Clerics can't heal (NPCs)?

[Primal]

Most other humans can't swing swords and shield bash? Speaking in specifics, do you have any reason to believe that NPC's can't be given Cleave or Tide of Iron or an equivalent? Because as has been pointed out, you can create an NPC who's a Solo challenge for a 5-man party without giving him class levels. So clearly NPC's can be pretty tough when necessary, and may have some PC abilities, without the restrictions of class or level.

Is there a need to keep track of longterm healing for NPC's?

So? NPC's can apparently achieve ranks in skills that far outstrip a PC, who's constrained by his class level.

That's up to the DM. If he decides the NPC should come back to life, then the NPC can come back to life.

NPCs as sort of mechanical "hybrids" between PCs and monsters? I'm not sure whether I'd want to go there -- it's already bad enough that NPCs exist in their own mechanical niche. Therefore, I think it's preferable to either keep them there (i.e. stat them according to these 'exception-based' monster design mechanics) or statting them along the same rules as the PCs. That said, I don't see how it is any easier for me to use the 'exception-based' design, because I feel like I'd be walking on thin ice. Really. Let me explain. I'm all for any "nar" influences and mechanics that encourage narrativist play, but I don't think it's wise to try to shoehorn them into D&D at the cost of simulation. At its heart (and the hearts of D&D players), the game is very gamist in nature and encourages gamist playing style. 3E brought a lot of simulationist influences into the mix, and this, in turn, shifted the focus of the game away from the PCs and made the setting and NPCs seem more important than ever.

What I'm seeing in 4E is a lot of steps backwards towards AD&D -- case-by-case DM judgement calls and houserules to accomodate for whatever simulationist elements have been cut from the rules. Don't get me wrong -- some of the things I really like (e.g. the skill challenge system), but somehow it feels like a very dysfunctional system consisting of elements that do not fit together very well. You could even say that it seems to consist of various "subsystems" that implement different aspects of the mechanics in a very inconsistent way.

What I mean by this is that some of the mechanics encurage purely tactical thinking and "optimal" choices over immersion and story (i.e. the combat system), while other "subsystems" (NPC/monster creation, skill challenges) function in a different way from the rest of the mechanics and also emphasize a very different abstraction .
It may be difficult to switch between different styles -- first you're playing a chess-like boardgame against the DM, and then, suddenly, you're supposed to engage fully in the story via a skill challenge.

No doubt 4E brings the PCs into the spotlight as the most important beings in the setting (which, in my opinion, is not necessarily a good thing) but it also "demotes" NPCs into the sidelines in the story. "As they should be!", people say. Yep, but is it *really* more interesting to have the PCs start as established and competent heroes, instead of having them slowly *grow* into this role? Are people really interested in starting out as Conans and Elrics and Aragorns, instead of "weaklings" like Rand Al'Thor and Frodo? Is it really *that* bad if there are local high-level NPCs who act as mentors for the PCs? I wonder, do they *really* steal their thunder?

Occasionally this may even lead to players exploiting the situation -- my first D&D campaigns often devolved into pillaging/raping/murdering sprees as my 13-year old players wanted to feel like kings of the world and there were no "pesky" NPCs to stop them in those small 'Points of Light-ish' villages.

Another major difference in 4E seems to be that "lazy" DMing (and "stealing" stuff) is encouraged, and even mechanically supported by the rules. Worldbuilding is not important anymore, nor is a realistic or vividly portrayed setting with believable NPCs -- it's more about throwing realism and simulationism to the winds in favor of "fantastic" and "evocative" scenery and "Well, it's magic!"-type of explanations. It works for some groups, but it won't work for mine. And really, being a DM has always more or less meant that you are expected and encouraged to spend time on pre-play prep. I like it. I can spend hours after hours crafting new NPCs, towns, encounters, and generally improving on the stuff I've written. It's fine by me that not everyone likes it, though, but in that case you should ask if you're the "best" guy in your group to act as DM. And if it seems that the players are also expecting you to do more prep, would someone else enjoy the DMing "chores" more than you do? If so, wouldn't it benefit everyone to let him DM?

It's a good thing *if* 4E streamlines the process of creating and running NPCs and monsters, but does it, really? Combat seems to be much more complicated than in 3.0, and as I said before, a DM must probably make a lot of quick judgement calls. What if the fighter tries to emulate a monster's "power"? Should he be able to do that? If so, does it invalidate the feat system, if said power is derived from a feat (such as 'Improved Trip')? How would it happen mechanically? What if the situation escalates from a friendly conversation into combat, and you need quickly to come up with relevant stats to a "non-heroic" NPC? What would be
Note that you *still* need to consult MM (instead of DMG) to look up which template you're going to apply to that NPC -- unless you're going to come up with completely "trumped-up" stats. And if you're constantly doing the latter, at which point is it becoming a system with so many "exceptional" NPCs with unrealistic and unbelievable "powers" that it beggars belief? AD&D had a lot of weird NPCs that existed on the very edge of the rules, such as 0-level weaponsmiths with 30 HPs (go figure) and completely unrealistic NWP modifiers and/or 'exception-based' abilities ("He is one of the most legendary smiths in the land, able to craft magical weapons and armor up to +3 enchantment").

