Confused about NPC/Monster generation

[I'm A Banana]

KM, I don't want to kickstart the whole simulation/gamism etc thing on this thread and derail it, so feel free to disregard this: but there is a coherent (non-hardcore simuationist) approach which says "Just because NPCs and monsters can do it, doesn't mean PCs can."

There is an issue with that approach, though. You can wind up with things like 2e's drow and their sunlight-disintegrating weapons, things specifically designed, from a metagame standpoint, to only be used by NPC's that create a problem in the hands of PC's, and so need an in-game justification for why they usually wont' work in the hands of PC's. 2e was actually rife with this kind of stuff, IIRC. And it blew verisimilitude out of the water for me.

If the NPC's and monsters can do it, it needs a cause, and that cause should be something that the PC's can interact with themselves.

Now, I don't believe that the rules need to be the absolute same in all instances. Mook rules and elite and solo creatures are all well and good, but the PC's should be able to take advantage of these rules as well (hirelings and combo attacks and powerful rituals/summons), or else I run into a problem of how it exists in one form when the DM is using it and in a completely different form when the players are.

So in the same way that we don't allow PCs to be wealthy monarchs at 1st level (although there may be such NPCs in the gameworld), we don't allow them to be paper tigers (because, like a lot of ECL PCs built using the Savage-Species approach, they won't play very well).

Well, to be fair, 1st level PC's can be wealthy monarchs, at least in 3e. And, in fact, a wealthy monarch should be a valid starting course for a PC, I believe. And I'm not sure they won't play very well, unless by 'wealthy' you mean 'liquid gp resources equal to a much higher level character.' But usually, the wealthy monarch archetype is less about the powerful items they have and more about the role-playing, social control they have....

....but that's kind of a tangent.

Though ECL PC's didn't play very well, this doesn't rule out other ways of making monster PC's play well, and I'm sure they're out there.

I get the strong impression this doesn't really satisfy you, but I can see why the game only sets out to support a certain range of PCs. Not every conceivable possibility has to exist as a PC build.

The issue of monsters as allied that you have raised from time to time, however (and their treasure/equipment presumably feeds into that) is a good point that I agree with.

Well, for me, it's an issue of "why can't I say 'yes' to this?" I'm an actor, my D&D sessions are quite heavy with improv, and one of the rules for improv is always "Don't Contradict The Others." I find this feeds into an immensely satisfying D&D game for me, because it makes me be creative in response to my players. 3e gives me strong enough base assumptions about the bits that make up D&D that I can feel fairly confident in a creature's 'character.' That's me playing it's role, improvising dialogue and world elements as I go.

So if a player comes to me with a valid, entertaining idea, for, say, a beholder as a PC, I want D&D to be able to tell me how I can say 'yes' to that. I don't want D&D to tell me that I have to say 'no' because the beholder will overpower everyone. That's not useful for me. I'd resist D&D telling me that I can say 'yes,' but only with limits (the beholder has to basically be so weak that it's not fun to play, or some sort of genetic mutant who doesn't actually have beholder abilities). That's not REALLY useful for me because it's not a satisfying play experience for them.

The thing is, everything a villan has is an item in the world that the PC's can and should be able to interact with, and everything a villan encompasses is something that the players should be able to harnass as well. If I have to suddenly alter rules on the fly because I can't allow a player to have an ability or be a villan or have a little pet monster, if I have to keep saying 'no' to them, and the reason is transparently one of balance, it becomes deeply unsatisfying. The players know the deck is stacked against them and all they can do is play along with whatever I give them to play along with? That's pretty unsatisfying for my groups. It invalidates the atmosphere of improv that permeates my games now, that allow me to say 'if you can imagine it, I can find a way for you to do it.'

The ability to say yes is something that 3e gave me, and while it didn't always fulfill it's promises (ECL, CR), it did give me a guideline I could depart from. I'm not eager to start saying 'no' to my players any time soon.

 

[pemerton]

KM, thanks for the reply.

Wrt the wealthy monarch, I was meaning a PC in breach of wealth-by-level. Such NPCs exist, but it is a (purely metagame) convention that such PCs don't.

Thus, I have no problem with the convention that there are no PC beholders.

As to your more general point about open-endedness of possibility, I do feel that you are asking D&D to bear a mechanical burden that probably no system can - every game element equally playable as protagonist or antagonist, as PC or NPC, with no purely metagame constraints at all, but just the mechanical modelling of in-game "physics".

The ability to say yes is something that 3e gave me, and while it didn't always fulfill it's promises (ECL, CR), it did give me a guideline I could depart from. I'm not eager to start saying 'no' to my players any time soon.

I think 4e will be the same in this respect (in degree, if not content): each monster will be statted up using the same "language" of action resolution as a PC. Thus, any player can pick up a monster and know mechanically how to play that monster.

What will be missing, I think, is firm guidance as to (i) equivalent PC power level, and (ii) what do do when the monster levels up (although I gather the option of adding class levels will be there). But as you yourself noted, 3E's rules in this respect were wonky. So it seems to me you may really be no worse off.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Isn't that what 3e had a lot of? But yes, it's the nature of verisimilitude to break down at a certain point, though where that point is varies beteween groups, largely depending on how inquisitive your players are. I tend to have and encourage inquisitive players, because a large amount of the fun of D&D for me is creating a world with my friends, and if they don't ask questions, and I don't have answers, we don't get a whole lot of world created.



