Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sepulchrave II" data-source="post: 8517532" data-attributes="member: 4303">I have complicated feelings about this subject, because while I recognize the utility of shorthanding many aspects of the game - as far as streamlining play is concerned - as a DM, incompletely detailed (and mechanically noncompliant) NPCs leave me feeling sort of ... empty.I suppose I'm a simulationist at heart, even though I recognize the implicit absurdity of trying to model a subcreational reality according to - sometimes rather arbitrary - rules. For me, it's about trying to marry the mechanical description of an NPC as closely to the character and personality as possible - it's partly an aesthetic exercise I engage in to satisfy an internal sense of consistency. I find that a solid mechanical basis for NPCs can then act as a springboard for the imagination, and that ideas flow naturally from certain mechanical &quot;facts&quot; which can push the game &quot;reality&quot; in sometimes unexpected and exciting directions; they sort of unfold from the mechanical chassis.I favor high level 3.x with huge numbers of supplements for precisely this reason, as the palette upon which I can draw is simply enormous. But I get that it's not for the faint-hearted, and if I were to come to D&amp;D in 2022, I certainly wouldn't have the time and energy to master that system today. But when I play in this mode none of my energy is really directed toward detailing or developing &quot;adventures,&quot; or the game world in anything other than broad strokes - rather, the PCs and NPCs are left to interact, and the game emerges. In that sense, it's good to have as much mechanical info as possible on a given NPC, as the kernel feels more substantial (to me), and allows me to better represent them and their interests.If I want to do a quickie, I'll just bust out B/X, which remains my other go-to system for precisely the opposite reasons.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sepulchrave II, post: 8517532, member: 4303"] I have complicated feelings about this subject, because while I recognize the utility of shorthanding many aspects of the game - as far as streamlining play is concerned - as a DM, incompletely detailed (and mechanically noncompliant) NPCs leave me feeling sort of ... empty. I suppose I'm a simulationist at heart, even though I recognize the implicit absurdity of trying to model a subcreational reality according to - sometimes rather arbitrary - rules. For me, it's about trying to marry the mechanical description of an NPC as closely to the character and personality as possible - it's partly an aesthetic exercise I engage in to satisfy an internal sense of consistency. I find that a solid mechanical basis for NPCs can then act as a springboard for the imagination, and that ideas flow naturally from certain mechanical "facts" which can push the game "reality" in sometimes unexpected and exciting directions; they sort of unfold from the mechanical chassis. I favor high level 3.x with huge numbers of supplements for precisely this reason, as the palette upon which I can draw is simply enormous. But I get that it's not for the faint-hearted, and if I were to come to D&D in 2022, I certainly wouldn't have the time and energy to master that system today. But when I play in this mode none of my energy is really directed toward detailing or developing "adventures," or the game world in anything other than broad strokes - rather, the PCs and NPCs are left to interact, and the game emerges. In that sense, it's good to have as much mechanical info as possible on a given NPC, as the kernel feels more substantial (to me), and allows me to better represent them and their interests. If I want to do a quickie, I'll just bust out B/X, which remains my other go-to system for precisely the opposite reasons. [/QUOTE]

Verification