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

[Faolyn]

If she's killable as an NPC then she's killable as a PC. Why? Because there is no difference between those things in the fiction.

Yes, there is: in a party that cares about teamwork and comradery, PCs are usually far more beholden to each other than to a random NPC because they are far less likely to betray each other.

I realize your table doesn't care about such things, but you have to realize that's a fairly unusual thing to do, especially in this day and age. Even back in the wild old days, I think I only knew four characters who betrayed the party. The first was an undercover Imperial spy in a Star Wars game, and this had been worked out previously with the GM. The second only turned because there were legitimate in-character philosophical reasons for it that had been building up for many sessions, not because of money or being evil or "it's what my character would do." The last two were played by the same person, who was rather a jerk in real life and, if my friend was correct about it, did these things to my characters because he had an unrequited (and unnoticed) crush on me.

Now, that's not to say that PCs don't glom onto NPCs--they do so all the time, and for all manner of reasons. But those NPCs also don't get randomly betrayed by the PCs, because they are brought into the team.

Sure, I'm not arguing that it can't be done. I'm arguing that doing it is generally going to represent extra work for the GM.

Not at all. Unless you only roll for random treasure and you created tables of only non-magical treasure, meaning you have to spend a few extra minutes remembering that the last mage needs some swag as well. And that's no different than making sure that each character is able to use at least something in the treasure pile.

It's bad if in-game things are done for out-of-game reasons, I think we'd agree on that. But when both the cause and effect (or problem and solution) are in-game things, let it happen. Here with the last-mage example, by playing that character its player has potentially presented the rest of the group with an in-game problem, that beiong what to do with/about/to Jocasta the last mage.

Your ignoring what I said. Sometimes, the things you're doing hurt the actual player. I have players who would be really upset, out-of-character, if another PC decided to charm them into doing something against their will because it triggers real PTSD. The person I mentioned who went after my character? In a Star Wars game, they thought it would be funny and "what their character to do" to set up a camera in my character's shower. And the GM and other players went along with it, even though the PCs were mostly supposed to be good guys. That was seriously upsetting to me in real life, and it doesn't matter that this action was completely in-character; it's not acceptable behavior.

But see, based on the way you've been talking to me, I have to assume that if this happened at your table, nobody there would care. They'd just say to let it happen, or that I could get revenge in-game rather than dealing with the actual problem, which is the player being a jerk and crossing lines.

Now the others may well, in character, decide it's not a problem and move on; but I suspect that would be an unlikely outcome. More likely are any of these:

--- we have to protect her and keep her alive at all costs, that's our duty now (a goodly party, or if magic is beneficial/desired in the setting)
--- we have to make sure she's safe, and a palace/constabulary/knightly order can protect her way better than we can (a goodly party that knows its own limitations)
--- we don't want to be anywhere near her, she's a lightning rod for trouble; let's go! (a self-preservationist party if magic is feared, or illegal)
--- we gotta kill her now before she blows us all to hell! (a practical party, if magic is/was known to be dangerous)

Those are in-game solutions or reactions to an in-game problem; and only one of them leaves Jocasta as viably playable.

And you are again making broad assumptions that Jocasta has to be protected, and that most or all players out there would feel that way.

Here, try this: Jocasta wants to find out what happened to all the other mages. We're helping her, and at the same time, she's helping us with our personal quests.

Or: The entire group wants to find out what happened to all the other mages.

Or: The group is going on a quest completely unrelated to magic whatsoever, but it sure is nice that the last mage in the world decided to help us out.

Why not? If it's what my character would do...

There shouldn't be a smiley face there because, as I said, it means that you are violating another player's ability to make decisions for themselves. It's not funny or cute. It's troubling.

While nothing prevents such an arrangement, I've never met anyone who'd rather play a hench (which this would be) than a full-fledged character.

And this is a lack of imagination on your part. Being a bodyguard doesn't mean being a henchman. It means having a connection to another player character.

A CoC game I was in and in the MotW game I'm running now, there have been players who have chosen to be secretaries for other players. And they're still fully-fledged characters with their own plots. In one of the D&D games I'm in, I'm playing the mother of two of the other players, who are both playing teens. And we still go into combat together! I just make sure I keep my action that lets me shield others free to protect them. And you can be darn sure I care more about them than you would care about the last mage!

 

[Lanefan]

Not in AD&D, where only humans and Halflings can be 0-level.

Until UA came out, which made 0th level a possibility for everyone.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

At this point, you have to ask if the players really want to explore Arthurian Romance? If three-fourths of them are going for wacky ideas like this, then that's a clear indication that the players don't want to play typical Arthurian Romance.

I agree - although we're still left with the question of where this "break point" occurs in terms of divergence from genre expectations.

