Holiday Fudge: Invincible NPCs

[Janx]

IME it's not a problem with NPCs the PCs aren't expected to fight; it's a problem with the Darth Vader type antagonists who show up & fight the PCs. It's occasionally a problem with Mary Sue NPCs who the PCs are expected to accompany on their awesome adventures.

The general principle is never give plot immunity to NPCs, always adjust the plot if one meets an unexpected demise. Luckily since the 1990s ended this seems generally accepted.

Except in Elder Scrolls....

In Morrowwind, it seems you could kill anybody, at any time. Which led to quests you couldn't finish, etc. Since the game couldn't adapt to that, that could be pretty disruptive to the world in general (especially as the player slowly wiped out the town).

By the time we get to Skyrim, they added the immortal NPC concept, where some NPCs would have the Take a Knee concept.

Which sometimes is also jarring, but is also nice sometimes for not losing favorite NPCs companions.

It seems like sometimes the idea has merit, sometimes it does not. Maybe it's also a case of not setting up situations where it becomes a problem. Consider:

annoying NPCs make me want them to die (thus exposing that they are plot-protected)

Escort missions usually setup the NPC to get killed

Glass jaw or incompetent NPCs that race towards danger

So whether an NPC is plot-protected or not, maybe a GM should avoid situations that make it a noticeable problem. In Skyrim, there's a patch that makes NPCs run away from vampire raids. Because the original code was stupid and had NPCs rushing to get themselves killed. In D&D, non-fighty NPCs should be competent at avoiding fighting

 

[GMMichael]

By the time we get to Skyrim, they added the immortal NPC concept, where some NPCs would have the Take a Knee concept.
Which sometimes is also jarring, but is also nice sometimes for not losing favorite NPCs companions.

I first noticed the system in Oblivion. It was to the point where I didn't expect to kill anyone who wasn't a goblin. Basically.

The concept is pretty critical in CRPGs where a single plotline is required to move you through the entire game, since the software isn't capable of adapting to plot changes on the fly, like a GM could.

I guess my question is now: why is it generally accepted that NPCs should all be expendable? Aren't some NPCs worth saving? Props to Fate (and DF) for coming up with one solution.

So, not so much invincible, as the result is a foregone conclusion - either the party will win (so don't give stats), or the party will lose (so don't give stats). Don't give it stats if you don't intend the result to be in question.

I *love* this. Because, well, it saves prep time. And anything I can do to reduce my prep time to game time ratio below 1 is something I'll take a look at.

 

[Darkness]

D&D 4e: When you reduce an NPC to 0 hp, you can decide between having it die or fall unconscious.

Of course, this will tend to be a player choice unless an NPC is the attacker. Still, you can communicate to your players that you would like them to keep a certain NPC alive because - for example - you think it will make for a better plot.

 

[GMMichael]

D&D 4e: When you reduce an NPC to 0 hp, you can decide between having it die or fall unconscious.

Of course, this will tend to be a player choice unless an NPC is the attacker.

Kid gloves? My only problem with this is that there's a much more common condition than unconsciousness. I call it "disabled." In a D&D context, all NPCs should stop fighting for one reason or another when they have a handful of hit points remaining. The GM can call it morale or injury or whatever. Occasionally "unconscious." But if you get beat up enough, there should be a clear point where you're still alive, but no longer willing or able to fight. In my game (see sig), all characters become disabled unless there's a compelling reason for death.

Another reason to do this - a PC won't notice that your NPC is invincible if he never hits 0 HP.