The thing that leaps first to my mind is the 'useless' skills and feats from 3e. If I know how well a Centaur can do macreme (to use an absurd example), that means I can make macreme an important part of centaur life and personality, and that if the players don't want to kill them wholesale, they can perhaps challenge them to a macreme competition. Similarly, if the horrid abomination from beyond the stars has 5 ranks in Religion, I know this creature is a scholar of the metaphysical and so wouldn't be as out of place as it might seem answering the cleric's request for a planar ally.

The question is, with his 4+INT skill points per level, will the Centaur actually get his Macreme skill, or will he be focussed on Jump, Swim, Tumble, Listen and Spot so that he covers his role in combat?

If you really need such information, they should be put in the monsters fluff description.
Or you need a secondary subsystem for "non-adventuring skills", because you otherwise always end up with a monster designer having to decide between "worthless" skills and crucial skills?

I am not saying that a non-adventuring skill system wouldn't be a bad idea, and maybe it's even better then the 4E approach to monsters. But I also think it's easy to add one if you fel it is needed. (Off course, that would be late for the MM monsters.)

I think that most monsters will still include a description of the creatures culture, and thus point out any "fluff" points at hook.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Wrt the wealthy monarch, I was meaning a PC in breach of wealth-by-level. Such NPCs exist, but it is a (purely metagame) convention that such PCs don't.

Thus, I have no problem with the convention that there are no PC beholders.

I've got no problem with the convention, but I'd like D&D to tell me how I can make PC beholders, rather than tell me that PC beholders are impossible. Likewise, I'd like D&D to tell me how rich princes can be an interesting archetype, rather than just saying "all of your characters must be poor. Sorry."

In other words, I'd like a system robust enough to handle the departures from convention that the rules suggest exist.

As to your more general point about open-endedness of possibility, I do feel that you are asking D&D to bear a mechanical burden that probably no system can - every game element equally playable as protagonist or antagonist, as PC or NPC, with no purely metagame constraints at all, but just the mechanical modelling of in-game "physics".

I'm not convinced that this is an impossible goal. I'm willing to cede that it is a difficult one, but it's one that I believe is entirely worth persuing (though 4e doesn't, and I can't especially blame them for it). Looking at the fundamental differences between DM and Player actions, and effectively limiting and broadening one side of the screen (the Player -- limited, but broad power; lots of creative options under one umbrella, none of which are exceptionally powerful) while teleescoping and focusing the other side (the DM -- mighty, but focused power; a few mighty powers under many umbrellas, none of which are exceptionally complex) can be done without eradicating a sense that both are adhering to the same underlying principles, and just expressing it differently.

The case in point comes to things like UA's "Players Role All The Dice" mechanic, where the player is given more fun options and the DM is given more expidited rules, but the fundamental math is largley unchanged. Or ideas like the "additive average" where a DM can add up an average and add it to a small dice pool for fast play, while a player can go ahead and roll a bucket o' d6's becauese it's stellar fun to add up all that hurt.

4e's monster system might allow enough broad ability to reverse-engineer some specifics, and after I spend some time doing that, I'll probably be content, but that's monster-explanation time that I wish I didn't have to spend.

What will be missing, I think, is firm guidance as to (i) equivalent PC power level, and (ii) what do do when the monster levels up (although I gather the option of adding class levels will be there). But as you yourself noted, 3E's rules in this respect were wonky. So it seems to me you may really be no worse off.

I'll get some general guidance, which, when combined with the compensating I've already done for 3e, might work out okay. But again, this is rather disapointing in an edition that promised faster, more efficient gameplay.

I'm still going to be missing a lot of those fiddly bits that make improving creative monster background information so easy, but I'm looking forward to the 'page of fluff' mentioned that might make it a bit smoother, and I'm hoping that some things are called out (like environment, or ally monsters, or the like).

I won't be any worse off, but it's a bit saddening to note that I won't be any better off because the designers basically said my style wasn't predominant enough/was too hard to design for, and that I still have to wait for that glorious Someday when someone puts in the actual work needed to design game elements that work equally as well, without loosing realism, on either side of the screen. I can maybe do a decent fan job, I'm not a half-bad designer myself, but it won't be anything like the braintrust at WotC could come up with, I'm sure.

I am not saying that a non-adventuring skill system wouldn't be a bad idea, and maybe it's even better then the 4E approach to monsters. But I also think it's easy to add one if you fel it is needed. (Off course, that would be late for the MM monsters.)

I think that most monsters will still include a description of the creatures culture, and thus point out any "fluff" points at hook.

The fluff might be good; I may find myself going with something like the PHBII backgrounds system, or the d20 modern professions system, or even the idea I proposed in a thread talking about noncombat skills about rolling ALL skills into several broad professions (shall I bring up the term 'secondary skills'?), and making those like noncombat 'roles' for PC's. But it's a bit disappointing that I have to do this work to make this aspect as good as 3e was because the designers went a bit too far in their zealotry of dismantling the admittedly over-complex and not-entirely-rewarding 3e system.

It's wierd to think that monsters and NPC's are something that no edition has ever gotten quite right, IMO. I guess the best I can hope for is that others come in and fill the gap left by WotC, or that my own rules can be decent enough that others use them and get something out of them.