I have run games that didn't really have any sort of organized rules -- you just rolled a die (the higher the better) if it felt approbriate and it seemed logical that your PC should possess a talent/skill/ability relevant to the situation (e.g. if you were playing a woodsman who wanted to climb a tree to escape a pack of wolves). And I could do NPCs in *two seconds* -- I just had to decide whether they had any skill that enabled them to roll in a conflict (if not, only the players rolled and any result over 10 was a victory -- otherwise it was an "opposed" roll). Hell, I could create stats for *monsters* in *five seconds*, or less. The funny thing is, it didn't feel any less of a game than Rolemaster or D&D, and it sure was easy to DM. The only difference to 4E is that everyone (PCs, NPCs and monsters) operated and were created with the same rules. Does this make my little storytelling game superior to 4E in the eyes of "lazy" DMs?

And has it been really that hard to come up with stats for an NPC in 3E? I can stat up pretty much anything in less than a minute -- if the PCs suddenly decide to assault, say, a friendly innkeeper, I can just decide that he's 'N Com4/Exp2' and it doesn't take me long to write down his ability scores, HPs, AC, Saves and skills (e.g. +10 on any skill rolls relevant to his profession). Usually my "non-heroic" NPCs have 14 or 12 (depending on their importance, profession/class and level) as their highest ability score and 10-11 in the rest of the abilities (that's for any "quick" NPCs -- "heroic" NPCs and villains have, naturally, have much higher ability scores ). Feats may take time, but I have pretty much memorized the Feats from PHB and if it's absolutely necessary to spend more time to dig up "proper" feats (such as for a high priest), I can always call a cigarette/coffee break and do that (takes me about 5-10 minutes or so, but then again, I'm not allowing too many "splat books" in my campaigns).

 

[The Little Raven]

how much can you simplify the mechanics before you simplify the world?

So, basically, the only way to have complex worlds is to have complex rules?

Needless to say, I vehemently disagree.

 

[kennew142]

Well, it boils down to this:
If, when the rules come out, I don't see any situations where there's mechanical issues with PC/NPC interaction due to the differences in writeups, then I'll agree it doesn't matter. I just never want to be in a situation where a PC says "I do X!" and I say, "Well, you can't unless I make up a ruling about how X will affect an NPC."

We're all still in the dark about these elements will work together (or won't). I'm hopeful that the designers have looked at this issue from all the angles. If I'm wrong, if there are problems with PC/NPC interaction due to the differences in the write ups, I'll have to switch to using NPC classes. I won't even have to make them up; someone will likely do it in these forums.

I'm hopeful that I'm right and that the fears you've expressed are just fears.

I've said before that most of us arguing both sides of this issue seem to be desiring the same thing, a well developed setting/world that allows for immersive storytelling. We just disagree over what mechanics will accomplish that goal best. For me, it's always been 'rules light' NPCs.

 

[The Little Raven]

If 4e characters are brazenly more powerful, those who enjoy the more faerie-tale-esque takes on fantasy, who enjoy their heroes more like Bilbo and Sam than like Conan and Aragorn, are kind of on the outs. They're being told they're not SUPPOSED to play the game like that. That's a tough pill to swallow, after having made it work (and, presumably, enjoying it) for so long.

This is like saying that because 3e and all previous editions started you out as a turd farmer that could die from tripping over a loose flagstone, they were telling the "heroic fantasy" types that they aren't supposed to play the game like that. In other words, this is completely untrue.

In 4e, just like every other edition, you can make a substandard character (like a bard in 3e) if you want to play Sam or Frodo, or just leave your character as-is to play Aragorn. Nothing's stopping you from shafting yourself to play a kid who gets conned into buying magic beans, but don't be surprised that a game about heroic fantasy focuses on making you fantasy heroes instead of fantasy chumps like Jack.

I mean, I'm all for fantasy stories coming from the Achilleses and Gilgameshes and Beowulfs of the world, but in more strongly asserting the "PC's are really exceptional" thing, they're pushing out some people who have so far enjoyed going against the grain.

There's still options to make everyone the same as PCs (and thereby telling your players that they aren't special). There's nothing preventing you, except some kind of faulty pre-conceived notion that trying to use the same rules for all PCs/NPCs will cause some kind of system meltdown or something. If you want to pile extra work on yourself, so that each town has a level 5 cleric or whatever, feel free. However, requiring a DM to put the same amount of work into each NPC (of which I usually have dozens in my games) that a player puts into his one PC is enough to make a busy DM look elsewhere. I don't have the three hours to simulate a single NPC versus NPC war like GnomeWorks, nor would I want to, even if I had the time.

