D&D 5E Do NPCs in your game have PHB classes?

[Tony Vargas]

It's meta-gaming whenever any character (PC or NPC) makes use of knowledge which it should not otherwise possess, such as knowing which spells the party had cast upon itself earlier in the day (for the purpose of bypassing those spells with an appropriate effect), or guessing that there must be a secret passage in a certain area based on the way the DM has oriented the map.

That's fair, as far as it goes. If the DM creates an NPC, and decides the NPC doesn't have any reason to know the PC's typical spell selections, and the spells the do have aren't comparatively common things to guard against in the setting (which given the rules-as-laws-of-physics style you generally advocate as the OneTrueWay, seems unlikely), it would make a lot of sense for that NPC to be prepared for the PCs to use that spell. OTOH, if the DM decides the NPC has heard rumors of the PCs exploits or kept tabs on them, it's another story.

When a goblin decides to kidnap the PCs mom instead of some unrelated person, or even to attack the PC's home village instead of some other village, that is a meta-game decision which the DM is not allowed to make.

Utter nonsense. Until the DM decides to have a band of goblins attack that village, that particular band of goblins might not have even definitively existed. Campaign worlds can be huge places, the DM isn't obliged to place, let alone stat out, every creature living in them.

Any action by any character, if it takes into consideration that the PCs are PCs, is invalid. That is information which cannot be possessed by anyone within the game world.

The campaign necessarily follows the PCs, no NPC attacks the PCs because he knows they're PCs (if he did, he most certainly /wouldn't attack them, if he was smart), the NPCs motivation is something else, perhaps even a chance meeting - the DM may have created and placed than NPC specifically to attack the PCs, but the NPC has no knowledge of his sole reason for existing.

After all, we cannot design adventures based on the PC's levels (which D&D has done since day 1), cannot design adventures based on character backgrounds (which D&D has done since day 1) and cannot have the NPC's pro-actively thwart the PC's (again, done since day 1) since all of those are based on the consideration that the PC's are PC's. We cannot even attack the PC's home town, unless it occurs randomly, because doing so will always take the PC's into consideration.

Do you even run for the PCs in such a campaign? Would everyone show up some week, and watch you run a combat between a paladin and a dragon on the next continent over, because that's what's happening in the setting, at the moment? Or, no, because how would the PCs know it's happening, of course.

I would love to watch your campaigns. It would be such an eye opener for me to see how you can possibly pull this off.

Actually, now that I think of it, there was one time in my long gaming experience when I actually saw a GM take it to the kind of extremes that Saelorn is advocating. It must have been c1988, the GM was a GURPS fanatic, and was running GURPS Space. Our party needed a navigator. There was a new player, so he built a navigator. But, our brilliant GM decided it'd be unrealistic (because it was the 80s, and euphemisms like 'process sim' and 'verisimilitude' and 'immersion' weren't being used that way, yet) to just bring in the new PC, so we hat to go through the motions of 'recruiting' a navigator. We got several candidates, that the GM described and RPd interviews with, picked the most capable/interesting one - and it wasn't the new PC. Obviously the new player, after sitting out his first session, and not even being allowed to play his own character, never returned, and the campaign never really got off the ground.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yet, somehow, NPC's quest givers can magically work out that the party is 5th level and not 8th, despite there really being no outward difference.

Given that character level reflects the in-game reality of competence, it can obviously be determined in-game to some degree of accuracy. The difference between a level 1 character and a level 20 character is obvious, and while the difference between a level 5 character and a level 8 character might be so negligible as to be indiscernible, nor is it necessary to assign a "level" to a quest and make sure that the party is that same level. Just send the chumps after the small problems, save the big problems for the real champs, and the middleweights can handle the in-between stuff.

And, again, funnily enough, the assassins that come after the PC's are just high enough level to be a challenge, but, not so high level that they mop the floor with the PC's. And there is no meta gaming going on there at all.

There is a limit to how powerful an assassin can be, and the best assassins may well be out of the price range (or out of the physical travel range) of someone who wants to hire them. If the party was low-level, smiting goblins and saving small villages, then they aren't going to come to the attention of anyone willing to hire an epic-level assassin just to deal with them (assuming such a thing even exists within the setting).

Trying to separate NPC decisions from the DM's role as the person who makes interesting adventures, is, IMO, impossible. For one, NPC's can't make decisions, thus the "N" in the NPC. Any decisions that an NPC makes will always be driven by the DM and the DM has multiple criteria for choosing which action an NPC takes.

The DM can make a decision as an NPC as easily as a player can make a decision as their PC. The only difference is that the DM has more characters to keep straight, but if the DM uses any criteria other than just doing what the NPC would really do if they really existed, then that's bad role-playing.