Presumably MM Dwarves are also fighters, but they are 1 HD. And they have a CON bonus!

I don't think they were intended to map exactly; it's more about "average" specimens. And bear in mind that no hit point penalty occurs unless Con is below 7, or bonus awarded until 15+ - so I don't think that really matters. It might be some kind of wargaming vestige, where elves are just more badass than humans and dwarves: the 1+1HD gives them an additional bonus on the Attack Matrix, and with longswords and bows they have a significant advantage. But the elves and dwarves in the MM are definitely "monsters" - as are bandits, pilgrims, berserkers etc.

I'm not criticising the AD&D rules: just making the point that it isn't tenable, in my view, to assert that NPCs and PCs in AD&D are built on the same principles.

It wasn't consistent, but there are plenty of examples where the same (or almost the same) level of care and thoroughness are evidenced in presenting higher level NPCs, and those characters are consistent with PCs - i.e. they were "built" using the rules in the PHB.

 

[pemerton]

Until UA came out, which made 0th level a possibility for everyone.

No.

UA has 0th-level MUs and Cavaliers, but these do not follow the normal rules for 0-level Halflings and humans. Apart from anything else, these characters are classed.

 

[pemerton]

there are plenty of examples where the same (or almost the same) level of care and thoroughness are evidenced in presenting higher level NPCs, and those characters are consistent with PCs - i.e. they were "built" using the rules in the PHB.

And there are as many, or more, examples that go the other way. Just looking at Against the Giants: the 8th level Dwarven fighter in the dungeon beneath the Steading has stats, but no weapon proficiencies specified; the insane merchant in the cell block doesn't even have hit points (nor does the imprisoned engineer, and nor do the other six Dwarves); the Gray Cavern on the 3rd level of G3 gives class and level, AC and hp for 21 Drow, but only one has a full set of ability scores (the others do have DEX bonuses to AC from which DEX can be inferred).

The fully-statted 4th/6th Drow F-MU in that room has 30 hp, and CON 9. The average for such a character is 11 (half of 4 fighter HD) + 7.5 (half of 6 MU HD), or 18.5. To have 30 hp requires rolling (eg) 9 on all 4 fighter HD (for 18 total) and 4 on all 6 MU dice (for 12 total), or something similarly improbable.

This is not a criticism of the module: generally, to run an encounter with Drow you don't need their ability scores; and achieving a satisfying balance between plausible hp and playable MU spells for a NPC is not straightforward.

But I think it does illustrate the extremely flexible approach taken to NPC stats in AD&D, and also the challenges that arise for a system dedicated to building NPCs using the same build principles as apply to PCs.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

And there are as many, or more, examples that go the other way.

Sure. And there are plenty of omissions of data, some shorthand, some implicit assumptions, some mistakes, plenty of arbitrary assignments of abilities and hit points etc. But a 5th-level Fighter is still a 5th-level Fighter, and that still has an objective meaning and value, and certain features associated with it - saving throws, attack bonus, attacks per round etc.

This is not a criticism of the module: generally, to run an encounter with Drow you don't need their ability scores; and achieving a satisfying balance between plausible hp and playable MU spells for a NPC is not straightforward.

I don't disagree.

But I think it does illustrate the extremely flexible approach taken to NPC stats in AD&D, and also the challenges that arise for a system dedicated to building NPCs using the same build principles as apply to PCs.

I don't think anyone - even @Lanefan - is advocating that the process for building NPCs should be exactly identical with that for PCs, but rather that they share a common - and mutually intelligible - framework, which encapsulates their abilities and stats, and is plausible and consistent within that framework.

I mean, when I look at the entry for "Buccaneer" in the Monster Manual, and discover that they are assisted by an 8th-level Magic User, how am I supposed to detail that character without making an 8th-level Magic User? With practice, I might assign some spells, some hit points, an AC etc - that might fall within a reasonable range - but I don't think AD&D ever advocates such a method. And as soon as I've assigned 2.5 x 8 hit points (or 4 x 8, for that matter) - which takes about 0.1 seconds - I've already engaged with the character creation process detailed in the PHB.

[Edited for clarity.]

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think anyone - even @Lanefan - is advocating that the process for building NPCs should be exactly identical with that for PCs, but rather that they share a common - and mutually intelligible - framework, which encapsulates their abilities and stats, and is plausible and consistent within that framework.

This.

Build your NPCs any way you like as long as the mechanical result is within the bounds of what would be possible if the character had been generated by a player as a PC.

