Do NPCs have to follow the rules?

[Shaele]

Do I fudge as a DM? Sure, sometimes - as hong points out, much of the time, NPCs don't have the opportunity to use a full set of abilities. I'm very careful though to err on the side of giving NPCs fewer abilities/resources than the party.

Much of a player's fun comes from fleshing out a character concept - if NPCs are grossly overpowered when compared to the party's PC, then it seriously devalues that character.

Imagine being the party's enchanter, being really proud of the feats that you've worked out and your cool thematic spell progression. Then you meet an archmage who not only has all of your abilities, but also has all of the metamagic feats, can create most magic items, a wields a longsword "just because be can" *cough*Elminster*cough* All of a sudden, your PC becomes a lot less unique and interesting.

It's much easier to try and work from stock NPCs or use one of the brilliant generators mentioned above.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yep - this is a major major problem. However, there is a big difference between assets... and "gear useable on an adventure".

Most NPCs won't have their equipment as an easily transportable and liquid pile of cash. They should have their property in the form of gear, livestock, real estate and other property not easily carried away or converted into cash. An average house costs 1,000 gp, that will eat considerably into the available funds for most lower level NPCs, and many people (like say, the hypothetical serjeant) should probably have one.

 

[Storm Raven]

Dude, the PC's should not be able to guess the highest level of spells an NPC can cast based on the abilities of her familiar.

Why not? If magic is reasonably consistent, then this sort of deduction would be fairly easy for anyone who has dealt with spellcasters to figure out in character, without having to assume any kind of metagaming.

Of course, with various PrC's and other elements out there, trying to make this kind of judgment can be hazardous. Using the powers of a familiar to figure out the spellcasting power of an individual with levels as a Shadow Adept or a Mage of the Arcane Order (two of the many PrCs that do not advance familiars) would be an unwise move.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I think that people are tending to view this a little bit in extremes...

As a DM, I don't fully stat out all my NPC's. I often don't detail out skills, although I do note which ones are particularly good (listen +13, etc). If I want the guards of a particular castle to be good at Listen, then I do whatever i can within the rules and within reason to have them be good at it. Any single first level guard could have a Listen +12 (Rog 1 with +4 ranks, +4 Wis, +2 Skill Focus, +2 Alertness) but he better have a reason for being that good at it! Whether or not the players ever learn the reason.

So, is the question: Should NPC's obey the rules? or: Should all NPC's be fully statted out? There's a big difference along that axis.

The answer to the first question is yes, unless you have a very good reason, while the answer to the second is no, unless you have way too much time on your hands.

As for the metagaming argument; Noticing things as a player can replicate things that your character might notice but are so minor as to not be mentioned by your DM.

For example, if my character sees an enemy spellcaster cast a Wall of Force, I feel its perfectly reasonable for my character to presume that he might be capable of casting Dimension Door, and therefore hit him with a Dimensional Anchor spell to prevent him from escaping. Is that Metagaming? I don't think it is. It represents knowledge of spellcasting that a skilled adventurer would likely come by. Now, if my character were 1st level, and making assumptions about characters casting 8th level spells, I might have an issue. It's a matter of degree.

I've played in games where the DM made it all up off the top of his head, and although the DM in question was very skilled in certain ways, I found the campaign to be ultimately unfulfilling, for all the reasons that Umbran listed. As a player, I'm a planner and a plotter. It's frustrating to plot and plan when you knowthat your plan depends on an NPC having a set selection of spells and you know that the DM is making that up as he goes. That's an example of "not playing by rules" taken to an extreme, however.

As a DM, one thing I always do is pick the NPC's spells if he's likely to be getting into a fight. That is an absolute, and any less IMO is not doing the job right, because, as others have noted, just picking them off the top of your head is a huge advantage if you don't include a chance of not having hte perfect spell.

I'll pick spells out of my head for NPC's who aren't going to be in fight. For example, in one game I ran recently, the PC's asked an NPC if he had a Speak with Dead memorized. I hadn't picked his spells, as he was not a participant in the events. I told the players that on a 1-5 on a d20, he'd have it memorized that day, otherwise, they'd have to wait till the next day. I think that's acceptable.

I'll reiterate: It's all a matter of degree. Big NPC's who will impact the game should be statted out as fully as possible, while minor NPC's don't need to be fully statted (although I recommend using the NPC charts in the DMG), but should be rules-compliant, and consideration should be taken that an NPC might not have the perfect skill every time.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Maybe I'm biased, but I consider that no NPC above level 7 is generic...

I don't disagree, and I doubt many others would either.

