An Examination of Differences between Editions

[Storm Raven]

To be sure! However, I am not certain that the same thing can be said about NPCs.

How many NPCs did you stat out when you were DMing back in the early 1980s? You might have a handful of villagers, or a couple of "boss villains", but they usually constituted such a trivial percentage of the things that needed to be worked out that even if it takes 500% more time to stat them out now, the prep-time difference would be negligible.

 

[molonel]

For example, if I want to play a warforged ninja in someone's pirate game, and the DM says no, aren't they basically saying that my imagination just isn't good enough for their game?

I normally find myself agreeing with a lot of what you right, but no, that's incorrect. If, as a DM, I don't want warforged ninjas in the 7th Sea game that I'm running, or simply a homebrewed pirate adventure, then that's my prerogative as the DM, just as not allowing Drow or Duergar in a heroic campaign or LA +1 or greater races in a low-level game.

It has nothing to do with your imagination as a player. Games have a certain flavor, and mechanics can torque that.

I don't own Eberron, and I would never allow someone to play material from it in my games because I dislike the setting.

To be sure! However, I am not certain that the same thing can be said about NPCs.

Um, that's because in previous editions, unless the NPC was a retired adventurer, there was no point statting him out. He was a scrub.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Agreed. My point was simply that not having those mechanical bits to twiddle never prevented players from being as involved as they wanted to be.

Well, if I want to be involved in a manner that affects the mechanical development of my PC, then twiddly bits are practically an absolute requirement.

 

[Celebrim]

How many NPCs did you stat out when you were DMing back in the early 1980s?

I don't know about early '80's, but in early 90's one DM I played under was maintaining a list of 1000 'seven sentence NPC's' with basic stats.

I was never that organized, but thinking back over some of my notes, my typical prep would be for about a dozen NPC's per session. Not all of them would get used, but it was handy to have a name and a few notes written down ahead of time.

 

[Storm Raven]

Um, that's because in previous editions, unless the NPC was a retired adventurer, there was no point statting him out. He was a scrub.

More to the point, there is often no need to fully stat out NPCs like that now either.

For example, in the venerable Keep on the Borderlands there is a Blacksmith. He is described as good with a hammer and able to make weapons and repair armor. Do you need more description of this NPC now than you did then? Do you need more than, for example, this?

Name (something left out of the original); Blacksmith, Expert 2, 7 hp , Craft (Blacksmithing) +9, Craft (Weaponsmithing) +6, Craft (Armorsmithing) +6, MWP (Warhammer).

 

[Storm Raven]

I don't know about early '80's, but in early 90's one DM I played under was maintaining a list of 1000 'seven sentence NPC's' with basic stats.

That's just ridiculous overkill. In the course of play in an entire year of gaming, there is no way that the PCs will meaningfully interact with a thousand NPCs to an extent necessary to require them to be filled out to that level of detail. If you gamed once per week, every week, for five hours per session, for an entire year, you would need to meet and interact with, on average, four new NPCs per hour to meet 1,000 NPCs. And not waste time on any repeat meetings. And that assumes you don't spend any time dealing with "monsters" like ogres, umber hulks, and basilisks.

I was never that organized, but thinking back over some of my notes, my typical prep would be for about a dozen NPC's per session. Not all of them would get used, but it was handy to have a name and a few notes written down ahead of time.

How long were your sessions? And how much interaction did the characters do with each of the dozen NPCs you worked out? For the most part, in my experience, unless the NPC is going to be a recurring element of the campaign, or something otherwise noteworthy, then working out more than the basics is often wasted effort.

 

[dcas]

How many NPCs did you stat out when you were DMing back in the early 1980s? You might have a handful of villagers, or a couple of "boss villains", but they usually constituted such a trivial percentage of the things that needed to be worked out that even if it takes 500% more time to stat them out now, the prep-time difference would be negligible.

I wasn't DMing back in the early 80s (I started playing in 1987 or so and DMing in 1989) . . . however, what I am getting at is that it takes longer now, not that it took longer then.

Whether that is good or bad is up to the DM.

 

[Celebrim]

That's just ridiculous overkill. In the course of play in an entire year of gaming...

Did I say anything about one year of gaming?

How long were your sessions?

Four to eight hours, with the average being probably nearer the low end.

And how much interaction did the characters do with each of the dozen NPCs you worked out?

The point is, I wouldn't really know until it happened, would I? I never found spending a sentence or two on 50 or so NPCs in the vacinity of the action to be wasted effort. It's gives life to the setting, a bit of forethought in NPC design can create alot of player interest, and it avoids 'empty room' syndrome where the player can tell from the metagame that this is just a 'nameless NPC' and can be ignored/killed. This is important for several reasons, for example, if you don't occassionally pull a 'Scobby Doo' and have the villain be the janitor in scene 5, you are never going to get away with having the villain be one of the central NPCs in disguise with experienced players.

For the most part, in my experience, unless the NPC is going to be a recurring element of the campaign, or something otherwise noteworthy, then working out more than the basics is often wasted effort.

I don't think I said anything about working out more than the basics.... of course, what are the basics might be something we'd quibble over.

Name (something left out of the original); Blacksmith, Expert 2, 7 hp , Craft (Blacksmithing) +9, Craft (Weaponsmithing) +6, Craft (Armorsmithing) +6, MWP (Warhammer).

I think you make a good point here. Just because we have a more detailed system now doesn't mean we have to use it.

 

[Shroomy]

I think you make a good point here. Just because we have a more detailed system now doesn't mean we have to use it.

WotC and Paizo don't even fully stat out every NPC in their 3.5e adventures...

 

[RFisher]

A lot of times, people start crying player entitlement if you start to do that. For example, if I want to play a warforged ninja in someone's pirate game, and the DM says no, aren't they basically saying that my imagination just isn't good enough for their game?

That's a constant battle I fight with myself. I like creating worlds that exclude bits I'm not very fond of or that put twists on things. But I hate saying "no" to a player's idea because it almost always makes things richer when I say "yes".

But, in earlier editions, DM's were encouraging players to do the same thing? I don't think so. At least not the DM's I played with. And probably not myself either. "No" was the easiest word to say and got said an awful lot.

IME, this isn't edition dependent. I saw a wide range of player influence on worlds in my 1e days. Sometimes, it was little beyond the actions of the PCs, & the DM would leave hardly any PC background untouched. Sometimes players were given fairly free reign to develop kingdom or races or somesuch. Most often, it was somewhere in the middle, & that's been my experience since as well.

I guess my question becomes, at what point does player involvement in campaign design become player entitlement?

I don't think I've often seen player entitlement. When I have, I think it's always been when the DM excludes something that's printed in a core book. Usually that person doesn't remain in the group for long.

Though, I've read about player entitlement a lot online.