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

[hawkeyefan]

Within the D&D sphere, there are examples of both methods for generating NPCs.

However, there are so many games that don’t generate NPCs in the same way as PCs and which work perfectly fine that I don’t even think it matters how D&D does it.

Saying that NPCs “must” be created a specific way is clearly incorrect in the broader category of RPGs.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Within the D&D sphere, there are examples of both methods for generating NPCs.

However, there are so many games that don’t generate NPCs in the same way as PCs and which work perfectly fine that I don’t even think it matters how D&D does it.

Saying that NPCs “must” be created a specific way is clearly incorrect in the broader category of RPGs.

The only reason I brought up D&D was to say even in that system, I prefer to not have PCs and NPCs follow all the same rules. More broadly, what I prefer in that respect really depends on how much I think fair play and fair challenge is a priority (not even fair but parity of play I suppose: how much are PCs and NPCs equal footing)

 

[Bedrockgames]

However, there are so many games that don’t generate NPCs in the same way as PCs and which work perfectly fine that I don’t even think it matters how D&D does it.

I don’t even play D&D that much anymore, save a short periodic 2E campaign that I manage about once a year. But I do think D&D always matters as a reference point in rpg conversations because it is played so much more than other games. It, or variations of it, are what most people play and are familiar with (just look at the threads here, the vast vast majority are D&D or pathfinder focused)

 

[Umbran]

But I do think D&D always matters as a reference point in rpg conversations because it is played so much more than other games.

Fair. But then it is very interesting how many games don't follow D&D's lead on this matter, and how inconsistent D&D has historically been on it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don’t even play D&D that much anymore, save a short periodic 2E campaign that I manage about once a year. But I do think D&D always matters as a reference point in rpg conversations because it is played so much more than other games. It, or variations of it, are what most people play and are familiar with (just look at the threads here, the vast vast majority are D&D or pathfinder focused)

Yes, D&D is widely played. But even in D&D, across all editions and versions, the answer varies.

As for fairness, there’s no reason that a game can’t present a fair challenge without requiring that NPCs be made the same as PCs.

So as prevalent as it may be in many versions of D&D, it’s absolutely not required for anything. It is purely a matter of preference.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, D&D is widely played. But even in D&D, across all editions and versions, the answer varies.

This was part of my point

 

[Bedrockgames]

Fair. But then it is very interesting how many games don't follow D&D's lead on this matter, and how inconsistent D&D has historically been on it.

Sure, I think that is interesting. I don't disagree at all. And I have pointed out in my posts D&D is inconsistent here to make the point that I prefer it when there isn't strict parity in D&D between NPCs and PCs (and monsters) in terms of how they are constructed

As for fairness, there’s no reason that a game can’t present a fair challenge without requiring that NPCs be made the same as PCs.

Sure, I don't disagree at all. I was struggling to find the right language here (which I think you can see in my shifting from term to term in my last post). What I was trying to say is sometimes I do want those things to be the same, because I am trying to create a sense of equal challenge, actually probably less fair in the broad span of things. So I have a wuxia RPG and I want the NPCs and PCs to have the same chance of winning or losing a fight if they are equals. I am not super into bean counting on the NPC end, I think eyeballing is fine, but generally I want the NPCs to follow the same rules of design as the PCs in that game, in order to create the feel of the jianghu I want. But when I run a game like Ravenloft, I absolutely don't want that. I want freedom to imagine gothic monsters and characters, and I want my NPCs and monsters to be less mechanically constrained than that (and even in my first example where PCs and NPCs are largely handled the same, exceptions still need to exist for in game and setting reasons).

So as prevalent as it may be in many versions of D&D, it’s absolutely not required for anything. It is purely a matter of preference.

Again, I don't think we are disagreeing here. If you look at my posts on this particular issue in this thread, I have only been bringing up D&D to point to where this is a matter of preference. My whole point is whether or not NPCs and PCs and Monsters are designed in the same way or whether more exceptions are allowed, is a matter of what you want to do at the table and what your preferences are. And it has nothing to do with setting consistency. It is more likely to be about considerations like balance, creative freedom, etc.

 

[billd91]

Within the D&D sphere, there are examples of both methods for generating NPCs.