After all, it makes the most sense for NPCs to always coup de gras (or attack a helpless) PC. In a D&D world, healing is pretty common, and any healing brings you back on your feet. So, every time a PC goes down, the NPC's should dog pile that PC and make sure he stays dead. Every time.

Does it? In 5E, you have to sacrifice a couple of attacks in order to finish someone off, and those actions might be better spent in attacking your other opponents. The only time it would make sense to finish off a fallen opponent would be if you have strong reason to believe that the other side has healing magic, such that doing so would increase your own chance of survival.

But if you are playing in a high-magic setting, where everybody has healing magic and that would reasonably be the case, then that just doesn't sound like a world that is very conducive to fun and exciting adventures.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Actually, now that I think of it, there was one time in my long gaming experience when I actually saw a GM take it to the kind of extremes that Saelorn is advocating. It must have been c1988, the GM was a GURPS fanatic, and was running GURPS Space. Our party needed a navigator. There was a new player, so he built a navigator. But, our brilliant GM decided it'd be unrealistic (because it was the 80s, and euphemisms like 'process sim' and 'verisimilitude' and 'immersion' weren't being used that way, yet) to just bring in the new PC, so we hat to go through the motions of 'recruiting' a navigator. We got several candidates, that the GM described and RPd interviews with, picked the most capable/interesting one - and it wasn't the new PC. Obviously the new player, after sitting out his first session, and not even being allowed to play his own character, never returned, and the campaign never really got off the ground.

Hence the caveat: Meta-gaming is always bad, but sometimes it's the lesser of two evils.

We've all decided to play a role-playing game, so we should all do our best job to role-play honestly and not meta-game or otherwise cheat, because that would defeat the whole point. But you can't role-play at all when your character isn't in the game, if it's dead or has no reason to be with the rest of the party. Therefore, in order to maximize the role-playing enjoyment of everyone involved, you might have to accept some bad role-playing in order to keep the party together, since the alternative is someone not role-playing at all while the character is side-lined.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But if you are playing in a high-magic setting, where everybody has healing magic and that would reasonably be the case, then that just doesn't sound like a world that is very conducive to fun and exciting adventures.

Healing potions are 'common.' If a campaign is in the ~1/3rd this survey shows as having PC classes 'common' for NPCs, the prevalence of casters among PC classes, and healing spells among casters, would also seem to push them into that kind of 'high magic' setting.

in order to maximize the role-playing enjoyment of everyone involved, you might have to accept some bad role-playing

If it's to maximize the RP enjoyment of all involved, it's /not/ 'bad' role-playing.

 

[Hussar]

Does it? In 5E, you have to sacrifice a couple of attacks in order to finish someone off, and those actions might be better spent in attacking your other opponents. The only time it would make sense to finish off a fallen opponent would be if you have strong reason to believe that the other side has healing magic, such that doing so would increase your own chance of survival.

But if you are playing in a high-magic setting, where everybody has healing magic and that would reasonably be the case, then that just doesn't sound like a world that is very conducive to fun and exciting adventures.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ur-game-have-PHB-classes/page42#ixzz47pMnsSBB

D&D has always had pretty common healing magic. It's not like it's a secret. That guy with a holy symbol in his hand (presuming any divine caster has cast a spell at any time during a combat means he has a holy symbol presented) can heal. Thus, it's most likely that any opponents will know that if they don't immediately kill a downed PC, that PC will come back, virtually unharmed, in a matter of seconds.

Considering virtually every single humanoid has clerics or druids of some stripe, it would almost have to be the default. But, again, we don't do that because it wouldn't be fun and that's the over riding concern.

Look, I agree with you on one point. As a DM, you have to design scenarios with an eye to causality and plausibility. That's all well and good. So, orcs act one way, drow act another. Fair enough. But, the idea that the dozens of other criteria that DM's can and should be using when designing scenarios are all bad is just a meaningless distinction. You cannot possibly separate them out.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

D&D has always had pretty common healing magic. It's not like it's a secret. That guy with a holy symbol in his hand (presuming any divine caster has cast a spell at any time during a combat means he has a holy symbol presented) can heal. Thus, it's most likely that any opponents will know that if they don't immediately kill a downed PC, that PC will come back, virtually unharmed, in a matter of seconds.

In 2E, unless you were playing with the Death's Door option, there was no point in finishing anyone off because unconscious was synonymous with death; and even if you were using that option, they weren't going to come back into the fight.

In 3E, performing a coup de grace maneuver provoked an opportunity attack, which meant there was a good chance that trying to finish someone off would get you killed before you could accomplish anything. (And healing spells were all touch range, unless you added in supplements, which meant that healing a downed ally wasn't always easy anyway.)

It's only in 4E and 5E, since the advent of Healing Word, that it would really make sense to kill someone who was already unconscious and dying. If you're saying that it's usually a smart move for the enemy to kill a fallen PC, since otherwise the character will get right back up, then I'll take your word for it; but if my options as a DM are to either play my characters to their intelligence and thus kill PCs, or play them like dummies so that they game can go on, then that sounds like the game isn't very conducive to honest role-playing.

