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

[Tony Vargas]

Which D&D is, though, at least in 2E and 3E.

"Process Sim" in the Forge-ite way pem is using it? Not really, no, for the reasons he sites, AFAICT (I'd hate to have to argue Forge stuff with him, as he's far more conversant than I).

OTOH, 3e, in particular, lends itself to treating the rules as de-facto laws of physics. Mainly because of impressions it gives, more than specifics. For instance, the impartial-feeling & consistent way it uses Class & level for PCs (pc classes), NPCs (NPC classes), and Monsters (CR, LA, PC/NPC class levels), and the similar way it uses Feats and Skill Ranks. The way STR scales and doesn't max out in a way that's a little more organic for really big monsters (and profoundly leathal to melee types who fight really big monsters). Then there's also the way the community, in blatant defiance of Rule 0, put so much faith in RAW. It's not the same thing as simulation or process-sim, because it doesn't start with the things being simulated, but with the rules. But it creates a very similar vibe.

It's telling you that you are simulating the process of swinging a sword, by considering all of these factors and how they interact with each other, to determine whether or not you hit and how much damage you deal.

Yet all those things are highly abstract and not neatly correlated. You don't know what kind of 'wound' a sword caused, just how many hps it represents, just for the obvious instance that we've been poking around (again) in this thread.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If the game has come to an end, then yes, it has come to an end. If the game is going to keep going, though, then the PCs have to end up in some situation or other that poses a challenge to them.

It's the difference between situations which occur naturally within the world, and situations which are contrived against the PCs because they are PCs.

By and large, with caveats for certain specific games and genres, the PCs aren't important within the game world. There's no real in-game difference between a PC wizard and an NPC wizard, for example. That being the case, it's contrived if the PC wizard is constantly on the receiving end of personally-compelling situations for no good reason. It's just bad GMing. It's meta-gaming, by treating this one character different than another character, merely because it's a PC. (If someone is kidnapping the mother of every wizard, then that's a different story.)

I don't understand this. What is "the path of least resistance"? And why does the fact that the game goes on mean that nothing mattered?

In common parlance, the "path of least resistance" would be "grabbing the plot hook". The rough opposite of that is "taking initiative as a player".

As a player, there's no point in doing anything clever, if bypassing one obstacle means you are faced with another obstacle that you wouldn't have faced if you hadn't been clever in the first place.

Intent is important. If the world is set up in a certain way, such that interesting situations are naturally likely to happen due to how things are interconnected, then that's one thing. Worlds should be built in order to encourage interesting situations. It's only when the GM starts targeting that stuff at PCs where you've crossed the line. Anything that happens to a PC because it's a PC is meaningless.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

By and large, with caveats for certain specific games and genres, the PCs aren't important within the game world. There's no real in-game difference between a PC wizard and an NPC wizard, for example. That being the case, it's contrived if the PC wizard is constantly on the receiving end of personally-compelling situations for no good reason. It's just bad GMing. It's meta-gaming, by treating this one character different than another character, merely because it's a PC. (If someone is kidnapping the mother of every wizard, then that's a different story.)

Not if you start the campaign with the premise that "you've been cursed by a demilich to live in Interesting Times. This campaign is about what happens next to you and your fellow Weirdness Magnets."

BTW, metagaming isn't always bad. Party construction, for example, almost always involves metagaming. The trick is to set up the metagame to be minimally-intrusive while you're playing the actual game. If the metagame only affects the availability of plot hooks and the spontaneous arrival of "new" PCs when old ones die, that's a pretty good compromise between simulation sandbox and a playable game.

 

[Shasarak]

As a player, there's no point in doing anything clever, if bypassing one obstacle means you are faced with another obstacle that you wouldn't have faced if you hadn't been clever in the first place.

Intent is important. If the world is set up in a certain way, such that interesting situations are naturally likely to happen due to how things are interconnected, then that's one thing. Worlds should be built in order to encourage interesting situations. It's only when the GM starts targeting that stuff at PCs where you've crossed the line. Anything that happens to a PC because it's a PC is meaningless.

You learn as a player which actions tend to get you hit with grudge monsters pretty quickly, then it is just a matter of gaming the DM.

 

[Satyrn]

. . . It's just bad GMing . . .

Today I Learned I'm a terrible GM.

Luckily for my players, I stick to DMing.

 

[Shasarak]

Which D&D is, though, at least in 2E and 3E. It's telling you that you are simulating the process of swinging a sword, by considering all of these factors and how they interact with each other, to determine whether or not you hit and how much damage you deal. There's no reason to even consider the possibility that it isn't doing so, unless you're coming at it with some prior belief from a different game.

Exactly. If you are attacking someone with a sword, doing 1d8+Str slashing damage then narrative seems fairly straightforward by just describing the mechanics.

 

[Shasarak]

Today I Learned I'm a terrible GM.

Luckily for my players, I stick to DMing.

Dont worry, it is when you stop trying to improve and think that you are a great DM that you are in real trouble.

 

[Satyrn]

Thanks for the platitude. I shall apply it right now by attempting to improve my posting style. Since my attempt at humour seems to have missed its mark (how I wish for Laugh on a Miss), maybe just being blunt will be better.

I completely reject [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s view of GMing quality. I am a good DM while doing exactly what he says is bad.

 

[pemerton]

"Process Sim" in the Forge-ite way pem is using it? Not really, no, for the reasons he sites, AFAICT

Yes, though it's not just Forge.

I became interested in the Forge in part because Ron Edwards did a terrific job of describing something I was already doing (namely, playing Rolemaster); and also helped me better understand why I prefer RM to RQ.

It's telling you that you are simulating the process of swinging a sword, by considering all of these factors and how they interact with each other, to determine whether or not you hit and how much damage you deal.

But "hit" and "damage" here are purely mechanical notions. Nothing in the rules correlates them to the fiction.

This is the point [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has repeatedly made. If someone is "hit" by a sword and takes "7 hp" of "damage", this could be anything from a wrongfooting which sets the character back (the depletion of luck and divine favour) to a mere scratch to a bruise to a serious cut.

3e, in particular, lends itself to treating the rules as de-facto laws of physics. Mainly because of impressions it gives, more than specifics. For instance, the impartial-feeling & consistent way it uses Class & level for PCs (pc classes), NPCs (NPC classes), and Monsters (CR, LA, PC/NPC class levels), and the similar way it uses Feats and Skill Ranks.

This is interesting. I see it as a mere veneer of simulation.

For instance, a fierce dragon can have a +30 or more natural AC bonus. What does that mean in the fiction, given that the best possible magical armour - +5 plate - gives +13 to AC? It's a mechanic but I can't see what it's simulating.

 

[Uchawi]

Regardless of the edition, I have viewed it as time versus effort. It is worth the time to invest in a NPC, by using a class, when presenting the ultimate challenge to the party. But to do it all the time will lead to ultimate burnout as a DM, unless that is the reason you enjoy the game. Otherwise, it is easier to manage simple NPCs with a couple key abilities and traits.

If we are approaching this situation from a pure gaming construct standpoint, I believe challenge ratings would be more reliable if PCs, Monsters, or NPCs shared the same building blocks. But traditionally that was never a strong point of D&D.