I mean, when I look at the entry for "Buccaneer" in the Monster Manual, and discover that they are assisted by an 8th-level Magic User, how am I supposed to detail that character without making an 8th-level Magic User? With practice, I might assign some spells, some hit points, an AC etc - that might fall within a reasonable range - but I don't think AD&D ever advocates such a method. And as soon as I've assigned 2.5 x 8 hit points (or 4 x 8, for that matter) - which takes about 0.1 seconds - I've already engaged with the character creation process detailed in the PHB.

To add on here: my point is that if you end up assigning that 8th level MU 93 hit points, you'd better have an airtight in-fiction explanation. And "I wanted it to be tough" doesn't qualify.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, there is: in a party that cares about teamwork and comradery, PCs are usually far more beholden to each other than to a random NPC because they are far less likely to betray each other.

I realize your table doesn't care about such things, but you have to realize that's a fairly unusual thing to do, especially in this day and age. Even back in the wild old days, I think I only knew four characters who betrayed the party. The first was an undercover Imperial spy in a Star Wars game, and this had been worked out previously with the GM. The second only turned because there were legitimate in-character philosophical reasons for it that had been building up for many sessions, not because of money or being evil or "it's what my character would do." The last two were played by the same person, who was rather a jerk in real life and, if my friend was correct about it, did these things to my characters because he had an unrequited (and unnoticed) crush on me.

Outright betrayals like your Star Wars example are rare IME. Far more common are in-character arguments escalating to swords and spells, or (sometimes elaborate) in-character practical jokes, or characters taking each other to court over something or other, or in one memorable instance characters selling* other characters into slavery; that sort of thing.

* - it was more like a donation, as the "sellers" received nothing in return; they just wanted to get rid of a couple of nuisances who also happened to be PCs. This was 15 years ago, and everyone involve - including those whose characters became slaves - still laughs about it to this day. Even more bizarre: the next series of adventures for that party consisted of busting up that slaving operation, and they ended up rescuing one of the same characters they'd sold.

Now, that's not to say that PCs don't glom onto NPCs--they do so all the time, and for all manner of reasons. But those NPCs also don't get randomly betrayed by the PCs, because they are brought into the team.

Some characters can be trusted, others can't; and whether they're PC or NPC matters not. I've played characters who will try to turn any situation to their own advantage regardless what it means for anyone else; and I've also played characters who have been on the receiving end of such. It all depends on the specifics of character and situation.

Ona broader scale, one thing I do not generally assume is that real-world ethics and morals fully translate into the game world. Here in the real world we try to be respectful, inclusive, considerate, and all that; while in the D&D game world it's pretty much wild-west law of the jungle when you're in the field and something like "the king's word is the law" when in town.

Not at all. Unless you only roll for random treasure and you created tables of only non-magical treasure, meaning you have to spend a few extra minutes remembering that the last mage needs some swag as well. And that's no different than making sure that each character is able to use at least something in the treasure pile.

I don't** do the bolded. The treasure pile is the treasure pile, often set before I even know which characters will potentially find it; it's up to them to decide what (if any) use they can put it to, or whether to just sell it off for cash or futures next time they're in town.

** - the one exception being if the characters are receiving in-game rewards or items tailored to them specifically, a la Galadhriel's gifts to the Fellowship in LotR.

Your ignoring what I said. Sometimes, the things you're doing hurt the actual player. I have players who would be really upset, out-of-character, if another PC decided to charm them into doing something against their will because it triggers real PTSD. The person I mentioned who went after my character? In a Star Wars game, they thought it would be funny and "what their character to do" to set up a camera in my character's shower. And the GM and other players went along with it, even though the PCs were mostly supposed to be good guys. That was seriously upsetting to me in real life, and it doesn't matter that this action was completely in-character; it's not acceptable behavior.

The camera in the shower wouldn't fly here either.

But charming other characters? Won't say it happens all the time but it sure ain't unheard of. PCs routinely charm NPCs in order to a) extract information and-or b) take them into the party as meat shields, and if its good for the goose it's good for the gander: if the situation allows, I'll sometimes have NPCs try to charm PCs. And PCs charming other PCs, often as a non-painful means of keeping them from doing something stupid, is almost a tradition in some parties.

An enemy charming (well, dominating) a PC in fact caused the only TPK I've ever DMed: the party's heavy fighter was first down a ladder and got dominated by the enemy that waited there; said fighter then pretty much chopped down the rest of the party one by one as they descended the ladder. Soon he was the only character left, in a place with no food of any kind, and his new (undead) boss just kept him dominated until he starved to death.

And you are again making broad assumptions that Jocasta has to be protected, and that most or all players out there would feel that way.

Here, try this: Jocasta wants to find out what happened to all the other mages. We're helping her, and at the same time, she's helping us with our personal quests.

Or: The entire group wants to find out what happened to all the other mages.

Both of these are tangential at best to the question of the party protecting Jocasta more so than they'd protect anyone else, because she's the last of her kind.