If one uses the NPC charts in the DMG, one can easily change any of those characters to suit one's needs. For me, it's easier to alter a few feats, skills, or pieces of equipment than to come up with them whole cloth. The important aspect of higher level NPCs - backstory - can then be what the DM concentrates on.

Hmm. Maybe I should enter all the DMG NPCs into PCGen, to make them even easier to customize...

 

[Ravellion]

Maybe I'm biased, but I consider that no NPC above level 7 is generic...

I fully agree with you on this. If it is a mook, it should be lower level (although my level is probably 8 or 9). As soon as a character (PC or NPC) advances, he apparently is special in a certain way, hence, He should be detailed.

Rav

 

[Henry]

I think the original point (correct me if I'm wrong) is this: How loosely can a DM stat NPC's, and not affect game happiness?

Answer: quite darned loose.

As long as the stats are believeable, then there should be no worry. As a DM, I'm not statting out evil temple guard #15's skill focus (basketweaving) and 4 ranks of Basketweaving just so a player can run him through 4 minutes later. However, it is inherently unfair to stat out an NPC optimized for whatever job it is he or she is doing. No one in life is prefectly suited to every situation they face: it's called being imperfect.

If I need an impromptu monster, guard, priest, or whatever, I do the following:

1) Determine classes, levels, and alignment. Once I know these things, most of my work is done.

2) If any skills come into play, I determine if it is a skill they would be using daily in their job/lives. If it is, then I assume it is a bonus to the die roll equal to their character level. If they are supposed to be REALLY good at it (best in their temple/dungeon/city/whatever), I max it out, and assume it is attached to an exceptional ability score (usually +2).

3) Their to hit/base damage is easy to attain from character levels and what their weapon is. Init is unmodified unless they are known for their speed. If they are, I give them a +2 to +4 to init. Otherwise, I don't modify it.

4) Any other stats will not matter, unless the players make it an issue. If they do, I note anything special they learned about the guy, I jot this down quickly either then or after the game, so I can be consistent. I assume that fully 1/3 of their other skills and feats are allocated to non-combat and non-game-important purposes, such as hobbies, sideline professions, etc. When would it EVER become important to know that one of the evil temple guards practices gardening of narcotics on the side - unless the PC's decide to go searching into his private affairs. THEN I start pulling from that 33% pool of skills and feats I left intentionally blank for this purpose. What's worse - statting him out to be an ultimate combat machine, with no external interests, or deciding on the fly if the players have an ingenious plan that included something, that the plan has merit? Piratecat's rule one violation - my Players give me good ideas all the time, both for and against them...

90% of NPC's do not make it any further than this stage. If they do, they deserve 5 minutes of time and an actual write-up.

One more thing - I have NEVER quick-statted a 20th level Wizard. That's kind of like quick-statting the Domains of the deities in your campaign - they are a little TOO important for that level of superficiality.

 

[BairnFley]

The way we do it in our group is for Major Villians and NPC's, they get fleshed out as a PC would. I do this for Spycraft and Soverign Stone and D&D, and my DM for D&D, Heavy Gear, Hunter, Exalted and Witchcraft. As for generics, we give just have a quick run down of what's what and just give them what makes sense and using the examples in the book as a guidelines. Skills, average abilitiy scores, etc.

Alot of the times, a preivous campaign character will make an apperance as a NPC, of course that's a long time later. Been playing only for 15 years.

 

[Desdichado]

I think we're missing some vital information to give you any good advice here.

How do you play your game? Do the players know what the DM rolls on things like Spot checks or the like? What kind of players do you have? Do they focus on the gamesmanship of roleplaying, or on something else?

For me personally, it wouldn't matter if your NPCs had nothing besides names and descriptions and the rest was fudged. But I'd want to be consistent, or I'd notice.

 

[Alcamtar]

So, is the question: Should NPC's obey the rules? or: Should all NPC's be fully statted out? There's a big difference along that axis.

The answer to the first question is yes, unless you have a very good reason, while the answer to the second is no, unless you have way too much time on your hands.

I'm not sure how you can separate these two. If the NPC is not fully statted out, how do you know he's legal? I'm not talking about a 1st level guard here, I'm talking about the 10th level bard picked at random from the group of fifty mid-level courtiers in the king's audience chamber. Sure I can assign minimum values to BAB and estimate an AC, but now the character is very weak since 3E is designed to be balanced when all characters are optimized. Anyway if I'm going to stop the game for 10 minutes while I make sure his stats are legal, I might as well take another minute or two and work out his skills.

I do have a very good idea of what a given attack bonus or AC or feat will do, as well as the party's ability to handle stuff. If it's going to take too long to fully stat the character and figure out his personal strategy -- wouldn't it make sense to leave off a few feats and just give him +5 BAB or something instead?