If it's problematic in the hands of the always-on-screen PCs then it's problematic in the hands of anyone in the setting.
While this
might be true, the problem isn't usually a
setting problem. Again, this is a problem that comes down to the function of the NPC as they exist as a Doyalist game construct, not as they exist as a fictional representation of a being within the Watsonian dialectic. Game balance usually only exists in the space between NPCs/Monster and PCs, or between PCs and other PCs. NPCs do not need to be balanced against other NPCs and/or Monsters (if such a distinction is important to the ruleset in use), and NPCs have no niches to protect.
It helps, I believe, to think of the NPCs as always being on screen in their own stories that just don't happen to be getting told at the moment, and work from there.
Are you rolling mighty and epic battles of NPC vs. NPC against yourself on the regular, then? Because that sounds like a
lot of tedious and potentially pointless work.
And believe me, I get the temptation to do this (and rolled the odd attack roll or saving throw when I was unsure if a specific NPC could affect another one when constructing stories for prep work), but it was always in service to creating material that the players, at least, would eventually see, even if their characters didn't learn of the events until much later. But the occasional roll-off against myself is a far cry from considering them to being always on-screen just off-screen. Heck, sometimes when I'm doing this, I specifically want to show off a way a particular NPC is
breaking the setting rules in some way, in order to foreshadow these abilities for the players who follow my incessant bluebooking.
Or you use a simpler system for building them that still always gives results that fall within the parameters already defined by the game's rules for PCs.
Sure, but this is still a cheat, isn't it? You'll still get results you wouldn't get doing a level-by-level build sometimes, it's just less noticeable because it doesn't tend to be in the NPC's favor.
Yeah, we differ greatly here. I'd rather think of the characters as people first, and game pieces second (if at all). Therefore...
... "it's what the character would do" is not only always a valid defense here, it's how I expect characters to be played: true to themselves and doing what they would do in whatever situations they're in; and (given that it's all in good fun among friends) table considerations largely be damned. Clear separation of character feelings from player feelings is, however, essential; start taking things personally IRL and you'll not last long here.
And yes, sometimes people play wangrod characters. This doesn't necessarily mean they're wangrod players. Flip side: I've had (mercifully few) people play perfectly decent inoffensive helpful characters and yet still be wangrods as people at the table.
There's usually a clear difference between wangrod characters and wangrod players. If the other
players are entertained by the joker, then it's not an issue. I suspect this is more a difference of philosophy than one of actual action, but we're not at each other's tables so I don't know.
Exactly. I never said (or never meant to say) that a stay-at-home class was intended to be PC-playable. I mean, if someone really wanted to play one as a PC I'd allow it, but I'd give clear warning they'd be setting themselves up for a miserable time after which if a miserable time ensued I'd have no sympathy.
My point was that the game gives no mechanics for DMs to construct stay-at-home classes or characters (e.g. the 16th-level NPC temple Cleric who just cast Resurrection on your companion) and yet the game (in all editions) always seems to assume - or in some cases outright say - they exist and didn't necessarily gain all those levels through adventuring.
Ah, alrighty, I can see where that would be a problem, then.
3e had the right idea but, as with many things it did, went completely overboard with it. That said, the point of those NPC classes was that they were very stripped down, mostly to make them so sub-optimal that nobody would want to play one.
(a far easier fix is to simply have it that stay-at-home classes don't and can't gain xp from either combat or risk-taking but instead have to (very slowly) gain them some other way)
Well, they succeeded.