Or: The group is going on a quest completely unrelated to magic whatsoever, but it sure is nice that the last mage in the world decided to help us out.

"Well, let's see how much help she is, first; but if she's any use then we'd better do whatever it takes to keep her upright as we ain't gonna get another one if she dies."

And this is a lack of imagination on your part. Being a bodyguard doesn't mean being a henchman. It means having a connection to another player character.

Your suggestion was that the bodyguard character agree to be hired as such by the last-mage character; and "hired" implies many things: a boss-employee dynamic and authority structure; an expectation by the employee that there will be recompense (i.e., pay) for time spent at this job, perhaps in lieu of a share of treasury; an expectation by the employer that the employee's first loyalty will be to the employer and that the employee will put the boss' interests first, and so on. In other words, a hench.

A CoC game I was in and in the MotW game I'm running now, there have been players who have chosen to be secretaries for other players. And they're still fully-fledged characters with their own plots.

By "players" here you mean "characters", I assume.

Are these secretaries truly employees of those who they secretary for? I ask because if yes, the boss-employee authority dynamic means there's a situation where one character can legitimately tell another character what to do and expect it to be done. Not every player is going to be cool with giving away that much control over their character; if yours are, that's both cool and IME very unusual.

In one of the D&D games I'm in, I'm playing the mother of two of the other players, who are both playing teens. And we still go into combat together! I just make sure I keep my action that lets me shield others free to protect them. And you can be darn sure I care more about them than you would care about the last mage!

Though I have to ask: if you care about them that much then why are you exposing them to the (undeniable!) risks of field adventuring in the first place?

 

[pemerton]

Sure. And there are plenty of omissions of data, some shorthand, some implicit assumptions, some mistakes, plenty of arbitrary assignments of abilities and hit points etc. But a 5th-level Fighter is still a 5th-level Fighter, and that still has an objective meaning and value, and certain features associated with it - saving throws, attack bonus, attacks per round etc.

According to the DMG, a NPC Half-Orc attacks on the monster table, by HD, and not on the class attack table.

I don't think anyone - even @Lanefan - is advocating that the process for building NPCs should be exactly identical with that for PCs, but rather that they share a common - and mutually intelligible - framework, which encapsulates their abilities and stats, and is plausible and consistent within that framework.

Plausibility and consistency seem to me like features of the fiction, first and foremost.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure. And there are plenty of omissions of data, some shorthand, some implicit assumptions, some mistakes, plenty of arbitrary assignments of abilities and hit points etc. But a 5th-level Fighter is still a 5th-level Fighter, and that still has an objective meaning and value, and certain features associated with it - saving throws, attack bonus, attacks per round etc.

I don't disagree.

I don't think anyone - even @Lanefan - is advocating that the process for building NPCs should be exactly identical with that for PCs, but rather that they share a common - and mutually intelligible - framework, which encapsulates their abilities and stats, and is plausible and consistent within that framework.

I mean, when I look at the entry for "Buccaneer" in the Monster Manual, and discover that they are assisted by an 8th-level Magic User, how am I supposed to detail that character without making an 8th-level Magic User? With practice, I might assign some spells, some hit points, an AC etc - that might fall within a reasonable range - but I don't think AD&D ever advocates such a method. And as soon as I've assigned 2.5 x 8 hit points (or 4 x 8, for that matter) - which takes about 0.1 seconds - I've already engaged with the character creation process detailed in the PHB.

[Edited for clarity.]

Honestly I think this starts to make the game very weird in terms of setting consistency. I agree you can make NPCs just like PCs in AD&D, and sometimes you need and want that, but there are also plenty of stock options and there was an attitude or culture where you didn't have to strictly do that (which I think did emerge by the time WOTC had D&D). But the problem it creates is in terms of setting is something you can see in the novels that tried to grapple with class. If class and levels are objectively underpinning the physics, this is something peopel in the setting itself ought to be able to sense. And then you have really weird moments that arise like in the Dark Elf trilogy where Drizzt is trying to find himself and a man he meets gives him insight by overseeing "You know what you are, you're a ranger!". Paraphrasing that quote, but he didn' mean, your a ranger because you protect the forest and wander, he meant deep down inside you, there is this Rangerness that is part of who you are. I always thought this was very bizarre (and I liked the Dark Elf trilogy a lot). This would periodically arise in TSR novels from that period and it never landed well because it created a very strange sense of setting. I see class and many other elements of characterization as broad simplifications meant to make characters for fun, balance, etc. And some of those things intersect with the world (the way a mage learns spells for example and the spells they cast). But many things are just simplified abstractions and shouldn't be liberalized in the setting, lest you find your inner ranger