D&D General Should NPCs be built using the same rules as PCs?

[EzekielRaiden]

Again, this is a bit pointless.

It only works if your playing a very limited game with a small rule book. Then you can but that small rulebook on a pedestal in the middle of the table and say "all NPCs are made as per the rules on page 11". And that is great for some games.

Other games though, not only have more rules and content, but also the DM can make stuff up on a whim. There are no time traveling Were elephants in the "offical rules", but a DM can still add them and give them a "time travel trunk" special ability.

It's pointless to stat out a lot of NPCs. Like the DM just needs a Seer NPC to cast "legend lore''. The DM can just say the NPC has that ability....or, if the players demand it, make the NPC a 12th level cleric. Ok....so the players do a happy dance as they forced the DM tp make the NPC a 12th level cleric. But it does not mater as all that NPC will ever do in the game is cast legend lore once.

It does depend on the game.

Though we are really only talking about two types of NPCs: The Story NPCs and the Combat NPCs.

A story NPC has an ability as part of the story. The seer can see the future. The guard can see invisibility. The elven princess can polymorh into any animal. Some thing like that.

And the bad, exploitive player will say "I demand my character can polymorph at will into any animal just like the NPC elf princess!" as part of their exploit to ruin the game.

And the Combat NPC just has an ability for combat. The Fire Goblins can each shoot out balls of fire at will. And again, the bad, exploitive player will want to use and exploit that.

Are you arguing for or against "NPCs should be built by the same rules as PCs"?

Because I believe they should be built by whatever rules are effective for their intended purpose. If using the existing PC rules works, cool, that has some perks. But actually doing what they're designed for should never be sacrificed simply so that the rules are slightly more symmetric.

 

[Maxperson]

This is the key thing right here: if an NPC can do it then a PC should be able to do it (assuming pre-reqs, if any, are met), and vice versa.

Sure, but I don't need to build them in the same way. If I want to give an NPC some strange abilities for selling his soul to a devil, then I can just build those in and stick that in his backstory.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, but I don't need to build them in the same way. If I want to give an NPC some strange abilities for selling his soul to a devil, then I can just build those in and stick that in his backstory.

Exactly. I mean, if you accept the idea that "the world doesn't revolve around the PCs" and "the setting functions independently of the PC's presence", then the obvious extrapolation is that NPCs are just as likely to be the target of unique events and special boons as the PCs. Just because an NPC was the lucky recipient of a 1-in-1000 chance of something happening doesn't mean your PC is just as lucky.

 

[FrozenNorth]

That's exactly the point though. You want the system to be sufficiently complete that those NPCs can do all the things PCs are doing (at the level of action declaration, not class ability) and be mechanically mediated in the same way. What happens when that guard tries to climb something? What if the innkeeper ends up armed when the PCs drag a fight into her bar?

This seems to be a completely different question.
Whether or not an innkeeper is built like a PC or not, in games I DM, that innkeeper is not going to have stats until they become relevant. Maybe in your game, you will prep stats for every NPC the players may encounter, but that has little bearing on HOW you create their stats (PC class levels or NPC being different).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Exactly. I mean, if you accept the idea that "the world doesn't revolve around the PCs" and "the setting functions independently of the PC's presence", then the obvious extrapolation is that NPCs are just as likely to be the target of unique events and special boons as the PCs. Just because an NPC was the lucky recipient of a 1-in-1000 chance of something happening doesn't mean your PC is just as lucky.

True, but such a thing is to me a far better explanation of why that NPC has that ability than, "I wanted them to have it" or "it works well with the encounter I designed" or the even worse "I wanted to crank up the drama for this scene".

 

[FrozenNorth]

My thought are that this is not a yes or no question. Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no is a no. Nobody in favour of NPCs being built differently has any issues with particular NPCs using the same rules.

Since the principal argument against NPCs being built differently is consistency, it seems even a few NPCs built differently wouldn’t be acceptable to those who want NPCs and PCs built the same way.

 

[Maxperson]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no is a no. Nobody in favour of NPCs being built differently has any issues with particular NPCs using the same rules.

I disagree. It's not a no. A hard no is you don't build them the same way at all. A yes is you do build them that way all the time. Sometimes yes, sometimes no is not a hard yes or hard no. It's a maybe.

Since the principal argument against NPCs being built differently is consistency, it seems even a few NPCs built differently wouldn’t be acceptable to those who want NPCs and PCs built the same way.

I doubt that. I can think of no DM who stats out every one of the 50000 inhabitants of a city. Most NPCs are run without a stat block at all, yet they still get run. They are, whether they are aware of it or not, using a different process for "building" those NPCs than are used for a PC. They simply get assigned a personality by the DM and then roleplayed. Maybe if you need to know a stat number you roll that one stat.

 

[Pedantic]

This seems to be a completely different question.
Whether or not an innkeeper is built like a PC or not, in games I DM, that innkeeper is not going to have stats until they become relevant. Maybe in your game, you will prep stats for every NPC the players may encounter, but that has little bearing on HOW you create their stats (PC class levels or NPC being different).

I generally agree, in that it's not always necessary to go through the complete process for every single character, and ideally system familiarity should allow you to get close enough without the formal process over time. I specifically called out that some hacks to simplify the process world generally be desirable.

But the questions aren't at all unrelated. The goal is to have a system that both kinds of actors can feed inputs into to see what happens, which requires they be the same kind of object. If the basic rules for functionality can't be understood as a player, if they can't use knowledge about the world to make predictions about what can or will happen, than you don't have a gameplay loop they can engage in.

I can imagine a reasonable metaphysics that would allow for specific NPC/PC build differences and not violate that principle, but it completely changes the relationship of the PCs and PC classes in general to the world. There are no "wizards" in that world, there is one Wizard, who has a totally unique relationship to written spells, and uses a unique level categorization system that doesn't align with the world at large. Plus, is still want a consistent system to derive NPC abilities, it would just be different to the PC one, and spmething else for the characters to learn.

Honestly if RPGs weren't so long and complicated to design, it would be kind of a fun premise to give the PCs a science project to figure out the underlying rules governing everyone outside themselves. You'd just have to create two compatible games, which sounds exhausting, even to me, someone who thinks it reasonable to stat out NPC wizards with complete spellbooks.

 

[tetrasodium]

Some people are forgetting "I'm doing this because I feel the players made this NPC noteworthy"

Spoiler: It starts like this

The GM can't be expected to stat out every possible npc in the world for every potential totally unexpected interaction, nor should the GM be harangued about what was in the statblock when they use things like this to rapidly fill in a statblock fitting with the suddenly & unexpectedly important NPC or player driven event.

 

[TwoSix]

But the questions aren't at all unrelated. The goal is to have a system that both kinds of actors can feed inputs into to see what happens, which requires they be the same kind of object. If the basic rules for functionality can't be understood as a player, if they can't use knowledge about the world to make predictions about what can or will happen, than you don't have a gameplay loop they can engage in.

I mean, I don't think we disagree on that point; I just don't see why it's a necessity for the players to be able to extrapolate from the character building rules into what would be present in the setting.

All of the NPCs in my setting have the 6 abilities, they all exist within (generally) within the normal parameters of the 3-18 paradigm. They all have proficiencies, they all have attack bonus and defenses and stat checks within what one would expect for their "level". Nothing prevents them from engaging within ad-hoc situations.

The PCs just can't assume that because the acolyte at the temple can cast guardian of faith, they also have 4 1st, 3 2nd, and 3 3rd level slots, from which they will be able to choose from a menu of roughly between 13-18 other divine spells. Because "cleric" is just a piece of game jargon in my games, not something used within the fictional space.