 

[pemerton]

As a DM, you have to design scenarios with an eye to causality and plausibility. That's all well and good. So, orcs act one way, drow act another. Fair enough. But, the idea that the dozens of other criteria that DM's can and should be using when designing scenarios are all bad is just a meaningless distinction. You cannot possibly separate them out.

At least for me, NPCs should be verisimilitudinous in play and we're playing a sim game are pretty different claims.

The first is about aesthetic integrity of the fiction.

The second is about a technical relationship between the mechanics and the fiction - that the fiction can be "read off" the mechanics without the need for a high degree of metagaming or creative narration around the mechanics.

When I'm following Paul Czege's approach and "keep[ing] NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of [interesting play]", I am doing my best to ensure the sort of aesthetic integrity that you talk about. But that doesn't mean I'm anywhere near playing in a sim style and avoiding metagaming. Quite the contrary!

 

[Hussar]

In 2E, unless you were playing with the Death's Door option, there was no point in finishing anyone off because unconscious was synonymous with death; and even if you were using that option, they weren't going to come back into the fight.

In 3E, performing a coup de grace maneuver provoked an opportunity attack, which meant there was a good chance that trying to finish someone off would get you killed before you could accomplish anything. (And healing spells were all touch range, unless you added in supplements, which meant that healing a downed ally wasn't always easy anyway.)

It's only in 4E and 5E, since the advent of Healing Word, that it would really make sense to kill someone who was already unconscious and dying. If you're saying that it's usually a smart move for the enemy to kill a fallen PC, since otherwise the character will get right back up, then I'll take your word for it; but if my options as a DM are to either play my characters to their intelligence and thus kill PCs, or play them like dummies so that they game can go on, then that sounds like the game isn't very conducive to honest role-playing.

Why would you CdG a 3e character at negative HP? Just hit him and he dies. Everyone dies at -10. Same with 2e. Granted Death's Door was an optional rule, but, one that was very commonly used. OTOH, if it's not used, then, sure, it makes no sense to hit a downed opponent. He's already dead. You can't make him more dead.

But, you're changing your argument. Your argument has always been that NPC actions should be informed by the mechanics of the game. The entire world and everything in it should be informed by the mechanics of the game. Which means, in any edition where Death's Door rules are used, opponents should automatically try to kill any downed PC. But, they don't. Why not? Because it wouldn't be fun.

It's the same thing with the assassins. For some very strange reason, the BBEG only employs assassins that are just threatening enough to the PC's that they could potentially kill the PC's, but, in actual fact, are almost guaranteed to fail. What is that reason? Again, fun. Killing PC's is easy. That's never the challenge as a DM. Challenging PC's is what we do because that's more fun.

The village that the 1st level PC's are in is threatened by kobolds. Why? Because the PC's are 1st level. If the PC's were 10th level, the village would be threatened by demons. We would never drop 1st level PC's in Sunnydale because they'd just get curb stomped. It's entirely meta-gaming. Has zero to do with anything remotely simulationist. The world that the PC's inhabit is very much informed by the mechanical aspects of those PC's. From a world simulationist standpoint, 1st level parties should get TPK'd very, very often. But they don't. Shock and surprise, 1st level parties meet 1st level challenges. Because... metagaming.

There is just no way to separate metagaming from the world.

 

[Campbell]

I am no fan of this notion that characters and settings have an independent existence. It implies that when we sit down to play we are subsuming ourselves to our characters rather than engaging in a creative activity. For me, the magic of play, for both players and GMs is that we are both playing our characters and discovering who they really are at the same time. That is no necessary evil - it's the whole point. When I'm playing a role playing game and I advocate for my PC while I try to be entertaining, give other players opportunities to something to work off of, engage in game play, and make thematic statements I am not compromising. I am playing the game.

My point is this - we can do multiple things at once without compromising or cheating one aspect for another's sake. Hell - on a cognitive level, during play, I often can't tell the difference between a decision I'm making to be entertaining or one made to stay true to the character I'm playing. If I'm doing it right they should be one and the same. I'm of the school of thought that we should embrace the fact that we are playing this game with real people that are going to have a variety of primary and secondary considerations for every decision they make.

 

[pemerton]

When I'm playing a role playing game and I advocate for my PC while I try to be entertaining, give other players opportunities to something to work off of, engage in game play, and make thematic statements I am not compromising. I am playing the game.

My point is this - we can do multiple things at once without compromising or cheating one aspect for another's sake. Hell - on a cognitive level, during play, I often can't tell the difference between a decision I'm making to be entertaining or one made to stay true to the character I'm playing. If I'm doing it right they should be one and the same.

Excellent post altogether, but especially this bit.