"Oddities" in fantasy settings - the case against "consistency"

[AbdulAlhazred]

I will be playing a Demogorgon in your next game.

Ah, level 1 - larva!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The difference between monster and NPC is pretty well understood and I am pretty sure you know what I mean. I notice you specifically mention the lack of mechanical difference in 4e as if that weren’t at the very heart of the complaint. You know quite well that most NPCs in prior editions, aside from a few broad distinctions in the Monster Manual (like dervishes and berserkers) were based on leveled classes that PCs had the potential to also take. So it’s pretty disingenuous to suggest that difference between monster and NPC was ‘fictional’.

Actually there isn't anything in the rules for 1e, which I am exceedingly familiar with, which suggests that NPCs should be or generally are built using PC rules. I think it is safe to say it is POSSIBLE, but there are a LOT of entries in the Monster Manual, etc. which are humans or demi-humans, and many of them don't even really seem to correspond exactly to any specific class.

So, sure, I know that people use these different terms, but as soon as you stop considering class as some sort of 'rules of the world' and just a construction process for players at a purely meta level, then there's no distinction between the ideas of 'monster' and 'npc'.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually there isn't anything in the rules for 1e, which I am exceedingly familiar with, which suggests that NPCs should be or generally are built using PC rules. I think it is safe to say it is POSSIBLE, but there are a LOT of entries in the Monster Manual, etc. which are humans or demi-humans, and many of them don't even really seem to correspond exactly to any specific class.

So, sure, I know that people use these different terms, but as soon as you stop considering class as some sort of 'rules of the world' and just a construction process for players at a purely meta level, then there's no distinction between the ideas of 'monster' and 'npc'.

1e DMG page 11

"Non-Player Characters: 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? Determine the ability scores of other non-player characters as follows:

General Characters: Roll 3d6 for each ability as usual, but use average scoring by considering any 1 as a 3 and any 6 as a 4.

Special Characters, Including Henchmen: Roll 3d6 as for general characters, but allow the full range (3-18) except in the ability or abilities which are germane to his or her profession, i.e. strength for fighters, etc. For all such abilities either use one of the determination methods used for player characters or add + 1 to each die of the 3 rolled which scores under 6."

So they are built like PCs, but you don't necessarily roll for stats the same way. For important NPCs, you pick the stats. For generic NPCs, you roll, but they tend towards average due to the modifications listed. And for henchman you roll as normal, but weight the prime stat upwards.

1e modules put out by TSR also indicate that NPCs are like PCs. They have all the same stats, magic items, etc.

 

[pemerton]

Despite the name of the thread the actual thesis seems more like top-down setting extrapolation is overrated. That's a sentiment I can personally get behind. I find that often settings designed from a top-down approach with very little of the sort of novel (as in usual) elements that Tolkein's work is filled to the brim with feel sterile and lifeless. Particularly when it comes to more fantastic elements.

Such novel elements can actually make the game's setting feel more vibrant, more real while still being consistent with the whole of it.

@pemerton is welcome to correct me if my reading is wrong.

No need to.

 

[pemerton]

One thing I would say here is even in the most 'living world' place you are still expected to use novel creativity. The only question is what purpose that creativity serves. Having a creature like Gollum would be totally fine in most such campaigns. Back in the day, it was pretty standard for the GM to make unique NPCs and monsters who didn't follow the established rules of the book for example based on these kinds of ideas

Who is the “you” who is subject to this expectation?

The rest of the post suggests the GM. The OP, with the quote from Burning Wheel, suggests the players too.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm struck by the use of consistency here and wonder about how that might relate to the observation in the OP on setting (in)consistency.

It is more about the role of the rules. Some people (me included) feel that one purpose of rules is to tell us things about the fictional world. Some others don't feel this is necessary. Though I would be not at all surprised if the former stance was rather strongly correlated with the desire to have a coherent and well defined world to begin with.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Who is the “you” who is subject to this expectation?

The rest of the post suggests the GM. The OP, with the quote from Burning Wheel, suggests the players too.

You is anyone playing in such a game, for whom this is their preference. I am talking about games where the GM is the one subject to this expectation simply to make the point that even in a game like say an old school sandbox, novel creativity is still an expectation. I wasn't suggesting anything about games where the players do too (and I wasn't saying there is anything wrong with that type of play). I was adding that this is desirable in both types of play. Basically I was just adding to @Campbell's point that even in a campaign where the GM arbitrates the setting, and the setting is supposed to feel real and consistent as a matter of priority, you still need to have exceptions to the norm

 

[Bedrockgames]

The rest of the post suggests the GM. The OP, with the quote from Burning Wheel, suggests the players too.

I will say, this I think is the more significant distinction in the conversation than setting consistency

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Monsters can be anything; they're not PC-playable and so there's no reason to stick to PC rules. NPCs, on the other hand, IMO absolutely do have to adhere to PC rules unless the PCs are being intentionally singled out as not being representative of their own species and-or classes.

I think the notion that the PCs - even in the most simulationist manifestations of D&D - are anything other than special is generally unsupportable. Whether they use a different method of determining stats, are expected to possess different magic items etc. The question of their deviation from NPCs - mechanically speaking - is only one of degree.

That said, I do build NPCs using broadly the same methods as player characters. But this is more about satisfying an internal sense of consistency and using that consistency to ground my own perspective: it’s a useful tool (for me, as a GM), but I wouldn’t call myself a champion of this method or even necessarily an advocate. And, for players, it seems largely irrelevant.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think the notion that the PCs - even in the most simulationist manifestations of D&D - are anything other than special is generally unsupportable. Whether they use a different method of determining stats, are expected to possess different magic items etc. Their deviation from NPCs - mechanically speaking - is only one of degree.

That said, I do build NPCs using broadly the same methods as player characters. But this is more about satisfying an internal sense of consistency and using that consistency to ground my own perspective: it’s a useful tool (for me, as a GM), but I wouldn’t call myself a champion of this method or even necessarily an advocate. And, for players, it seems largely irrelevant.

Some games I like to do things the same for PCs and NPCs, some I don't. Generally for a fantasy RPG like D&D, I feel it is constraining when there is a pure symmetry between NPCs, PCs and Monsters. But there are games, including some of my own, where I want a sense of fair play, and so that, more than setting consistency, would be my reason to have any mechanical symmetry between player character and non-player characters in terms of character creation.

To use D&D as an example, do NPCs need to roll stats, assuming you aren't using point buy or arrays? I generally find the game was easier to run if the GM could assign stats to fulfill an NPC concept (PCs roll for game balance, not for any concern about setting consistency)