However, there are so many games that don’t generate NPCs in the same way as PCs and which work perfectly fine that I don’t even think it matters how D&D does it.

Saying that NPCs “must” be created a specific way is clearly incorrect in the broader category of RPGs.

Sure, there are many games that don't generate NPCs the same way as PCs... but also many long-time and relatively popular ones that do so, give or take a few modifications here and there. And there are pros and cons for both approaches. Not following PC rules gives the GM a lot of options at the expense of players understanding what they're facing, while following PC rules constrains the GM while enhancing players' abilities to analyze what they're encountering.

Within the context of D&D, 3e had gone all in on systematizing NPC building (and monster building for that matter). It was the edition also founded on increasing a player's ability to make informed choices about what they were doing (Skip Williams, for example, has been explicit about this in some interviews). They knew what their skills would do, how DCs were determined, how much stronger a huge monster was compared to a medium one, and some of what to expect from an NPC if they started to exhibit certain powers. System mastery was about a lot more than picking good build options for PCs. And if you dug that, 4e throwing about half that out the window behind a veil of DMs building whatever they wanted as long as the math worked out in the end was gonna chafe.

And with 5e, there are elements of it that still make me squint. For example, I know a gladiator (MM stat block) gets 3 attacks and has 15 hit dice to make the math work out as a CR 5 opponent. But I also know that a fighter doesn't get that kind of attack ability until 11th level and has different assumptions on other powers and hit points. AND I'm encouraged to use that stat block (as a DM) for any number of NPCs a PC may encounter while not being called a "gladiator" at all because it offers a similar kind of challenge. In other words, on the player side of the DM's screen, I pretty much got a lot less to make any informed decision on other than "the math".

Whether you prefer one approach over the other may be a matter of taste. But it's a notable difference in approach that's going to generate some debate. Perhaps even more so when that difference in approach manifests itself in edition changes for the same game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Within the context of D&D, 3e had gone all in on systematizing NPC building (and monster building for that matter). It was the edition also founded on increasing a player's ability to make informed choices about what they were doing (Skip Williams, for example, has been explicit about this in some interviews). They knew what their skills would do, how DCs were determined, how much stronger a huge monster was compared to a medium one, and some of what to expect from an NPC if they started to exhibit certain powers. System mastery was about a lot more than picking good build options for PCs. And if you dug that, 4e throwing about half that out the window behind a veil of DMs building whatever they wanted as long as the math worked out in the end was gonna chafe.

In some ways, 3E is the edition, maybe with the exception of 4th, that to me feels the least at odds with what the OP is talking about, at least in terms of there arose more of a culture of players impacting the setting through things like their character creation choices. I liked 3E but two of the things that I started to grow weary of it with were 1) the culture of play that emerged where the GM was more like a chef giving players what they ordered (i.e. magic item wish lists for builds) and 2) the parity between monsters, NPCs, and PCs. On the one hand, it is impressive they achieved this. Lots of people liked it, but it made prep and running the game much harder IMO and could impinge on GM creativity.

The big difference from what the OP is talking about though is in 3E most of how you influence setting and story are through your build and through understanding the ins and outs of the system itself. Players with system mastery developed a lot of power in that respect. I think you are right to mention the role of system mastery here. Of course one downside of system mastery was it did create disparity in peoples experiences. As a GM, I really had to up my game and master the system just to run the thing (and you always master a system as GM but the degree to which you had to have command of the full array of mechanics was a lot more demanding than any other edition I have played)

 

[CreamCloud0]

while i believe that NPCs should fundamentally be the same kind of beings as the PCs and work on the same mechanics i don't think they actually need access to the entire same sets of abilities, the venn diagram contains NPC exclusive features,

this is because 1) the players could absolutely break game ballance with some of the NPC abilities and 2) it represents the opportunity cost the PC's characters paid to be PCs, all the time the PC characters spent learning their suite of abilities the NPC spent training their abilities, so while your cleric has a d8HD and medium armour and full divine casting the NPC archpriest has a d4HD, no armour, expertise in religion, insight, medicine and nature and unlimited uses of lesser restoration.

your character could've had those abilities but they directed their training in a different direction, and so they don't.