Do you build NPCs to live or to die?

[Imaginary Number]

I think I'd make a distinction between npcs that are intended primarily to be antagonists for the players in the context of a specific adventure and npcs that are intended to play a larger role in the campaign world/storyline/whatever. For npcs in the former category, I agree that they should be treated like any other monster, which means that they should be beatable. Twinking out an NPC to make it practically unhittable will do nothing more than lead to frustrated players. For npcs with a larger role in the campaign, I also agree with those who have mentioned that the npc's role will dictate how powerful they are and how difficult they are to defeat: the king's champion likely will have a higher AC than the local captain of the guard, for example, who in turn likely will have a higher AC than the local peasant farmers.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

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.

Yup, got to agree with both of you as well. They have a role and I build to fulfil that role.

 

[jensun]

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.

Only if you assume that most NPC's are for fighting.

That is very far from the assumption in my games.

Of course thats no excuse for self absorbed world building waffle which will never actually see any use in game. I do however like to spend as much time on my NPC's motivations and desires and how they are likely to impact or intersect with the PC's wants and desires as I do on combat stats for them.

I also heartily recommend the use of relationship mapping as an aide to GM'ing.

 

[Storminator]

I build NPCs to deliver insane monologues from the backs of mind-controlled mutant dinosaurs.

And to be punched in the face.

Surprising how well those design elements go together...

PS

 

[RangerWickett]

It's usually hard to get high enough to punch someone mounted on the back of a dinosaur.



When I expect a fight, I try to design encounters that will be fun and winnable. Variety is key, so while about 60% of enemies will be aggressive, and 30% will be reactive, 10% will be highly defensive. Occasionally it's really satisfying to crack the shell of a tenacious foe.

For example, once I had a whacky multiclassed foe back in 3.5, something like a swordmage/psion/sorcerer/fighter with superior expertise, and one arm. He fenced, with a defensive weapon, adding his Wisdom and Dexterity to AC, along with psychic insight bonuses, a ring of protection, magic mithral chain shirt, a shield spell, an ioun stone, and the kitchen sink. I got his AC up to around 40 against a 13th level party of PCs. He had spell turning, evasion, and swordmage maneuvers to let him get crazy Will saves.

He was part of a large combat, where he acted as bodyguard to the main villain, and while a bunch of kung-fu mooks got roasted by the party magic-users, the party's spiked chain-wielding fighter tried ineffectually to take this guy down. The guy had a locked gauntlet, so no disarming. He had a high Dex and improved trip, so no tripping. The fighter got irritated, and called for the mages to help out, but they could barely hurt the guy.

But the PC fighter had Improved Sunder, which he'd never had good reason to use. Until now. He was so happy, he didn't even mind that he'd destroyed hundreds of thousands of gold pieces worth of treasure. He just really enjoyed breaking that guy's sword, and then tearing him to pieces.

That's not the kind of enemy I'd use often, though.

 

[Piratecat]

I build NPCs to deliver insane monologues from the backs of mind-controlled mutant dinosaurs.

And to be punched in the face.

*sniff* I love you, Pete.

 

[Mark]

I make NPCs functionally sound while also making them purposefully driven. NPCs live or die in reaction to what the PCs do, not by design.

 

[Arkhandus]

I build NPCs to be NPCs.....whether that makes them particularly tough, tricky, brutal, feeble, frail, stupid, or not, depends on the NPC's background or purpose. They get non-combat skills and feats when appropriate, and are usually not optimized nor as talented as PCs (i.e. usually no high ability scores, PC classes, or PrCs).

Still, I do make PC-class NPCs semi-frequently and some PrC-using NPCs on occasion, but I make them to fit their place in the world and whatever vague concept of a background I have for them. Some few are optimized death-machines made to truly challenge the most-optimized PCs, but most are not.

I prefer to make NPCs challenging, but not frustrating or mere fodder (but I do throw some fodder at the PCs too, sometimes in excessive numbers). I try to mix things up and keep them interesting and challenging, but the PCs inevitably steamroller over some encounters and struggle to avoid a TPK in others. Some of my NPCs are very difficult to hit, others are brutal when they hit, and others are just plain tough and made to wear down the PCs a bit while being worn down themselves.

I have occasionally defeated the entire party through NPCs they failed to fight with any tactical sense, teamwork, or good decision-making. I've generally avoided TPKs then by having the PCs captured and stripped of armaments rather than slain, even though the NPCs generally intend to execute them later, after interrogation or something. The only reason I didn't TPK them in these few cases were because it wasn't entirely their fault that they lost and it was a bad place to end a campaign. But I'll slaughter the PCs if they screw up and cause their own demise, like losing the battle against the adventure's BBEG. Individual PCs (or sometimes 2-4 at a time) die in my games, but rarely is the entire party beaten.

 

[Dausuul]

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?

I agree with your general approach, although I'll add that I don't necessarily build NPCs to die per se. If a 1st-level party meets my campaign world's equivalent to Raistlin Majere*, he's not going to be designed so that they can take him down. But he will be designed to make the game more fun for all concerned.

For NPCs I want the party to fight, I design them to make the fight fun, and ultimately to lose - but not before giving the party seven kinds of hell, because a fight that's too easy is no fun for anyone. (If the party is supposed to win easily, I just handwave the entire combat - "You attack the beggar. He dies. What's next?"

Since I run 4E, I'm not sure how I would go about "optimizing" a monster or NPC anyway. They aren't built the way PCs are, after all. I'm not digging through sourcebooks to find their feats and spells; I'm simply glancing over the DMG guidelines and then picking their stats out of the air - well, I was doing that in 3E too, but now the game no longer provides elaborate hoops to jump through in order to justify my out-of-the-air numbers. Hence, trying to maximize their combat stats is an exercise in pointlessness. I can assign them stats in the billions if I want, so why bother?

*Not Elminster. My worlds do not have equivalents to Elminster.

 

[alleynbard]

Which do you do? Why?

It truly depends on their purpose. If I do need an NPC to live though, I don't pump up his stats in odd ways. I generally give him a "back door" to use when he needs to escape. Sometimes this leads to interesting issues, like sudden NPC death due to multiple critical hits. But, if that happens, I just roll with it.