 

[Henry]

What I'm seeing in 4E is a lot of steps backwards towards AD&D -- case-by-case DM judgement calls and houserules to accomodate for whatever simulationist elements have been cut from the rules. Don't get me wrong -- some of the things I really like (e.g. the skill challenge system), but somehow it feels like a very dysfunctional system consisting of elements that do not fit together very well. You could even say that it seems to consist of various "subsystems" that implement different aspects of the mechanics in a very inconsistent way.

Actually, the "lazy" DMing was the standard for decades before 3E ever came along -- and to me it was in part what made the game as popular, because it didn't take as much backgrounding to run a game. One of the things i did around 2002, after two years of doing it the "3E" way, was to start statting NPCs up in that exception based fashion common to earlier versions of D&D. Cut a few corners, and statting up an NPC was really easy, because the fact that there was a plethora of feats, flaws, skills, and classes out there meant you could hide a multitude of sins that way. Heck, someone just showed me "Nup Nup the Kobold" recently (a legally created 20TH LEVEL CHARACTER WITH ZERO HIT POINTS!!!!) and I believe a man can fly, again.

But frankly, anything that can make D&D as easy to run for 6 friends in a couple hours' play time as it used to be in the days of 1E and 2E is a good thing, to me. If not, I still have Castles and Crusades (THANK YOU, OGL.)

 

[Kishin]

Nope. I make the world for the sake of its own existence. That the players play in it is happy coincidence.

No offense, but then you should probably writing novels, not running an RPG. I'm trying not to invoke wrongbadfun in saying this, but this seems contrary to the whole point of RPGs, which are designed for playing, and not as a worldbuilding exercise.

 

[Stogoe]

don't be surprised that a game about heroic fantasy focuses on making you fantasy heroes instead of fantasy chumps like Jack.

Have you read Fables? Jack is the Man.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is like saying that because 3e and all previous editions started you out as a turd farmer that could die from tripping over a loose flagstone, they were telling the "heroic fantasy" types that they aren't supposed to play the game like that. In other words, this is completely untrue.

Actually, it's nothing like saying any of that gobbledegook.

It's exactly like saying that in further reinforcing the idea that every 1st level PC is unique in actual capability, they're diminishing the ability for DMs to make PC's not unique in actual capability, which is going to annoy some players who like PC's who aren't obviously superhuman.

In other words, obviously true. PC's can't be both turd farmers and Gilgamesh at level 1. A game has to make a choice. D&D has, ostensibly, chosen "Gilgamesh," but people who prefer turd farmers have still made it work. If 4e makes it harder to be 1st level turd farmers, and easier to be Gilgamesh, they'll be adding another straw to these camels' backs.

I don't even really know what your post means, man, so I'll just stick with re-iterating my position.

 

[hong]

NPCs as sort of mechanical "hybrids" between PCs and monsters? I'm not sure whether I'd want to go there -- it's already bad enough that NPCs exist in their own mechanical niche.

By "bad", you of course mean "good".

What I mean by this is that some of the mechanics encurage purely tactical thinking and "optimal" choices over immersion and story (i.e. the combat system), while other "subsystems" (NPC/monster creation, skill challenges) function in a different way from the rest of the mechanics and also emphasize a very different abstraction .
It may be difficult to switch between different styles -- first you're playing a chess-like boardgame against the DM, and then, suddenly, you're supposed to engage fully in the story via a skill challenge.

It is very easy. Just treat it like a video game.

No doubt 4E brings the PCs into the spotlight as the most important beings in the setting (which, in my opinion, is not necessarily a good thing) but it also "demotes" NPCs into the sidelines in the story. "As they should be!", people say. Yep, but is it *really* more interesting to have the PCs start as established and competent heroes, instead of having them slowly *grow* into this role? Are people really interested in starting out as Conans and Elrics and Aragorns, instead of "weaklings" like Rand Al'Thor and Frodo? Is it really *that* bad if there are local high-level NPCs who act as mentors for the PCs? I wonder, do they *really* steal their thunder?

Is it _really_ possible that Conan, Elric and Aragorn are very, very not 1st level characters in any D&D ruleset ever created, even this one? Is it similarly possible that extending the sweet spot down to 1st level, and thus making it slightly tougher, is not the same as removing power progression and differing levels of competence from the game? Can we one day aspire to an edition war thread where bizarre leaps of fantasy will no longer pop up as regular occurrences? And why are we suddenly ending all our sentences in rising inflections?

 

[hong]

In other words, obviously true. PC's can't be both turd farmers and Gilgamesh at level 1. A game has to make a choice. D&D has, ostensibly, chosen "Gilgamesh," but people who prefer turd farmers have still made it work. If 4e makes it harder to be 1st level turd farmers, and easier to be Gilgamesh, they'll be adding another straw to these camels' backs.

Intentional suck is easily achieved by the strategem of not rolling the dice.