 more.​

​

When travellers require employees, for any purpose, they must find them in the course of their activities. This may require advertising, visiting union hiring halls, or active efforts in barrooms or clubs. Hiring is done by stating a requirement to the referee, who indicates persons presenting themselves for employment. The interview consists of generating the person's characteristics and experience.​

​

These rules contemplate that NPCs may be generated using the PC-build rules, or may just be created by referee stipulation.

RuneQuest is a well-known FRPG which was one of the first to use the same mechanical framework for specifying all beings in the game system, so that they all feed into action resolution in the same way. But it does not require that all beings under the GM's control be generated using the PC build framework.

Personally I don't regard it as a very important desideratum of a RPG that a GM-controlled entity should be easily amenable to slotting into the player-side features of the game such as (eg) balanced character building, clear process for character advancement, etc. As I said the only version of D&D to attempt this is 3E, and it generated a lot of complexity (eg ECL rules) and weaknesses in design (eg undead with too few hit points because of their lack of a CON score).

What 3e failed to do, in its IMO foolish quest to make just about everything PC-playable, was differentiate between PC-playable races (which should be consistent within the game world no matter who is playing them) and monsters (which can be whatever). 4e, perhaps as a reaction to this, failed by going way too far in the opposite direction and having PCs and NPCs of the same race, class and level rest on different foundations.

If, for example, Duergar aren't a PC-playable creature in your game then who really cares how you design 'em as long as whatever you come up with vaguely suits the genre etc. and makes for a worthy opponent or interaction or whatever purpose you put them to in play. Ditto for a Zombie - who's ever gonna want to play one of those? They're monsters, and thus there's no need to worry about being consistent with their PC versions.

Common Dwarves, on the other hand, are in nearly all D&D games a PC-playable creature. And so with these, it shouldn't make any mechanical difference whether this Dwarf Thief here is my PC or that otherwise-identical Dwarf Thief over there is: internal consistency expects that they should be completely interchangeable from PC to NPC and back again.

 

[Lanefan]

But why should you even know he's supposedly a level five fighter? What in a non-metagame sense would tell you that?

A few minutes sparring with my level-5 Fighter ought to give me at least half a clue what this guy's got going for him in a fight.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A few minutes sparring with my level-5 Fighter ought to give me at least half a clue what this guy's got going for him in a fight.

In no way does that tell you his level. It tells you his fighting capability. Level does not exist in the game world.

 

[Lanefan]

In no way does that tell you his level. It tells you his fighting capability. Level does not exist in the game world.

If 'level' vaguely equates to 'degree of skill and competence' then yes, I can determine whether this guy is worse than me, about the same as me, or better than me.

With casters, level very much exists as measured by what tier of spell you can cast.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If 'level' vaguely equates to 'degree of skill and competence' then yes, I can determine whether this guy is worse than me, about the same as me, or better than me.

Except not all classes fight at the same level. So are you up against a fighter or a rogue? And how do you distinguish the natural ability (Strength) or other add ons from the part coming from level?

With casters, level very much exists as measured by what tier of spell you can cast.

Except, of course, not all casters are always full every-other-level casters either. Apply that logic to most versions of a bard, and you'll assume they're much higher level than they are.

Level has never been as lock-stepped with ability as you seem to be suggesting, and its been far less so in the last 30 years.

 

[pemerton]

A few minutes sparring with my level-5 Fighter ought to give me at least half a clue what this guy's got going for him in a fight.

But that's entirely action resolution. It has nothing to do with the rules that govern building!

Also what @Thomas Shey said.

 

[Lanefan]

But that's entirely action resolution. It has nothing to do with the rules that govern building!

Well, other than each ability each of us has being a direct result of choices made during the build process either at char-gen or at subsequent level-ups, and that those abilities either drive or inform the mechanics used to resolve said actions, I suppose you're right...

 

[Lanefan]

Except not all classes fight at the same level. So are you up against a fighter or a rogue? And how do you distinguish the natural ability (Strength) or other add ons from the part coming from level?

Usually pretty easy to tell a fighter apart from a rogue. Also usually pretty easy to tell if the pain you're feeling is being delivered via skill, sheer brute force, or a combination of both.

Except, of course, not all casters are always full every-other-level casters either. Apply that logic to most versions of a bard, and you'll assume they're much higher level than they are.

Level has never been as lock-stepped with ability as you seem to be suggesting, and its been far less so in the last 30 years.

In this era of chooseable feats and creeping class-ability overlap, you're partly right. I don't use feats, thus they're not something I often consider.

Another factor is training. In a game where characters have to train to level up, knowing one's status within the school/gym/temple heirarchy would be as trivially easy as knowing what belt level one is in a real-world martial art.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Usually pretty easy to tell a fighter apart from a rogue. Also usually pretty easy to tell if the pain you're feeling is being delivered via skill, sheer brute force, or a combination of both.

Without clues based on armor, I don't think so. Their weapon choice overlaps with fighters too much.

In this era of chooseable feats and creeping class-ability overlap, you're partly right. I don't use feats, thus they're not something I often consider.

Even in the days of class features you could get things that provided bonuses that weren't simply level--combat proficiency for example.

And honestly, the fact you don't like feats and the like doesn't change the fact that you can't directly map combat skill to level in a rather large number of D&D incarnations.

Another factor is training. In a game where characters have to train to level up, knowing one's status within the school/gym/temple heirarchy would be as trivially easy as knowing what belt level one is in a real-world martial art.

If you're in an area where that's relevant, and know what it is. Another big if.