Do you build NPCs to live or to die?

[Grymar]

A friend and I got into a conversation about the point of a monster/npc and how we build it. He build npcs like he would a pc...as tough as possible. Notably max out the AC so they are impossible to hit, use Dex over Con, for instance. Better to not be hit than to have extra hit points.

I don't agree on this. To me the purpose of an npc is to die (while being fun for the players). That doesn't mean it is easy to kill, a challenge can be a lot of fun, but frustration isn't.

Frustration mounts when players have their turn wasted. High AC, DR, and SR are the top problems I've seen. Now these have to be in place, especially for key battles against milestone type npcs, but against lowly minions I go a different route. Max out hit points so they can take the punishment.

The battles that we all joke about being boring and frustrating are always those that feature high AC creatures. When everyone is missing turn after turn, players get bored.

Which do you do? Why?

 

[Piratecat]

I'm with you. My job is to amuse both myself and my players, not to keep my NPCs alive. It's great when they do -- but that's not really their job.

 

[Derren]

I build my NPCs to live. That doesn't mean "to be as hard is possible to kill", but "Build them not like a 5 round combat encounter, but as something which lives in the game world and has a place in it".

How hard a NPC is to kill depends on who it is. The barbarian seeking to prove his power and spirit in the eyes of the gods certainly cares less about his defence than the high born king with access to the best smiths of the continent.

 

[avin]

I build npcs as part of the world. They are there for some reason, even if this reason is "passing by", so there's always a chance of players talk to them (bluff, intimidate, diplomacy) and they just live.

 

[Pbartender]

I'm with PC on this one...

But for me it mainly depends on the situation the NPC is set in. Some are meant to escape and live. Some are meant to fight and die. Others are meant to fight and surrender (giving the choice of life or death to the PCs). It doesn't always work out that way, but yes... Sometimes I build an NPC specifically to live or die, because that is what will amuse me or my players.

 

[Scribble]

I build NPCs with the assumption that:

1. They most likely want to live and continue living.

2. But if they go toe to toe in a death match with the PCs they will most likely die.

Mechanically if it's an NPC that will battle the PCs in some way, and the NPC is supposed to not be a complete failure in life, then he's designed to be a decent challenge, (at least provided the PCs meet him at an appropriate level) but not overwhelmingly "perfect."

No one in real life is overwhelmingly perfect, and as you said a batte like that gets annoying.

 

[jensun]

I build my NPC's so that they are part of an interesting web of relationships with wants, needs and desires which will intersect with the PC's at some point in time.

Of course, if putting together combat stats for them I try to make them an interesting challenge rather than a minmax'd twink.

 

[Piratecat]

But for me it mainly depends on the situation the NPC is set in. Some are meant to escape and live. Some are meant to fight and die. Others are meant to fight and surrender (giving the choice of life or death to the PCs). It doesn't always work out that way, but yes... Sometimes I build an NPC specifically to live or die, because that is what will amuse me or my players.

Well spoken. That's a more accurate description of what I do as well. For instance, I have a NPC coming up in a game that I'd love to have as a continuing rival. He shouldn't be a pushover in the first encounter if that's what he's made for.

Likewise, lots of my NPCs have non-combat abilities and skills that make sense for them. More fun that way.

 

[Dannager]

I build my NPCs to live. That doesn't mean "to be as hard is possible to kill", but "Build them not like a 5 round combat encounter, but as something which lives in the game world and has a place in it".

And yet constructing them as an entertaining 5-10 round combat encounter is the most efficient way of managing most NPCs (though not all), especially since the majority of NPCs that require rules information are going to be facing the party in combat anyway. Giving them a "place" in your game world sure sounds nice and enlightened, but a lot of that effort will ultimately go to waste. Better to focus on the actual entertainment value of the game, and to do that you should be taking the approach that Piratecat and Grymar take.

 

[catsclaw227]

In my campaign, I call NPCs the multi-encounter personalities that could be friendly or not-so-friendly with the PCs, be kings and sheriffs and barmaids and troubadours.

The "NPCs" that are lined up as a combat encounters may be called NPCs officially, but mostly they are reskinned monsters.

How well they do in combat has to do with the role they are supposed to be playing in the game.