Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Primal" data-source="post: 4153869" data-attributes="member: 30678">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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />). 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).</blockquote>

Verification